Not another vampire movie!!!!!

[rimbaud]

I just watched a previews on TV about the upcoming movies, and out of 6-7. 2 were about... you guessed it- Vampires.
and they weren't even promising, the 2 movies were:
Jenifer's body, with that chick from Transformers, Fox, or Morgan, what's her name, and Cirque du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant some lame *** based-on-series kind of thing, with some good actors, which surprised me: John C. Reilly and Salma Hayek, and I don't understand: why do actors like that do movies like THAT! :flare:

And more importantly: stop making Vampire movies! there is something as too much.

and parents worry about children watching movies like Kill Bill, which are so-called violent or something, but they should be conserned about kids watching lame movies like Jenifer's body or Twilight. I remember reading somewhere that 9 year old girl came to Robert Pattinson and told him: bite me, please! :S

the generation is getting dumber
and the reason is:
watching High School Musical, listening to Hanna Montana and having Twilight for a favorite book

[DanielBenoit]

Lol, I understand. It just seems that Hannah Montana, High School Musical and vampires is the thing, tommorrow it will be something different.

I find it rather amusing; how Hollywood, when it sees an incoming trend, that it just grabs it and produces ten movies concerning it before the year is out.

[rimbaud]

amusing? I find it annoying!

I also heard this on some sitcom "Hannah Montana is the Madona of our generation" :lol:

[*Classic*Charm*]

Eek I see this turning into another argument about Twilight. Ack.

Unfortunatley, Rimbaud, this is how it works! Popular culture moves through phases. A novel or a film gains popularity and suddenly the market is flooded with that subject matter. It happened with Harry Potter- suddenly there was a surge of book series about wizards and magic and alternative worlds. Not long ago there was a rise in popularity in Jane Austen, and we're overwhlemed with spin-off novels ("Mr Darcy Takes a Wife" etc.) and even The Jane Austen Book Club, with it's associated film as well as others like Becoming Jane.

This is just how it goes- if consumers are buying into something, producers are going to give it to them. By the bushel. It will fade out eventually, only to be replaced by something else.

[rimbaud]

I know but Vampires- really? they were cool in The Interview with the Vampire in the 90s
it's a little early for them to be making a comeback, and if they do, make it a good one, just because it's Hollywood it doesn't have to be trash
there is something worthy in Pop Culture, or at least it used to be

[*Classic*Charm*]

I know but Vampires- really? they were cool in The Interview with the Vampire in the 90s
it's a little early for them to be making a comeback, and if they do, make it a good one, just because it's Hollywood it doesn't have to be trash
there is something worthy in Pop Culture, or at least it used to be

Vampire lore has been around for a very long time. Interest in them stems from way further back than Interview with a Vampire (To be honest, I have a friend with a Vampire fetish which started long before they became "popular again"). Just because something is not a part of mainstream culture for a while doesn't mean that it hasn't retained it's value for certain sects of people. While you say "Vampires- really?", there may equally have been people saying "Jane Austen- again?". What would you suggest as something more legitimate to become popular again? (and I mean that genuinely, not sarcastically).

And really, who's to determine what is a "good comeback"? Is the re-manifestation of leggings really the best comeback for 80's fashion? I'd say they're pretty unflattering on everyone, but who am I to say that it's not a "good comeback". I'm not saying that you don't know what "good" is, purely that the value of a resurgence in popularity of something or other is purely up to the discretion of the consumer.

[rimbaud]

And really, who's to determine what is a "good comeback"?

we are! who else?
I do like vampires, the stories about them, I like reading about them too, but here I'm talking about all the Vampire movies that came and are still coming out
the box office is full of them, and it's been a long time since a good Vampire movie.
I mean, come on in Twilight both Robert and the other one jacob didn't put a shirt on for the whole movie, and Jenifer's body- megan fox- need I say more!
in Interview with the vampire, yes, we had Brad Pit and Tom Cruz but at least they had their clothes on.

[DanielBenoit]

I mean, come on in Twilight both Robert and the other one jacob didn't put a shirt on for the whole movie, and Jenifer's body- megan fox- need I say more!
in Interview with the vampire, yes, we had Brad Pit and Tom Cruz but at least they had their clothes on.

