Customer Discussions > action discussion forum

Which films should NOT be rebooted?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 151-174 of 174 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 13 Dec 2013 21:39:48 GMT
The only films i think hollywood tends to get right these days are crime thrillers/dramas, with films like memento, gone baby gone and zodiac and with director's like nolan, affleck and fincher making them, i don't see any problem for them genres in the future, but yeah horror and comedy films these days leave a lot to be desired.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Dec 2013 22:24:58 GMT
Last edited by the author on 13 Dec 2013 22:27:13 GMT
Again I utterly agree, and it's funny to mention Ben Affleck's name in such prestigious company considering his past general stumblings around in the acting world, but suddenly he morphed into this truly accomplished director with his first movie. I usually watch crime thrillers/dramas with a general sigh of relief, noting that while they have an equal chance to misfire and go splat, their ability to work is far more even then comedy and horror-and equally-attempts at comedy-horror, whereupon the often resulting horror from the viewer to the comedy and their hilarity of the horror just seems an utter mismatch made in a purgatory no purgatory would desire.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Dec 2013 23:03:04 GMT
I could'nt believe an actor could go from an abomination like gigli to becoming a damn fine director and making films like gone baby gone and the town. crazy.

Exactly, and that is why i tend to stick with them genres, because they tend to be more original and above all else better in quality.

Posted on 14 Dec 2013 22:35:22 GMT
Last edited by the author on 14 Dec 2013 22:42:51 GMT
Looking to Hollywood to make good horror is the first mistake IMO. There's lots of really good and inventive horror about, but like you've always had to do, you have to look for it. Horror is the backalley genre of film-making, so you got to look in the backalley to find it. The great thing is it feels more easy than ever to buy/stream/watch foreign films and IMO America have been left behind in terms of really good horror for a while now. They do solid popcorn stuff like The Conjuring, but nothing consistently really inventive or new IMO. Also there's always been more bad horror than good. Always.

Scottpaul have you seen Grabbers? I thought it's a pretty good horror-comedy.

The funny thing is that when you said American Werewolf in London was being remade (horrifying prospect anyway) the first thing I thought about was the transformation scene in Alex's flat. The remake would obviously use CGI and for me there's the rub. CGI can do some amazing and realistic things now, but for me something of the magic has been lost in the process. Maybe because I know it's all done with computers I don't feel amazed and wonder how they do that (I'm a 3D graphic designer/illustrator btw). Or maybe it's just the directors aren't as inventive and creative because they know they can lean so heavily on the computers for that scene. In the original that scene would be a really big set piece. Now I'm not sure it'd carry the same punch.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Dec 2013 22:47:07 GMT
Last edited by the author on 14 Dec 2013 22:48:00 GMT
The "cgi" in the sort of sequel showed why it would be a very wrong idea in updating "an american werewolf in london".

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Dec 2013 23:42:07 GMT
I keep forgetting 'Grabbers', thanks Tetrominoe, I'd better mention it in hearing, and hope it'll pop up in the stocking hanging by the mantelpiece. I used to love US hrror, but that in the 80s it was pretty damned inventive, but part of the ongoing seems to be how audiences have changed, and what they will and won't accept, and it's usually the fakes and wimp-outs, which are every bit as awful as plain awful horror, whereas the few time something truly good gets made in Hollywood, it's not received well.

Computer graphics are absolutely essential for some kinds of horror, like the beautiful and freaky entities in 'The Haunting' and 'House On Haunted Hill' remakes, but others go down the prosthetics road, and 'Thir3een Ghosts' didn't get enough praise on that score when the knives came out. But yes, werewolves, I've seen CGI werewolves in the likes of 'Underworld'-a real wimp of a film anyway and they juts look-well bad. But a low budget Brit one like 'The Beast Among' attempts the same and equally fails. Intriguingly enough, as CGI grew enormously in vogue in the late 90s through the noughties, both the Canadian 'Ginger Snaps' and Brit 'Dog Soldiers' put two-fingers up to it and went the prosthetic, animatronic and make-up route, and both were excellent films, as all the best 80s werewolfers did. There's something utterly animal, dirty, rough, wild, bestial and painful about metamorphosing which only brilliantly applied prosthetics, handiwork and decent acting can make clear.

An alien metamorphosis looked great in 'The Faculty', as did the horrific work done in 'The Thing'-so impressive for 1982, but werewolves definitely call for a more physically rough and slow approach, and the smooth-look oilskin-being-pulled-off-an-equally smooth animated humanoid dog from 'Underworld' and the like would be a howler indeed-of a highly negative sort.

Posted on 15 Dec 2013 01:19:45 GMT
Last edited by the author on 15 Dec 2013 03:49:03 GMT
I completely agree about The Haunting, I've got no idea why it isn't regarded better. I suspect there's an amount of snobbery and the sort of knee jerk reaction, love or hate that Zeta Jones seems to inspire. Also I agree computer generated stuff can be used really well. While I may have issues with the film Raimi's Drag me to Hell I think he uses CGI really well in it.

