You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- Me_Wise_Magic
- Rep: 70
Re: 10 Horror Remakes Done Right
LOVE LOVE Dawn of the Dead (Come on when the Man in the Black helps introduce the flick, you know shit is about to go down), The Ring, and The Thing (truly a master at the craft and holds up great to this day. Kurt Russel wrote the book on How to be a badass while being in that movie). 
It looks like the new Evil Dead may be added to an updated list later on since I'm hearing positive early press about it. 2003 Texas Chainsaw and The Grudge were ok in my opinion.
Re: 10 Horror Remakes Done Right
RussTCB wrote:'The Thing' (1982)
Greatest horror movie ever made. The ending is insanely and uniquely brilliant. How modern directors fail to take a page from this book is beyond me.
I gotta agree with you there. It's got isolation, paranoia, and awesome effects. Plus Kurt Russell pouring liquor into a computer at the start. 
Havent seen the recent re-remake, and kinda dont want to.
- Me_Wise_Magic
- Rep: 70
Re: 10 Horror Remakes Done Right
polluxlm wrote:RussTCB wrote:'The Thing' (1982)
Greatest horror movie ever made. The ending is insanely and uniquely brilliant. How modern directors fail to take a page from this book is beyond me.
I gotta agree with you there. It's got isolation, paranoia, and awesome effects. Plus Kurt Russell pouring liquor into a computer at the start.
Havent seen the recent re-remake, and kinda dont want to.
It looked really lazy when I saw parts of it on one of the movie channels. It replaced the amazing practical effects with over indulged CGI that looked like crap.
Re: 10 Horror Remakes Done Right
The Thing and The Fly are the only ones off the top of my hat which I see taking the original concept and expanding it to a more modern approach. This is muchly because the originals were made in the 1950s, whereas the latter-day versions came out in the 1980s. The generation gap therein boasted a more remarkable shift in content than what has been seen since; body-horror became more approved to audiences, who were ready and wililng sit through the gloopy sequences of man-beasts morphing from one thing to another. Both stories could be told with or without that strong visual presentation, which is why both the originals and the revisions served a purpose.
Personally, I see much less development in the horror medium following the reneissance of the 1970s/80s. The mainstream has gone increasingly to the direction of torture-porn, which I've always regarded as low-class as the reflex tactic utilized by jump scares. Maybe it's the karma of our era, with the US government (and, to be fair, most of their global allies) turning a blind eye towards torture in the 'war on terror', while military intelligence has been returning to methods condemned since the Spanish Inquisition.
The curious part is major film studios following suit, subjecting the audiences to the grim realities of the interrogation room. The foil-hat in me is saying this is all a big information campaign to subject and, effectively, numb the gen-pop towards the graphic nature of torture and human suffering it contains. And hey, as long as the act of torture is executed by social deviants and enemy combattants, it's alright to look at it, right?