Come'on, how else are you going to get all of the preteen girls to sit through the whole movie? :lol:

[*Classic*Charm*]

we are! who else?
I do like vampires, the stories about them, I like reading about them too, but here I'm talking about all the Vampire movies that came and are still coming out
the box office is full of them, and it's been a long time since a good Vampire movie.
I mean, come on in Twilight both Robert and the other one jacob didn't put a shirt on for the whole movie, and Jenifer's body- megan fox- need I say more!
in Interview with the vampire, yes, we had Brad Pit and Tom Cruz but at least they had their clothes on.

Yes, that's my point. The general public, the consumers, are who decides what makes a good comeback, and some individuals may disagree. Doesn't make the production of these things any less viable. Twilight was a one-off and the public said they wanted more. So they're getting what they asked for. You disagree. The "We" you're speaking of is getting what they want. So they have in fact decided that the novels and films being released are a good comeback. The fact that vampire movies are still coming out supports my point here.

The fact that the actors in the films don't have shirts on is irrelevant to the fact that consumers want Vampire lore right now. If they just wanted shirtless men, they could go see something else, I'm sure it happens in other films as well. It's the whole package they want.

[rimbaud]

The "We" you're speaking of is getting what they want.

the "We" that I'm talking about is me, and all that stand before me! it may sounds egocentric or whatever but I don't care, it's the way it is. who cares about most of the youth who wants to see shirtless vampires and listen to Hannah Montana, they all go along with the stream!
besides, as it turns out, they don't know any better

the fact that the public wants to see that, doesn't make it OK for film industries to be butchering the art of the movie.

and if we were all listening to the majority we would be nowhere now

I am aware what sells, but that doesn't stops me to rebel against it

[Mathor]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]
the fact that the public wants to see that, doesn't make it OK for film industries to be butchering the art of the movie.

I think the art of the movie is a pretty subjective term. For instance, Jennifer's Body was produced and written by Jason Reitman, the person who directed Juno (his only film as of yet). I personally thought that Juno was an outstanding film. For that reason, it's very possible that Jennifer's Body may be more than the worst film ever made. I'm sure it's not a great movie (I haven't seen it), but not all too terrible. If not for instances like this, you'd never have any surprises when you find movies that are better than you thought they'd be.

[*Classic*Charm*]

The "We" you're speaking of is getting what they want.

the "We" that I'm talking about is me, and all that stand before me! it may sounds egocentric or whatever but I don't care, it's the way it is. who cares about most of the youth who wants to see shirtless vampires and listen to Hannah Montana, they all go along with the stream!
besides, as it turns out, they don't know any better

Please tell me you're not actually saying that yourself and only yourself as an individual should be deciding what is being produced and published. Sounds a touch totalitarian to me :rolleyes: Do you really think that if the film industry only started making films you like and books were only published of the type you enjoy, everyone would be happy?

All that stand before you are the GENERAL PUBLIC. Those who are buying the books and viewing the films! That first sentence is contradictory.


the fact that the public wants to see that, doesn't make it OK for film industries to be butchering the art of the movie.

and if we were all listening to the majority we would be nowhere now

I am aware what sells, but that doesn't stops me to rebel against it

You think that Twilight is the first evidence of film butchery?! It's been going on for years! The division between a blockbuster movie produced to distract and entertain the masses and a film crafted to be a piece of art was established so, so long ago. To say that there is only one category of "movie-making" is not fair, and if you're looking for art in your local 24-screen theatre, you're not likely going to find it there.

The fact that the public wants it makes it perfectly acceptable. Whether or not people choose to watch it is up to them and what they hope to achieve by going to see it. No one claimed that Twilight was the be-all and end-all of films.

I'm not telling you to stop rebelling against the majority, certainly not! I'm just saying that to say that this type of film doesn't have its purpose, and that ignoring what is desired by the majority will somehow be beneficial to society is naive (and I mean that with no offense whatsoever!). Of course we listen to the majority- that's what democracy is! And yes, that does apply to the film industry!

[rimbaud]

Even if it has been going on for years, that still doesn't make it OK

And I really don't care how it sounds, bad movies are just... BAD!

and it's not only my taste or only me that decides, but when we are just giving the majority what they want and not moving forward, not taking risks, everything goes down.

and that's the thing with this part of the pop culture! It's not like any good movies are being released, but most of them are released for people who don't even like movies, they don't! take a film appreciator, a true one, doesn't matter if his taste in movies is like mine, and make him sit through one of the twilight sequels, or any other like it for that matter

the thing is: they are playing it safe, they are making movies, music and write books for someone who just wants to waste time
is not only that they don't make any progress, but they are going backwards!

[DanielBenoit]

I suppose we all have are particularities on who or what we hate in Hollywood today. As for me, I really cannot stand Michael Bay or his films, every time I see a commercial for Transformers, it makes me want to puke.

[NickAdams]

I suppose we all have are particularities on who or what we hate in Hollywood today. As for me, I really cannot stand Michael Bay or his films, every time I see a commercial for Transformers, it makes me want to puke.

As long as I have access to the films that I enjoy, than they can have their vampires and Transfats. I can't stand Hollywood's use of cinéma vérité, and the constant use of camera pushes and rotations. :sick:

[Lokasenna]

Although vampires are popular at the moment, its just a passing phase. My concern is really about quality. Let the Right One In is an absolutely brilliant vampire film that came out around the same time as Twilight.

One is a powerful, deeply troubling, disturbing, emotional tale, examining the themes of violence, innocence, childhood, self-awareness and escapism. The other is a mindless piece of drivel aimed at 13 year old girls.

Having studied vampires academically, I know which is truer to the essential nature of the creature, and I know which one I found consequently more interesting.

Still, each to their own. If sparkly pretty-boy vampires are your thing, then who am I to argue?

[OrphanPip]

Although vampires are popular at the moment, its just a passing phase. My concern is really about quality. Let the Right One In is an absolutely brilliant vampire film that came out around the same time as Twilight.

One is a powerful, deeply troubling, disturbing, emotional tale, examining the themes of violence, innocence, childhood, self-awareness and escapism. The other is a mindless piece of drivel aimed at 13 year old girls.

Having studied vampires academically, I know which is truer to the essential nature of the creature, and I know which one I found consequently more interesting.

Still, each to their own. If sparkly pretty-boy vampires are your thing, then who am I to argue?

That was a great movie, but you can't expect many people to run off and see a Swedish vampire movie. There is only one theater in Montreal that plays independent and foreign films and it's become pretty much the only one I go to.

Anyway, the problem isn't the subject matter it's the quality, and I haven't seen any change in the quality of Hollywood films in the last decade.

[Eryk]

That was a great movie, but you can't expect many people to run off and see a Swedish vampire movie. There is only one theater in Montreal that plays independent and foreign films and it's become pretty much the only one I go to.

Anyway, the problem isn't the subject matter it's the quality, and I haven't seen any change in the quality of Hollywood films in the last decade.
iTunes has Let the Right One In (that's how I saw it). The only other vampire movie I really liked was the 1979 'Salem's Lot miniseries. It must be hard to make a good vampire movie because there is a long list of really bad ones like Coppola's Dracula movie and Lair of the White Worm. The Addiction was ambitious but mostly just pretentious.

[NickAdams]

That was a great movie, but you can't expect many people to run off and see a Swedish vampire movie. There is only one theater in Montreal that plays independent and foreign films and it's become pretty much the only one I go to.

Anyway, the problem isn't the subject matter it's the quality, and I haven't seen any change in the quality of Hollywood films in the last decade.

Don't worry: Hollywood is remaking it.:lol:

[Eryk]

Don't worry: Hollywood is remaking it.:lol:

Oh Gawd it's The Vanishing all over again :rolleyes:

[Lokasenna]

Don't worry: Hollywood is remaking it.:lol:

Shoot me now...

Why remake a film that is perfect in its own right? Have they not heard of subtitles?

[NickAdams]

Spielberg is directing and Will Smith is starring in another Old Boy adaptation. Hollywood is interested in profit; it's business. I'll stick with the originals. There are too many films out there and I'd rather not waste time watching rehashes.