Another horror-comedy I like is Sexy Killer (though very different to Grabbers). ScottPaul have you seen Santa's Slay? (keeping in the festive spirit) I know you don't like certain of the now well worn areas of horror but imo much of it has to do with just lazy screen-writing. I really liked The Hamiltons and even Dying Breed that the synopsis for sounds so cliche'd I should hate it. Finally, sorry, if you can get your hands on Lie Still it's worth checking out. Good old fashioned ghost story.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Dec 2013 11:15:55 GMT
I think the reason why there is "hate " for " the haunting" remake is because it chose to show things through "cgi instead of being psychological like the original. Fans of the original probobaly did'nt see the point in remaking it and mainstream audiances probobaly found it not very interesting.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Dec 2013 18:16:47 GMT
You've got it in nailed there, but I found the criticism it continues to endure missed the point entirely; ghostly entities have never looked more beautiful, or more like I imagine a spirit missed-not some extra or well-known actor even covered in black eyeshadow and baking powder, which made it have more point than most remakes, plus the acting and charisma of Lili Taylor in the suffering role far outdid the OTT in places and stop/start approach of Julie Harris in the original, and she still annoys me now. Eveyone bending over backwards to help her and all she does is snipe and whine. That is far more likely to grate on the nerves, than the film actually shred them, which is a shame. There's a place for psychological horror, but in a sense, that is often a necessary component in many horrors-after all, being menaced by a vampire, werewolf, big monster or whatever is hardly likely to have most anyone you meet believing it, but that's part of the layering-well before the end, I do expect to SEE what the threat is; whether it's good or not is down to how professionally its presented.

But the funny thing, for all this mass derision 'The Haunting' '99 got, it was one of the box office successes of the year, despite seemingly having anything anyone wants, yet no one explains why it did so well! For myself, the things I wanted MY money back for are the 'Sixth Sense', 'Session 9', 'Silent House', 'Paranormal Activity', 'Last Exorcism', 'Them' cheats that have the nerve to present themselves as horror films that they are so obviously not.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Dec 2013 18:23:13 GMT
I prefer "them" over "the strangers" but that seems to get a lot of praise. I just found it boring and not half as suspensful as the french film.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Dec 2013 18:52:58 GMT
Tetrominoe, it's so good to know I'm not the only one who feels the poor old '99 'Haunting' has been had over a barrel, when far worse offences to the past exist, and I think the reasons you put forward go some way to explaining the absurd dislike it holds for people, but it does make me smile when I remember just how many bums it put on seats. So are people also hating it cos they told themselves to see it JUST to hate it! Well, whatever the reason, serves them all right for being miserable!

CGI is perfect for monsters when it's used properly and 'The Faculty', 'The Relic', 'Deep Rising', 'Mimic' all understood this-even Del Toro's sublime 'The Devil's Backbone' understood this and utilised t when needed to great effect (no pun meant). Loved the CGI in 'Drag Me To Hell' too. I know that 'Werewolf n Paris' inspires a lot of hate (maybe less so if it's not considered a sequel, which it barely could be, the few links they were dragged right out of the finished film, aside from the corpses coming back to the cursed student and venting. Those CGI werewolves actually kicked the 'Underworld' ones to bits. But what was really sad was when 'Paris' was being put together, another US low budget werewolf one called 'Bad Moon' was primed for release, then once shown to a test-screen audience, they and critics sniped so much that it caused the film to disappear entirely for no other reason than "werewolves are over"?! Good-bad not applicable, just "over". God how often do I dream of rioting filmgoers and critics screaming" "no more naccurately portrayed zombies that are really illogical cannibals/asbo brats/dead people not knowing they're dead till the 'shock' end/slashers and fake exorcisms and hauntings spread by people desperate to kill other people"-and all these things being marketed as horror films, instead of the banal dramas/dull thrillers/soap opera news bulletins and overstretched documentaries they actually are". But I don't expect that reality, sadly.

Upshot is, check out 'Bad Moon' if you can, it's sometimes put in a quad feature with several other (usually) non-werewolf horrors. I've yet to get it, but the few horror fans here who've seen it receive it in the spirit it must deserved, and budgetary constraints make CGI utterly out of its grasp, but I hear the film does well, and t's story is good enough to carry the day, and seeing as the 'Final Screams', 'Cherry Falls' and 'Urban Legends' (all slashers) and more, flew off the conveyor all around it, I do have to wonder about what back then (and now) has the right to be dissed as not fashionable over something else of exceedingly poor quality beyond a cast of catwalk models of both sexes pettily poncing about with toy knives while looking pretty, just because in life "people kill people". Not like that they don't.

