The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Pointless exercises in introducing older films to stupid new viewers, usually sticking rappers in to capture that sub-urban demographic.
Well that's fine, I can take em or leave em.
Except for one I've just heard about.
Ready? Ready for the next remake?
The Hitcher.
Now anybody that's seen that film is going to sigh deeply and shake their head. Anybody that hasn't seen it, needs to - trust me on this, go rent it from Blockbuster or buy it, it's cheap now.
Oh but it gets better, ready?
The character of Jim Halsey (C Thomas Howell) is...drumroll...now a woman!
Yep. No doubt some nubile teen who'll be chased through abandoned buildings and getting all sweaty and semi-nude for your enjoyment.
Why?
Why remake this film? Just re-release it for chrissakes.
You cannot come close to the atmosphere of dread and fear of the original.
And you'll not top Rutger Hauer as the Hitcher.
And you can bet your ass there'll be some reason given for him being a maniac, instead of just a relentless force of nature.
Remaking The Hitcher...bah.
"Sure, I'll let you go. All you have to do is repeat 4 words after me ... I ... Want ... to ... die."
> I thought we learned our lesson about remaking Hitchcock after
> Psycho, no?
I saw the Psycho remake the other night, wasn't that bad really. I've only ever seen bits of the original though...
The Birds.
I thought we learned our lesson about remaking Hitchcock after Psycho, no?
The "remake" might be good or bad, I don't know, but I'm going to see it because I like the work Tim Burton does, it might prove interesting.
If the film was being remade, by say, Ewe Boll, I wouldn't bat an eyelid.
But Burton rocks.
> gamesfreak wrote:
> I think the new one follows the original book more closely, it has
> more of a darker side to it.
>
> You don't want a film to follow a book exactly though... you
> wnat them to make it their own.
>
> But the oompa loompas.
>
> I think I may well kill Tim Burton.
I'm with you on this, Matt. I saw a small documaentary about making the new film and for the Oompa Loompas they've simply used computers to clone the same guy over and over again. Terrible. In the 70s version they all looked slightly different, they had some personality. The new Oompa Loompa songs suck too.
And I don't see why the fact that it follows the book more makes it a better film. I can't say I had any problems with the squirrels being replaced by geese or the Oompa Loompas being orange, in fact it was an improvement.
People go on about Depp playing a much darker Wonka but personally I wouldn't describe Wilder's portrayal of him as a nice chap. He always looked as if he could snap at any moment, relaxed eccentricity would be the best way to put it.
The Hitcher is one hell of a film and is the definition of the "thriller" genre.
Just in case you didn't know, there is a Hitcher 2 which I think had the bloke from the original film. It was made in 2003 and was utter crap. Supposedly, the spirit of the original bad guy had entered someone else and started from where he left off. That "someone else" turned out to be the lanky ginger guy from Starship Troopers.
I don't really know where I'm going with this...
But I am a fan of Tim Burtons films so it might be pretty good.
> I think the new one follows the original book more closely, it has
> more of a darker side to it.
You don't want a film to follow a book exactly though... you wnat them to make it their own.
But the oompa loompas.
I think I may well kill Tim Burton.
Why on earth...
ugh
I honestly don't know.
> Charlie and the Chocolate Factory..
I think the new one follows the original book more closely, it has more of a darker side to it.