|
|
Post by The Social Introvert on May 29, 2017 11:52:50 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by spooner5020 on Jun 1, 2017 20:20:33 GMT
I thought the remake was much better than the original. Don't get me wrong the original is good,but I think because of the actors and the direction of John Carpenter really made this be one of the best remakes ever in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by naterdawg on Jun 2, 2017 13:26:57 GMT
I thought the remake was much better than the original. Don't get me wrong the original is good,but I think because of the actors and the direction of John Carpenter really made this be one of the best remakes ever in my opinion. "Don't get me wrong?" OMG, the very notion that you could consider this atrocious remake "better than the original" is beyond me. For one thing, the original is a CLASSIC of sci-fi/horror. Its moody black and white photography, especially during the encounters with the weird space children, is enormously effective. The remake was all over the place, complete with government officials, big explosions, etc. And color didn't help at all. But for me, the worst aspect of Carpenter's ill-fated redo (besides Kirstie Alley, ugh) had to do with the children. As is usual in 90s horror, when doing a remake, sexes are changed...and making the children's leader an obnoxious girl with an even more obnoxious hairstyle was a very poor choice indeed. Martin Stephens, from the original, had that eerie quality so necessary in a character that complex. The little snotty girl from the remake just didn't. She failed on every level. Despite new special effects and the use of color, the film is an abject failure. I thought Carpenter would bring a nice touch to the story, but instead, he overpopulated it with uninteresting characters and made something that looked like a USA movie. |
|
|
|
Post by TheOriginalPinky on Jun 2, 2017 20:47:15 GMT
I thought the remake was much better than the original. Don't get me wrong the original is good,but I think because of the actors and the direction of John Carpenter really made this be one of the best remakes ever in my opinion. "Don't get me wrong?" OMG, the very notion that you could consider this atrocious remake "better than the original" is beyond me. For one thing, the original is a CLASSIC of sci-fi/horror. Its moody black and white photography, especially during the encounters with the weird space children, is enormously effective. The remake was all over the place, complete with government officials, big explosions, etc. And color didn't help at all. But for me, the worst aspect of Carpenter's ill-fated redo (besides Kirstie Alley, ugh) had to do with the children. As is usual in 90s horror, when doing a remake, sexes are changed...and making the children's leader an obnoxious girl with an even more obnoxious hairstyle was a very poor choice indeed. Martin Stephens, from the original, had that eerie quality so necessary in a character that complex. The little snotty girl from the remake just didn't. She failed on every level. Despite new special effects and the use of color, the film is an abject failure. I thought Carpenter would bring a nice touch to the story, but instead, he overpopulated it with uninteresting characters and made something that looked like a USA movie.
UGH! And people are looking on and cannot do anything about it. I love this film!
The remake was okay, but the original was stellar! |
|
|
|
Post by naterdawg on Jun 2, 2017 20:59:11 GMT
"Don't get me wrong?" OMG, the very notion that you could consider this atrocious remake "better than the original" is beyond me. For one thing, the original is a CLASSIC of sci-fi/horror. Its moody black and white photography, especially during the encounters with the weird space children, is enormously effective. The remake was all over the place, complete with government officials, big explosions, etc. And color didn't help at all. But for me, the worst aspect of Carpenter's ill-fated redo (besides Kirstie Alley, ugh) had to do with the children. As is usual in 90s horror, when doing a remake, sexes are changed...and making the children's leader an obnoxious girl with an even more obnoxious hairstyle was a very poor choice indeed. Martin Stephens, from the original, had that eerie quality so necessary in a character that complex. The little snotty girl from the remake just didn't. She failed on every level. Despite new special effects and the use of color, the film is an abject failure. I thought Carpenter would bring a nice touch to the story, but instead, he overpopulated it with uninteresting characters and made something that looked like a USA movie.
UGH! And people are looking on and cannot do anything about it. I love this film!
The remake was okay, but the original was stellar!A kindred soul! Yes, that scene was remarkable and so understated. I also love the sequence where the man almost hits one of the girls with his car, and the kids make him drive into a wall. The music and "look" of the kids with their negative eyes was very, very chilling. |
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Jun 9, 2017 1:10:44 GMT
“You’re thinking of…a brick wall!”
MGM, who owned the rights to the original novel, had held onto the script because they were (hilariously) afraid that it would be taken as an attack on Catholics because of the portrayal of a virgin conception (which is what parts of Christianity believe in, not a virgin birth). They tried to get around that difficulty by passing it on to their British unit with a very small budget. In one scene a village women tries to tell the local doctor that it is impossible for her to be having a baby, but (again, hilariously to us today) she is not allowed to say “virgin” because of the standards of the time. But, in one of those miracles that seemed to happen more often before 1970 than now, all the limitations worked together to produce a much loved classic. A big part of the reason was the work of director Wolf Rilla, usually a journeyman, get-the-job-done director, who made this a career best. There are also two very memorable performances by 12-year-old Martin Stephens as David, the leader of children, and by George Sanders as David’s father and the children’s teacher. The climax, and the sacrifice at its center, is suspenseful, scary and moving.
|
|
geralmar
Sophomore
@geralmar
Posts: 322
Likes: 153
 
|
Post by geralmar on Jul 6, 2017 19:03:45 GMT
“You’re thinking of…a brick wall!” There are also two very memorable performances by 12-year-old Martin Stephens as David, the leader of children, and by George Sanders as David’s father and the children’s teacher. The climax, and the sacrifice at its center, is suspenseful, scary and moving. Stephens also turned in a remarkable performance in The Innocents (1961). I must also give a nod to the sequel, Children of the Damned (1964). Although even cheaper than its predecessor, it has its own modest merits. (I saw it in the theatre during its original release so nostalgia may color my approval.) What definitely did not merit approval was the poster tagline: "Beware the Eyes that Paralyze!!!". |
|
|
|
Post by poelzig on Jul 7, 2017 7:31:04 GMT
I thought the remake was much better than the original. Don't get me wrong the original is good,but I think because of the actors and the direction of John Carpenter really made this be one of the best remakes ever in my opinion.  That is hilarious. Wait. You are joking, right? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2017 23:09:50 GMT
Never liked this film much, but then I don't like the original all that much.
Honestly, I think the main problem here is that the Midwich Cuckoos just isn't a very cinematic story. The opening with the sleep barrier is quite strong, and the "kids do creepy things" is okay, but outside that there's just not much to the story. It works far better on paper than it does as a film, IMO.
Actually you could say that of several of Wyndham's novels. The Kraken Wakes is possibly the best alien invasion story ever written, but I don't know that it would make a good movie. The Day of the Triffids is superb, but there's a reason every adaptation messes around with the story so much to try and make it work on screen.
|
|