I'm going to look at some of those you list, I've never heard of 'Lie Still'-could be interesting and good title. I do profess to hating 'The Hamiltons', whilst the cover and summary of 'Dying Breed' is enough to make me throw it back on the shelf in irritation-was it OK thn. I admit to really enjoying Aussie shocker 'Primal' which combined a sort of cannibalism with something else, and just deliciously nasty. I've never heard of 'Santa's Slay', I probably will try at least one festive slasher, even though nothing could ever compare to 'Black Christmas'.

Of a recent bunch of cheap low budget straight-to-dvd 'horror' cheats, 'Dead Souls', 'The Lodge', 'The Wrong House' made me wish I had my eyes burned out with a blowtorch. Unbearably awful, shuld they even be called films, yet 'Rites Of Spring', on the same 101 Films label was utterly different-realy good, presented as a film, acted and shot naturally, and cleverly blend three seemingly unrelated story strand into the one melting pot, and stayed clear of what it was doing. Check it out.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Dec 2013 19:11:39 GMT
Last edited by the author on 15 Dec 2013 19:14:12 GMT
I never knew they were the same film from different territories, but I feel the opposite. Everything about 'Them' screamed cheat. Kids just do NOT scale buildings like that, dip in and out of locked houses and taunt people by hiding then disappearing into thin air. They go for the brutal face-off. Worse, I've yet to find hooded fleeces that magically make your face and head shrink backwards leaving a wannabee 'LOTRing's' faceless ring-wraith, so you can't be seen when you get looked at it. This film was again marketed like a supernatural thing when it was nothing of the kind, and it's only praised cos it's European. Many seem to think Europeans are beyond bad films, but if this was a US one, they'd give it grief. I found the Swedish slasher 'Cold Prey' equally awful, chock full of everything that makes US slashers so bad, yet it's dealt a reprieve and beloved simply cos of its Scandinavian geography. 'The Strangers' was utterly unremarkable, true, and killing the male over the female so 'Eden Lake'-and that film sucked itself, not least cos how could anyone tackle Michael Fassbender, come on, and as for that ending-oh deeaarr! but on the whole, I found 'The Strangers' to be the best of an utterly unlovable and straining bunch. Still doesn't match 'Funny Games'-or even the 'Last House On The Left' remake, even if it was sleek as a glass stream.

These 'Them'-like films are always motiveless, which isn't scary, just lazy and naff, as is their highly predictable payoff. The suspense it had was all fake, there's nothing suspenseful about pointless foetuses being pointless, and I really doubt they'd tackle able-bodied adults and certainly not like this. If asbo-brats are the tiresome new 'commentary on society'-always to justify their dumb existence-they adhere to be, they could at least try for some realism, entertainment value and some compassion for the menaced 'characters', or better, mix it up with something else so it actually becomes a horror and a good one-therefore this makes 'Attack The Block' the best asbo-bratter and the ONLY asbo-brat horror that has ever existed. Home invasion thriller-wise (the same thing), I still don't see 'Funny Games' being bettered but the Sean Bean tackled asbo brat dramatics the right way in 'Outlaw'.

Posted on 15 Dec 2013 21:30:14 GMT
I see they are planning on making "die hard 6":-( and samual l. jackson might return.

is there really no end to this repetitive obsession "hollywood" has with bringing back old film series?:-(

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Dec 2013 23:28:34 GMT
Last edited by the author on 15 Dec 2013 23:39:22 GMT
I think it was so funny how the utter failure of the second wretched 'Charlies Angels' film-'Reloaded' or whatever stupid title it had stopped dead any others, even though barely audible whispers in a sea of burping sludge will always chat about a third happening. Same thing happened with 'Lara Croft'.

Still surprised they haven't yet done a big-screen 'Quantum Leap' or 'Wonder Women (still time of course-'Green Lantern' anyone?). And then there's the egomaniacal likelihood of the daft 'Supergirl' being dusted off in the attempt that to redo "easily" in box office terms all the 1984 big laugh so stunningly failed to do back then. And next: Redoing 'Swamp Thing' or Sam Raimi's 'Darkman', a big-screen 'The Munsters', and perhaps finally the as yet untouched bastion of 80s teen comedies-John Hughes films-avoided...until extremely soon? Like already said, what is sacred any more? All I can say is, glad Mr John Hughes is no longer around to experience the probable horror of it, poor thing.

I don't truly fear I'm giving anyone ideas; how can all these and equally bad or worse not happen when money-meets hope of more money-plus zero creativity? We simply watch this horrible space.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Dec 2013 13:50:57 GMT
I read somewhere that the ridiculously monikered "mc g" may be bringing "80's stuntman/crime fighter" "the unknown stuntman" to the big screen.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Dec 2013 15:06:00 GMT
This better not be true! The Unknown Stuntman is the theme song to The Fall Guy. McG is a travesty of a director, the idea of him directing one of my childhood favorite tv series is horrifying. First The Terminator and now possibly this! How some people are allowed to make films is beyond me.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Dec 2013 15:28:35 GMT
What a great song too !

