| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| damalc |
Posted - 01/07/2008 : 17:57:37
i haven't seen this one yet but it did pretty well at the box office in week one. it has gotten horrible reviews. i saw the original Japanese version and it was basically "The Ring."
so for me, the question is, why in the world would you remake a movie that was already a weak imitation of another movie, which has already been remade, and sequeled and those weren't great?
i'll still probably catch it at the 2nd run theater though. perhaps my already low expectations will allow me to get a bit of enjoyment. |
| 9 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| randall |
Posted - 01/11/2008 : 05:20:15
quote:
Originally posted by silly
quote:
Originally posted by 16-0
Those damn kids! They're ruining the movie for me!
You should have been here the day my son burst into the room shouting that they made it PG-13. What may have ruined the movie for you made his day 
Q.E.D., my previous post. It's all about the Benjamins. |
| silly |
Posted - 01/11/2008 : 01:24:00
quote:
Originally posted by 16-0
Those damn kids! They're ruining the movie for me!
You should have been here the day my son burst into the room shouting that they made it PG-13. What may have ruined the movie for you made his day
|
| randall |
Posted - 01/10/2008 : 23:43:38
quote:
Originally posted by 16-0
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
But PG-13 horror is money in the bank, all year round. No stars, no script to speak of...what's not to like if you're a studio suit?
"I Am Legend" didn't have an official rating until just a couple weeks before it was released, and it was PG-13. Obviously what happened was it first got an R rating but the studio reedited it and resubmitted it to the MPAA.
Those damn kids! They're ruining the movie for me!
Hee hee, you're becoming a Whippersnapper before our very eyes!
Sometimes it's a contractual issue, not a creative one. I don't know if this was so on I AM LEGEND, but in some cases the director or production entity legally agrees to deliver a PG-13 cut -- for the studio, not the MPAA. The distributor's reason for such a clause is obvious: it creates a larger potential target audience. I grant that directors frequently take this process to the absolute edge, but in most cases they are not fighting the MPAA for their art, but for their check.
From X to R may be different: Stanley Kubrick certainly learned that on EYES WIDE SHUT, and he couldn't give a damn what his films were rated. [CLOCKWORK originally appeared in the US as X.] Yet his longtime partners at Warner Bros., Bob Daly and Terry Semel, needed to release the fucking picture as R, hence the digital masking of orgy participants that has only now been broken in North America by the new digital DVD release. [P.S.: Don't rush out and get it. You'll only discover how truly idiotic these ratings boards are; there's nothing shown that you didn't already imagine.] |
| Downtown |
Posted - 01/08/2008 : 21:26:04
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
But PG-13 horror is money in the bank, all year round. No stars, no script to speak of...what's not to like if you're a studio suit?
Well that's why they're making so many of them...and while adults see a movie that they like and then go tell their friends to go see it and MAYBE buy the DVD when it comes out in six months, when kids love a movie they go back to the theaters two or three times to watch it again.
"I Am Legend" didn't have an official rating until just a couple weeks before it was released, and it was PG-13. Obviously what happened was it first got an R rating but the studio reedited it and resubmitted it to the MPAA. I always get nervous when I see that happening with a movie I'm anxious to see. Again, it's not because it has to be R rated to be good, but rather what concerns me is that clearly the studio has made marketability the top priority, which may or may not lead them to sacrifice quality. I don't want to see a movie that was carefully edited, then reedited in haste with scenes cut to pieces because there wasn't time (or money) to properly reshoot them and remove whatever was offending the MPAA. Fortunately it turned out to be a good movie anyway (but not great), but that's not always the case.
Those damn kids! They're ruining the movie for me! |
| randall |
Posted - 01/08/2008 : 19:47:34
But PG-13 horror is money in the bank, all year round. No stars, no script to speak of...what's not to like if you're a studio suit?
The movie almost certainly sucks, but it had the most disturbing poster so far this year. |
| Downtown |
Posted - 01/08/2008 : 06:14:56
Never waste your time with a horror movie rated PG-13. It's not that it has to be rated R to be good and scary (although it can help), but they're always marketed directly towards minors so the films themselves are often very infantile and amateurish. |
| Sean |
Posted - 01/08/2008 : 00:49:10
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
And what the heck are they doing with the remake of The Eye? The brilliant twist in the middle is revealed in the advert!
Another reason to not go to the cinema or watch trailers.  |
| benj clews |
Posted - 01/08/2008 : 00:40:59
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
"A Tale of Two Sisters" comes out soon. I bet that's a pale imitation of the real one too.
Yup, I'd bet good money on that. Hopefully, they won't screw up the sink bit at least.
And what the heck are they doing with the remake of The Eye? The brilliant twist in the middle is revealed in the advert! |
| Sean |
Posted - 01/08/2008 : 00:34:36
quote:
Originally posted by damalc
so for me, the question is, why in the world would you remake a movie that was already a weak imitation of another movie, which has already been remade, and sequeled and those weren't great?
On advice from their accountants, at a guess.  There's a market for horror, and the Japanese and Koreans have made most of the best horrors over the last 10 years. I'd say it's more lucrative to buy the rights to an existing movie than try and do something original, partly due to the fact that half their marketing has been done as the title is already moderately well-known. At IMDb it gets 4, which is a total fail on my scale, so I'll skip it.
Edit:- It's still got a 0% at Rotten Tomatoes, and the comments on the IMDb board are extremely scathing. Looks like this is the worst Japan-horror remake of them all.
"A Tale of Two Sisters" comes out soon. I bet that's a pale imitation of the real one too. |
|
|
