Ö÷²¥´óÐã

Well Dr. Kermode i couldn't agree with you enough if i tried. I'm fed up with the never-ending diet of horror remakes, or just remakes in general. To me its all too depressing and sometimes insulting as it alludes that maybe the originals were not good enough, in all truth as you so rightly pointed out its purely only for money related issues. How i wish hollywood had more original idea's like back in the 70's when groundbreaking film after groundbreaking film came along. I shant even bother to see this inferior rehash of an important and troubling classic.

Well well, you were easier on that film than i thought you would be. not losing any passion with your age are you Dr?
Or is it all those musicals finally getting to you? ... One notable title in particular.

But i have to say you have convinced me otherwise about this remake. I was certain it was going to be one of the most horrible remakes of a classic horror flick out of the huge catalogue of them set for this year and later next year. My eyes are now set upon the Nightmare on Elm Street remake, which will not even feature Englund as Krueger. But with other titles like Robocop on the horizon for a remake; who knows?

Unfortunately i can't watch this video because i'm not in the UK dammit!!But i think the good doctor wasn't that easy with this one as he was with drag me to hell.Please doctor don't be easy with horror movies.If its bad just say it.Don't favor genres for which you have a PhD :)

I was slightly torn on what to think upon leaving the cinema after watching this. I watched the original as part of my research for a dissertation on the slasher genre and its influences. So I really wanted to see this remake to see how it would compare. Whilst your points are very valid and i agree that there was no point to it, you could argue there is little point to most films nowadays. Without going down that road though I think as horror remakes go it is one of the best of recent times.

I think as a stand alone film for people who know little or nothing about the original it will seem like a very good film. I say this because even as a person who forced myself to sit through grim films such as Saló (what was the point of that film? i havent worked it out yet so your response woudl be nice) I still found the rape scene very uncomfortable as well as the first killing of the 'baddies' i felt was nicely done.

The stumbling blocks of it for me were that it wasnt as grim as the original and even with the proper cinematography and decent acting they could have made it have a much grimmer feel. Such as the non raped girl got killed fairly swiftly and in general much less sadism took place. Also i felt the retribution on the bad guys was limp after the first man was offed as the woman was shot, boy allowed to live and Krug just got hit a few times before the slightly comical last scene.

I probably sound like a weirdo for wanting more grim stuff in this film but when i watch a film that is or is based on an exploitation film i do so to be shocked or disgusted in a way, so on that front it let down people.

Just to show im not a exploitation freak I watched Lars and the real girl and that was one of the best films i have seen for years!


thanks for reading,


hht

Okay, so a couple of problems...

If the film is solidly put together, irons out many of the original story glitches, and is less obnoxious in one key area, then that is probably a lot more than you can expect from the recent slew of ho-hum horror remakes the studios have been working through this decade. I'm sure I don't need to go through the entire catalogue of classics to ram the endless disappointment home - though a casual reminder of Omen, Wicker Man, and Chainsaw is appropriate.

But the second point should be the most pertinent. The flaw in your argument is that a badly made film with political significance has more intrinsic value than a relatively well-crafted but less intellectual one. NOW I'M SORRY, I'M SORRY, BUT THAT'S JUST WRONG. The political discourses that a film arouses pale into significance, if the basic mechanics of it don't work as one continuous visceral experience.

You yourself have knocked critics for thinking more cerebral works are usually greater than ones ones that illicit genuine emotional reactions, and yet your recent review only propagates this bias. Of course it's simply not true, since :

Crash > Brokeback Mountain
The Bourne Supremacy > The Bourne Ultimatum
Batman Begins > The Dark Knight
Slumdog Millionaire > Frost/Nixon
War of the Worlds > Munich (actually V For Vendetta is better than Munich, as one is an interesting vigilante film, and the other a boring and gutless one ... but I digress).

Your position is simply inconsistent. One of your most famous assessments was that Jaws was a better film than Schindler's List. I happen to think you're wrong on that count simply because I think Jaws is overrated and List is just a terrific piece of storytelling. But at least then the principle was right. So if you're now going to adopt the stance that a bad 'important' film, one that is

"horrible and raggedy and uneven and disreputable",

has more value than something that is,

"clearly a better made film, better directed, better shot... put together solidly... less sleazy, less reprehensible... a more efficient machine",

then is The Good Doctor now going to finally admit that he thinks chasing sharks is more historically significant than the Holocaust?

And now to fulfil the remit of my pseudonym : JUST BECAUSE THE SUBJECT MATTER IS GREAT, DOES NOT MEAN THE FILM IS TOO.