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Dec 2013 16:17:02 GMT
Agreed.

Well, I'm not the kind to kiss and tell, But I've been seen with Farrah.
I've never been with anything less than a nine, so fine.
I've been on fire with Sally Field, gone fast with a girl named Bo.
But somehow they just don't end up as mine...
It's a death-defying life I lead, I'll take my chances.
I've died for a living in the movies and tv.
But the hardest thing I ever do is watch my leading ladies,
Kiss some other guy while I'm bandaging my knee.

Okay, the lyrics aren't exactly written by Morrissey but the show would be a little different if Lee Majors sang:

I was happy in the haze of a drunken hour
but heaven knows I'm miserable now
I was looking for a job, and then I found a job
and heaven knows I'm miserable now

In my life
why do I give valuable time
to people who don't care if I live or die

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Dec 2013 16:19:34 GMT
Cheers Tetro, I have just done Sales desk Kareoke !

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Dec 2013 18:02:22 GMT
Last edited by the author on 17 Dec 2013 18:04:20 GMT
"how some people are allowed to make films is beyond me"

My sentiments exactly.

Posted on 16 Feb 2014 19:00:58 GMT
Speed
Jurassic park
The matrix
Wayne's world

Wouldn't be too concerned, if they rebooted The lawnmower man though;)

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Feb 2014 01:38:44 GMT
Last edited by the author on 17 Feb 2014 01:39:45 GMT
I'd live with a reboot of 'Jurassic Park' if only to have them decry the deliberate snapping of the truth over those "velociraptors" and have the proper dinosaur name for the actual creature they are portraying-the Deinonychus reinstated, though this was also the fault of author Michael Crichton, a man clearly not so up in accuracy regarding animal species, extinct or otherwise, being more concerned with techno-thrillers and medical jargon. Annoying particularly when both book and film work so hard to convince us all that dangerous doesn't just come in big packages, yet exaggerates the size of the so-called 'velociraptors' anyway, cos "bigger is scarier". Yes, Spielberg, yes Crichton, nothing like consistency. Oh, and, as these dinosaurs in particular have since been discovered to have feathered arms and bodies-at least partially covered, that dates the film even more. Not sure that qualifies as a reason for redoing it at all, but hey, since when did the masterminds behind the culture of the reboot ever need one, good or otherwise.

Posted on 17 Feb 2014 10:11:30 GMT
I get what you're saying about Jurassic park being inaccurate on the part of both writer & director but i don't think i could stomach "feathered" dinosaurs attacking humans, it sounds too ridiculous. I know these films are about dispencing with your disbelief, but come on FEATHERED dinosaurs:D

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Feb 2014 21:29:06 GMT
I agree that feathered dinosaurs might seem to a joke, but the reality is, if you were facing one, you'd be cacking yourself, they're faster and much more formidably armed than you. Kangaroos and ostriches might appear silly, but they kicked people to death before. Embarrassing or not, the truth is that without our ability to create and use cars, guns, knives and even wear clothes, we'd be almost utterly useless even facing up to a mouse or a wasp in are natural weapons-free state. The problem is with conditioning-for decades books, games and portraits on dnosauria were all, bar a few really small ones, all depicted them as hairless medium-large to ginormous reptiles, and we're used to it, but the reality is that many now seem to be somewhat feathered, but I don't think the films should be "updating" their misnamed velos that are actually Deinonychus in this way now, as that would be almost changing a species in front of our eyes-and they've already lied about its size, lifestyle and misnamed it! Plus aren't they dominating these movies more than enough-you'd swear they were only five species out there that mattered for these films. I think if they want to get current and feature some feathered dinos, they should include some species they haven't done, or just mention it in a few conversations.

As most horror films are about dispensing disbelief-at least the best ones are and they do it pretty easily, that's not a problem, besides in no actuality would a dinosaur, feathered or otherwise, attack a person as they'd never meet. But a feathered dinosaur gutting us wouldn't actually be any dumber than the Gallimimus herd running past Neill an the two kids rather than trampling them like any large animal would if they were in the way, or that stupid Tyrannosaurus appearing in the visitor lobby at the movie's end without stomping its way noisily there or bringing down a wall and, dumber, going for the two dinos that have the actors surrounded, rather than the people themselves. Talk about a movie painting itself into a corner. A reboot (unwarranted as it is) could at least tidy up that stupid ending.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


ARRAY(0xb5cecfc0)
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  action discussion forum
Participants:  28
Total posts:  174
Initial post:  18 Jul 2013
Latest post:  23 Feb 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions