|
Post by moviemouth on May 20, 2019 3:32:18 GMT
Thank you. I am one of the few people who like the original The Fly and the remake almost equally. They are both terrific movies for completely different reasons imo. Oh, and at least Texas Chainsaw Massacre gave us R. Lee Ermey, who in my opinion is one of the great horror movie villains. Most of the stuff around his character is bad, but he is terrific. That is another flaw of Evil Dead. It removes the great character of Ash, but doesn't give us a memorable character to replace him. So I am now stuck watching a bunch of boring characters, which just makes Bruce Campbell's absence even more distracting. I guess we're the only few people who like both versions of the movies "The Fly". The original was an awesome movie, I haven't seen it in recent years but anything Vincent Price did was some creepy, eerie fun. And the remake was director Cronenberg's mad scientist vision come to life. I can't fully agree with that. He definitely made some horror movies that are quite bad imo.
|
|
The Pumpkin King
Sophomore
"Just because I cannot see it, doesn't mean I can't believe it!"
@splattermatter
Posts: 261
Likes: 271
|
Post by The Pumpkin King on May 20, 2019 3:42:28 GMT
I guess we're the only few people who like both versions of the movies "The Fly". The original was an awesome movie, I haven't seen it in recent years but anything Vincent Price did was some creepy, eerie fun. And the remake was director Cronenberg's mad scientist vision come to life. I can't fully agree with that. He definitely made some horror movies that are quite bad imo. Oh, I certainly agree. But actor Vincent Price is a name I can watch for a lot of different reasons and a lot of different films. Kind of like actor Robert Mitchum and his film noir films. I myself, was never a big fan of director David Cronenberg, although I really appreciate his vision of, 'the decay-of-the-flesh' he incorporated in most of his early horror movies. After "The Fly" in 1986, though, I'm really tossing up what movies I like next of his, ha.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on May 20, 2019 3:46:01 GMT
I can't fully agree with that. He definitely made some horror movies that are quite bad imo. Oh, I certainly agree. But actor Vincent Price is a name I can watch for a lot of different reasons and a lot of different films. Kind of like actor Robert Mitchum and his film noir films. I myself, was never a big fan of director David Cronenberg, although I really appreciate his vision of, 'the decay-of-the-flesh' he incorporated in most of his early horror movies. After "The Fly" in 1986, though, I'm really tossing up what movies I like next of his, ha. No love for his Viggo Mortensen movies? I am generally a fan of David Cronenberg's movies. I find the psychological aspects of many of them effective and unique and I am a big fan of his visual style.
|
|
The Pumpkin King
Sophomore
"Just because I cannot see it, doesn't mean I can't believe it!"
@splattermatter
Posts: 261
Likes: 271
|
Post by The Pumpkin King on May 20, 2019 4:03:08 GMT
No love for his Viggo Mortensen movies? I am generally a fan of David Cronenberg's movies. I find the psychological aspects of many of them effective and unique and I am a big fan of his visual style. I loved the movie, "A History of Violence", and not for the sexual reasons most guys do, ha. I watched it in theaters, twice I believe. It wasn't in your face horror, but you could see it was professionally directed. I haven't seen it in a while but if it were on right now I'd watch it, love it's pace. Like the movie "The Dead Zone", I love that movie as well and I think that's free to watch on my TV! It was hard for me to get into "Eastern Promises", I went into the movie excepting something else so maybe that's my fault, ha. I never watched "A Dangerous Method", I don't own it and just never made a point to go and get it. I need to! Yeah, my TV sucks for those reasons too, now.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on May 20, 2019 4:10:11 GMT
No love for his Viggo Mortensen movies? I am generally a fan of David Cronenberg's movies. I find the psychological aspects of many of them effective and unique and I am a big fan of his visual style. I loved the movie, "A History of Violence", and not for the sexual reasons most guys do, ha. I watched it in theaters, twice I believe. It wasn't in your face horror, but you could see it was professionally directed. I haven't seen it in a while but if it were on right now I'd watch it, love it's pace. Like the movie "The Dead Zone", I love that movie as well and I think that's free to watch on my TV! It was hard for me to get into "Eastern Promises", I went into the movie excepting something else so maybe that's my fault, ha. I never watched "A Dangerous Method", I don't own it and just never made a point to go and get it. I need to! Yeah, my TV sucks for those reasons too, now.
Ironically I am not much of a fan of The Dead Zone, considering it is one of his most well liked movies. It's not a bad film by any means, but it just doesn't completely pull me in. People like A History of Violence because of sexual reasons? I was completely unaware of this.
|
|
The Pumpkin King
Sophomore
"Just because I cannot see it, doesn't mean I can't believe it!"
