Road House remake

[lovecraft68]

I'll just agree to disagree.

Once you realize what the Coens do with space and light, and what they were trying to accomplish relative to the source material, you realize what a masterpiece No Country is. Read the book, then watch the film, and think about both. It's brilliant.

And their True Grit was FAR better than the original. '60s Westerns were entertaining, but I find them painful to watch today. They don't age well.

The issue with anything from the 60's and the people then probably felt the same way about things from the 40's is its dated in many ways, from speech to how its shot, the acting, the overall tone. For me, 70's movies still really stand up because they had this grainy gritty feel to them, and they tended to pull no punches and tell things like it is.

Rocky is a feel good movie in theory, but when you watch it...Paulie is an abusive drunk, his sister kept down and under this thumb, Rocky is a loser, Mickey a bitter old man who felt he never got the shot he deserved, and none of it sanitized. Slap Shot with Paul Newman is another good example, a comedy, but there was a lot going on beneath the laughs.

Space and light is more cinematography than story, and I'm a basic movie viewer that focuses on content. Unless the effects are awful, or the camera angle so bad you're not sure what you're seeing, its not relevant to me. Nothing happens in that movie, there's a shoot out in a hotel and that's pretty much it.

The fact the MC gets seen because hours after he takes the money, he goes back to give the guy a glass of water? Yeah, okay. And this Anton clown? Maybe the book portrayed him better because you can get into someone's head, but a bowl headed goof dragging a humane killer around, and trying to wax like he's serial killer Yoda? You can keep it, and don't get me started on the waste of Woody Harrelson.

The last scene where he asks the kid for his shirt....like it was supposed to mean something? I'll be the first to say I'm not high brow or looking for deep thought in my movies, but that was dumb as fuck.

You Tube has a ton of clips and one from No Country is Anton yapping with the old guy behind the counter with the coin toss. How anyone thinks that's brilliant is really beyond me. Would have been hilarious if the old guy pulled a piece from under the counter and shot him.

So, sure we can agree to disagree. In the end, I probably wouldn't be as down on it if it weren't for all the "oh, bestest ever" then I watch it, and I'm, asking for my two hours back, and even my wife who is more open to things that are more subtle than over the top, was like "Next time I'm picking" because I picked the movie because it was supposed to be good.

I think that's why I like to find things that fly under the radar, they're either better or you're not predisposed towards them because of hype-or told they're awful-before you see them.

 

[lovecraft68]

OK. I never saw that. I was just referring to the first two movies. is that any good?

Its not bad. Big issue is suffering under the shadow of the iconic original, and it does have some repetition, but you can tell they really respect the material and are trying. Big knock in reviews is the not so good CGI. The gore in the original Thing was practical and amazing, this lacks in that area.

One thing I noticed-and this could be because its made 30 years later. Is these people were scientists and explorers, archeologists in a barren wasteland and they looked like the cast of a 1990's Friends like sit com, a lot of pretty people you'd see at a bar. That 1982 crew were the type of scruffy rough around the edges guys you would imagine would be in the middle of nowhere.

 

[lovecraft68]

It's decent. I'd recommend it to anyone who loved "The Thing" as long as they don't go into it with "The Thing" level of expectations. It's a decent flick that gives a little mote backstory on what happened before the American team arrived.


This has me wanting to rewatch both, lol.

I often watch Alien and The Thing as a double feature, two of the best in their class. Alien is an amazing sci fi horror hybrid, the Thing has a touch of sci fi, but mostly horror, but the palpable feeling of tension and dread in both is incredible.

 

[lovecraft68]

Haven't read all the comments but wanted to post before I forget

Two remakes I hated were
Rosemary's Baby
and
The Stand

I couldn't finish The Stand remake. I also think that extended 300+ extra page version they released showed that whoever edited the original did a good job because the extra material was meh.

I wasn't aware they had remade Rosemary's Baby. Most likely because once I heard what Polanski did the movie became dead to me. I don't have to like a person to like their talent, but when we're talking a rapist, I hit the switch.

 

[Voboy]

I'll be the first to say I'm not high brow or looking for deep thought in my movies

That's fine. If this is the case, then you're not who the film was aimed at. No shame there.

Everything in that film had meaning. If most of it flew over your noggin, that's too bad: you missed some real art. IMO, of course. The book does not explain more about Chigurh, and that's the entire point of Chigurh: he's inexplicable.

If you did not like the movie, I would not recommend the book. They're very much in accord. I think it's very rare that a film is able to so accurately evoke a book, especially when that book is written by an author as famously sparse and austere as Cormac McCarthy. The Coens did their homework very, very well, and selected their cinematographer with care.

There was a time when I just wanted to go to movies to be entertained. Unfortunately, I learned a little about filmmaking and my standards rose quite a bit. But I like that I've learned enough to appreciate how hard some directors work, rather than just making attractive people move around in between explosions. But it's not for everyone.

 

[Bubo_bubo]

I'd like to see Pixar have a go at remaking "Watership Down".

 

[lovecraft68]

That's fine. If this is the case, then you're not who the film was aimed at. No shame there.

Everything in that film had meaning. If most of it flew over your noggin, that's too bad: you missed some real art. IMO, of course. The book does not explain more about Chigurh, and that's the entire point of Chigurh: he's inexplicable.

If you did not like the movie, I would not recommend the book. They're very much in accord. I think it's very rare that a film is able to so accurately evoke a book, especially when that book is written by an author as famously sparse and austere as Cormac McCarthy. The Coens did their homework very, very well, and selected their cinematographer with care.

There was a time when I just wanted to go to movies to be entertained. Unfortunately, I learned a little about filmmaking and my standards rose quite a bit. But I like that I've learned enough to appreciate how hard some directors work, rather than just making attractive people move around in between explosions. But it's not for everyone.

Funny you say that, there's a used bookstore (so few of them around anymore) and last time I was browsing I saw a copy and thought about giving it a go, as in general books are better than movies to me. But if the movie was very faithful I'd get nothing from it.

Biggest example of a movie being better than a book to me is Jaws. If you have never read it, its a lot bleaker than the movie. Hell Hooper was tagging Brody's wife. Hooper dies and the climax was not much of one. But that's a rarity.

I also admit that in some ways I have a close to adolescent view of movies(not so much in books) where I just need more to happen and not have to try and interpret everything. Movies that are a blend of that are great, but what we're talking about was way to slow for me. But I'm not known for patience I guess.

 

[lovecraft68]

I usually watch They Live with The Thing. Once I watch Alien, I have to watch through at least Aliens if not doing a whole marathon of even the shitty ones, lol.

Yeah, Alien and Aliens were both great, and in very different ways, nothing after is worth mentioning.
Seems most franchises are only good for two
The first two Halloweens, Hellraiser, Alien etc....

 

[lovecraft68]

...This would be my worst nightmare. That movie fucked me up enough as a kid "Oh look! A movie about bunnies!"

Almost as bad as Grave of the Fireflies. "How is this for kids?!" (Or that time I learned that animated does not equal for kids. *Looks at Ralph Bakshi.*)

That was such a seriously grim movie, like WTF did I just watch? But it was good, and man did all the violence catch you off guard.

 

[Btq97]

Dune by Villeneuve is unbelievable and cannot wait for the 2nd part, I love David Lynch but apart from a few scenes I don't think its a good movie

I love the remake of Ocean 11 remake, was slick, efficient and absolutely amazing to watch

I prefered Vanilla Sky to Abre Los Ojos

Dredd is a million times better than Stallones Judge Dredd, a billion times better!

Bad remakes for me is quite a list but I'd go with

Coppola's Dracula, maybe I'm biased with that but Christopher Lee's Dracula is much better, that being said that in itself is a remake..

The latest Magnificent 7 is not as good as Yul Brynner, Charles Bronson etc, again a remake of 7 Samurai which better than both..

Dawn of the Dead (Snyder), sorry, not as good as Romero"s

Get Carter, Ben Hur and Nicolas Cage in The Wicker Man are all massive stinkers..

yes 100%

 

[SimonDoom]

That's fine. If this is the case, then you're not who the film was aimed at. No shame there.

Everything in that film had meaning. If most of it flew over your noggin, that's too bad: you missed some real art. IMO, of course. The book does not explain more about Chigurh, and that's the entire point of Chigurh: he's inexplicable.

If you did not like the movie, I would not recommend the book. They're very much in accord. I think it's very rare that a film is able to so accurately evoke a book, especially when that book is written by an author as famously sparse and austere as Cormac McCarthy. The Coens did their homework very, very well, and selected their cinematographer with care.

There was a time when I just wanted to go to movies to be entertained. Unfortunately, I learned a little about filmmaking and my standards rose quite a bit. But I like that I've learned enough to appreciate how hard some directors work, rather than just making attractive people move around in between explosions. But it's not for everyone.

I thought No Country worked on both levels--both as art and as just good entertainment. Chigurh isn't meant to be a "believable" character (any more than the Judge is believable in McCarthy's most famous book, Blood Meridian), and the Tommy Lee Jones character's ruminations on evil help explain that. I actually thought this was an example of the film being better than the book. I don't think it's one of McCarthy's best books. Books have to explain things in a way movies don't, and some of No Country is better left unexplained.

As much as I liked it, Fargo is still my favorite Coen Brothers movie. Probably in my top 10 favorite movies, definitely top 20. The woodchipper scene!

 

[lovecraft68]

I have a soft spot for Hellraiser 3. It's not good, but I love it because watching it was the first time I won an argument with my mom over her double standard of age appropriate for me vs my older brother. I love that movie out of pure spite.

I can't hate on Halloween 4 or 5 either, I'm just a little younger than Danielle Harris and I loved seeing a kid persevere even if somewhat damaged by the experience. (Come to think of it, that character might've gotten me through most of the shit I dealt with as a kid, lol.)

I am so lost on what is going on in Halloween because I won't continue to watch them. 40+ years of the same thing. Its so bad they make a big deal about bringing Curtis/Laurie back in the recent ones but....they did that in the 90's with H2O....think on that, they're rebooting their 20 year old reboots.

They could be good for all I know, but FFS where are we taking this, to the nursing home? My daughter was telling me now they even have her son in some type of John Conor role where he's groomed to kill Meyers....like talk about dumping everything in the fridge into the pot.

On Hellraiser, I think I said earlier the one in space where the ship transforms into the box was interesting, I like the flashbacks to the families battles with the demons over the generations.

 

[SimonDoom]

Another great remake that I had forgotten was a remake: The Departed, by Martin Scorsese. It was a remake of the Hong Kong movie Infernal Affairs. I thought it was excellent, suspenseful, and with great acting, and it had one of the most shocking, unexpected endings of all time.

 

[Voboy]

I don't think it's really fair to count Heat as a remake: it was "remade" by the same guy who did the original, in a different context, just a couple years later.

But if you do count that as a remake? It's a frickin' awesome remake.

 

[lovecraft68]

Another great remake that I had forgotten was a remake: The Departed, by Martin Scorsese. It was a remake of the Hong Kong movie Infernal Affairs. I thought it was excellent, suspenseful, and with great acting, and it had one of the most shocking, unexpected endings of all time.

I'm not as big of a fan of the Departed in its entirety, but yeah, that ending was a real home run.
Not a remake(that I'm aware of) but the ending to Casino(The Pesci part) might be one of the most brutal I've seen. Horror of course has its share of violence and gore, but most often its things that would never happen, Casino on the other hand, that scene was so brutally real.

 

[SimonDoom]

Yeah, Alien and Aliens were both great, and in very different ways, nothing after is worth mentioning.
Seems most franchises are only good for two
The first two Halloweens, Hellraiser, Alien etc....

I'm old enough to remember when the first installments came out--late 70s, early 80s, that was the golden age of splatter/horror, because it was new and so shocking. Texas Chainsaw Massacre had come out a few years earlier, but it was more of a cult film and many people hadn't seen it. Halloween is tame by today's standards, but in its day it was very scary, and the music soundtrack was so good (composed by the director himself, John Carpenter).

One of the reasons I probably sound like an old geezer talking about the umpteenth installment of Star Wars or Halloween or whatever is that this phenomenon of endless sequels and reboots didn't really exist back in those days, with the exception of James Bond every 3 years. You could go to the movie theater in the 1970s and order your popcorn and reasonably expect to get an entertainment experience that was completely new and that you'd never seen before -- The Godfather, Apocalypse Now, The Exorcist, Jaws, Star Wars, Close Encounters, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Halloween. Then at some point studios figured the best way to make money was to AVOID making something new. It's not as fun, but I don't think modern audiences realize what they're missing. There's no way to put the genie back in the bottle.

I know. Old man shouting at clouds.

 

[lovecraft68]

I'm old enough to remember when the first installments came out--late 70s, early 80s, that was the golden age of splatter/horror, because it was new and so shocking. Texas Chainsaw Massacre had come out a few years earlier, but it was more of a cult film and many people hadn't seen it. Halloween is tame by today's standards, but in its day it was very scary, and the music soundtrack was so good (composed by the director himself, John Carpenter).

One of the reasons I probably sound like an old geezer talking about the umpteenth installment of Star Wars or Halloween or whatever is that this phenomenon of endless sequels and reboots didn't really exist back in those days, with the exception of James Bond every 3 years. You could go to the movie theater in the 1970s and order your popcorn and reasonably expect to get an entertainment experience that was completely new and that you'd never seen before -- The Godfather, Apocalypse Now, The Exorcist, Jaws, Star Wars, Close Encounters, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Halloween. Then at some point studios figured the best way to make money was to AVOID making something new. It's not as fun, but I don't think modern audiences realize what they're missing. There's no way to put the genie back in the bottle.

I know. Old man shouting at clouds.

I'll sit next to you on the lawn and tell the damn kids to get off of it.

When it comes to horror, it went downhill when they took Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm street and turned them into franchises. Both movies were unique and very good, even the first sequels not bad, but then it went downhill. The 90's tried rebooting Nightmare and then there was the awful Freddie V Jason.

Just like when it comes to writing, I get its hard these days to have something original, but you can try, but they're all assembly line reboots etc now...Fast and the Furious is up to close to 10? The're as brain dead as they come. Boobs cars and fighting.

The Shudder network really impresses me, they will give anything a go, and some not so great, but some good stuff too.
As a horror fan, seeing Cronenberg return is a sorely needed event.

 

[Bubo_bubo]

I'm not as big of a fan of the Departed in its entirety, but yeah, that ending was a real home run.
Not a remake(that I'm aware of) but the ending to Casino(The Pesci part) might be one of the most brutal I've seen. Horror of course has its share of violence and gore, but most often its things that would never happen, Casino on the other hand, that scene was so brutally real.

Hits you in the face like, well, a baseball bat. Especially since Pesci's character'd been a POV character for a good part of the movie;

 

[Bubo_bubo]

In terms of animated movies that are absolutely not for children, that might be interesting to see remade with the advances in technology but on the other hand am very afraid of what they would end up, there is of course "Akira".

 

[lovecraft68]

Hits you in the face like, well, a baseball bat. Especially since Pesci's character'd been a POV character for a good part of the movie;

The fact he was an annoying loathsome character(at least to me) made it even better.
The way he died in Goodfellas with the "Oh shit" before he gets whacked was a let down.

 

[LilyWaters]

Haven't read all the comments but wanted to post before I forget

Two remakes I hated were
Rosemary's Baby
and
The Stand

Oh, the recent version of The Stand was AWFUL. So disappointing. The 90s miniseries holds up okay, given the limitations that it had in making it.

As an aside, I have come to the conclusion that the best King works that really translate well to film are based on his short stories (Shawkshank, Green Mile, The Body/Stand By Me) and his non-supernatural works (Dolores Claiborne, Misery). They seem to be the easiest to adapt into a tight and coherent screenplay.

 

[lovecraft68]

Oh, the recent version of The Stand was AWFUL. So disappointing. The 90s miniseries holds up okay, given the limitations that it had in making it.

As an aside, I have come to the conclusion that the best King works that really translate well to film are based on his short stories (Shawkshank, Green Mile, The Body/Stand By Me) and his non-supernatural works (Dolores Claiborne, Misery). They seem to be the easiest to adapt into a tight and coherent screenplay.

I think they adapted the Mist well, but that was also a short story.

Seeing this is about remakes I think the recent Pet Semetary movie had its ups and downs, some good spins, a whoa ending and tried to remain faithful to the first, but it still wasn't as good as the first because nothing can top Zelda from the orginal pure nightmare fuel.

I always try to steer people towards one of his lesser know adaptations-and the book itself doesn't get a lot of attention- Is The Dark Half, which has even more appeal if you're a writer, because I'd love for a couple of my characters to manifest in the flesh.

 

[lovecraft68]

I can't knock all of it. I like a lot of horror movies that most fans hate out of the 90s.

(Warlock, Djinn, People Under the Stairs, to name a few)




Taika Waititi was at the helm of an Akira remake not too long ago.

People under the stairs is my favorite Wes Craven movie. All around good, and let's face it, the BDSM aspects and the husband calling the wife mother/mommy was icing on the cake for perv me.

 

[Bubo_bubo]

Taika Waititi was at the helm of an Akira remake not too long ago.

I looked it up, it would be a live action one and seems to be in development hell. And what was done with "Ghost in the Shell" doesn't leave me very optimistic.

 

[MetaBob]

Oh, the recent version of The Stand was AWFUL. So disappointing. The 90s miniseries holds up okay, given the limitations that it had in making it.

As an aside, I have come to the conclusion that the best King works that really translate well to film are based on his short stories (Shawkshank, Green Mile, The Body/Stand By Me) and his non-supernatural works (Dolores Claiborne, Misery). They seem to be the easiest to adapt into a tight and coherent screenplay.

I liked Kubrick's 1980 The Shining film *A LOT*. Yeah, it left out some stuff from the book (what screen adaptation doesn't?), and Himself wasn't happy with it (he was much happier with the 1997 TV miniseries remake seen by comparatively few, which I also haven't seen), but artists complaining about other artists' adaptations of their works is hardly new. I thought 1986's Maximum Overdrive (which adapted his Trucks short story) was silly fun, in part because he got AC/DC to write a song (and "learn a new chord", he said at one point) for it as well as do the soundtrack. Yeardley Smith got a rare onscreen role. And Himself, a young Giancarlo Esposito, and Marla Maples got parts as extras. Silly fun.

The Stand is my favorite of King's works by far. I liked 1994's TV miniseries adaption, but haven't seen 2020's remake.