@splattermatter
Posts: 261
Likes: 271
|
Post by The Pumpkin King on May 20, 2019 4:32:48 GMT
Ironically I am not much of a fan of The Dead Zone, considering it is one of his most well liked movies. It's not a bad film by any means, but it just doesn't completely pull me in. People like A History of Violence because of sexual reasons? I was completely unaware of this. Lol bedroom sex, 69 sex, stairs sex, kinky, forced, etc. I had no problem with it, actress Mario Bello was in her prime and making some good movies at the time. You didn't see her doing these explicit scenes in "Secret Window" and "Assault on Precinct 13", ha. The audience I think in the theaters, tensed up to watch these scenarios in a full room together lol. That's what I think made "A History of Violence" really good, it was very authentic feeling.
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on May 20, 2019 5:35:34 GMT
3/10 Pretty lame redo.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on May 20, 2019 11:55:19 GMT
I have no doubt it is suppose to represent period blood given that it is written by Diablo Cody. She didn't write the movie. She was hired to do a script polish and didn't even get credit, because for all we know not a single change she made was included in the final edit.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on May 20, 2019 20:08:53 GMT
I have no doubt it is suppose to represent period blood given that it is written by Diablo Cody. She didn't write the movie. She was hired to do a script polish and didn't even get credit, because for all we know not a single change she made was included in the final edit. Thanks for correcting me.
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on May 21, 2019 2:33:40 GMT
Thank you. I am one of the few people who like the original The Fly and the remake almost equally. They are both terrific movies for completely different reasons imo. Oh, and at least Texas Chainsaw Massacre gave us R. Lee Ermey, who in my opinion is one of the great horror movie villains. Most of the stuff around his character is bad, but he is terrific. That is another flaw of Evil Dead. It removes the great character of Ash, but doesn't give us a memorable character to replace him. So I am now stuck watching a bunch of boring characters, which just makes Bruce Campbell's absence even more distracting. I guess we're the only few people who like both versions of the movies "The Fly". The original was an awesome movie, I haven't seen it in recent years but anything Vincent Price did was some creepy, eerie fun. And the remake was director Cronenberg's mad scientist vision come to life. I feel the same way about those films. Both version are stupendous. I sincerely have no preference between the two.
|
|
|
Post by James on May 21, 2019 3:23:16 GMT
Well I knew you wouldn’t like it, haha. I thought it was decent enough. I feel like there was effort put into it, moreso than a lot of other horror remakes of today, and the raining blood scene is easily the best moment. At the end of the day, it is NO The Evil Dead, but for a remake (or technically sequel since that’s what they’re calling it now... ) it’s solid. Yeah. I've got a thing for classic horror. I enjoy some of the newer stuff as well, but remakes tend to leave me cold. Especially when they remake horror masterpieces (The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, Halloween, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Evil Dead). I understand and somewhat agree, but there are remakes that I really like and some I might think are even better than their originals. Just not those particular ones. My Bloody Valentine (2009), It (2017) and Let Me In; all remakes that I like more than their original counterparts. JC’s The Thing and Cronenberg’s The Fly might also be better to their originals, but I haven’t actually seen the originals to confirm that 100%.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on May 21, 2019 9:30:18 GMT
I thought it was okay. In part because I looked at it as a loose sequel the whole time (ie, the Oldmobile on the front lawn and the Bruce cameo).
Prefer the original still for its charm and personality. I'd actually say the same thing about the Hills Have Eyes duo, but a lot of people seem to prefer that remake.
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on May 25, 2019 23:25:45 GMT
Yeah. I've got a thing for classic horror. I enjoy some of the newer stuff as well, but remakes tend to leave me cold. Especially when they remake horror masterpieces (The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, Halloween, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Evil Dead). I understand and somewhat agree, but there are remakes that I really like and some I might think are even better than their originals. Just not those particular ones. My Bloody Valentine (2009), It (2017) and Let Me In; all remakes that I like more than their original counterparts. JC’s The Thing and Cronenberg’s The Fly might also be better to their originals, but I haven’t actually seen the originals to confirm that 100%. I'm a fan of My Bloody Valentine (2009) also. Have yet to see either version of IT. I want to wait until I've read the novel first. The Thing (1982) is definitely better than the 1951 original. Cronenberg's The Fly is probably the equal of the 1958 film. Neither better not worse. Just different.
|
|