I'll take Bergman's Virgin Springs over The Last House on the Left any day. I've heard the argument that compares film remakes to music covers, but I don't buy it.

[Mathor]

Even if it has been going on for years, that still doesn't make it OK

And I really don't care how it sounds, bad movies are just... BAD!

and it's not only my taste or only me that decides, but when we are just giving the majority what they want and not moving forward, not taking risks, everything goes down.

and that's the thing with this part of the pop culture! It's not like any good movies are being released, but most of them are released for people who don't even like movies, they don't! take a film appreciator, a true one, doesn't matter if his taste in movies is like mine, and make him sit through one of the twilight sequels, or any other like it for that matter

the thing is: they are playing it safe, they are making movies, music and write books for someone who just wants to waste time
is not only that they don't make any progress, but they are going backwards!

As many have pointed out, I do not think this has ever changed. Hitchcock was rarely appreciated in his day, and frequently very wishywashy musicals were the blockbusters of the past. Popular culture has not gotten worse, it's just stayed pretty much the same. Fact is, though, that blockbusters help the industry. As long as people are still going out and seeing movies in theaters, even if those movies are bad, it helps out the industry and allows for those companies to afford to take on the independent releases. The general public are always going to like crappy movies, this is never going to change.

[*Classic*Charm*]

Even if it has been going on for years, that still doesn't make it OK

And I really don't care how it sounds, bad movies are just... BAD!

Bad movies are only bad because there are good ones to compare them to. Do you see what I mean? The reason we are able to say something is good is because it is relatively better than something else. If we eliminate the bad films, appreciation for the good films diminishes, because the people who would have liked the bad ones now have no choice but to like the good ones. It goes the other way as well: if there were no "Good" movies, you would probably like the "Bad" ones because you are drawn to this type of media but would not know any better because better doesn't exist. Sorry, that all sounds confusing. I hope you get what I mean.


and it's not only my taste or only me that decides, but when we are just giving the majority what they want and not moving forward, not taking risks, everything goes down.

Filmmakers out there are taking risks, and the artistic value of their work is increased by the fact that blockbuster films like Twilight are out there. The only way filmmaking can move forward is if there is something from which to do so. If someone wanted to make a really good Vampire film, now would be the best time. It would likely get more exposure than if it were released a couple years ago.


and that's the thing with this part of the pop culture! It's not like any good movies are being released, but most of them are released for people who don't even like movies, they don't! take a film appreciator, a true one, doesn't matter if his taste in movies is like mine, and make him sit through one of the twilight sequels, or any other like it for that matter

the thing is: they are playing it safe, they are making movies, music and write books for someone who just wants to waste time
is not only that they don't make any progress, but they are going backwards!

What exactly is a "true film appreciator"? That depends one what aspect of filmmaking one appreciates. If you're speaking of someone who goes to a movie in the hopes of being purely entertained and distracted for a couple hours, then Twilight serves its purpose. That person is still an equally viable appreciator of film. If you're speaking of someone who is looking for an insightful script, subtle acting, creative camerawork and cinematography, a score to blow your mind, etc., then yes, perhaps they won't be overly impressed with Twilight. But I think someone with that much insight will be able to find something good about it. I think that makes a true film appreciator- someone who can evaluate a film based on its intended purpose and audience and find its merit within those parameters.

Just because something is safe doesn't make it bad. It serves its purpose. If it doesn't serve yours, find something that does.

For example, I don't like Country music. The majority of it, that is. To me, country music is safe and boring and irritating. It never changes, it never progresses, it never takes on new subject matter or explores new musical structures, and thus, it does not appeal to me, much the same as Twilight does not appeal to you, I'm assuming. It's extremely popular, but you could say I think it's bad. But the reason I don't go saying that Country music shouldn't be made anymore is because I understand that Country music serves a purpose. It entertains a lot of people with a particular taste, and it would be wrong of me to demand that for Country to have any musical merit, it should examine a new subject and start playing in an obscure time signature because that's just not what Country music does, or has ever been intended to do. That is not its identity or its purpose, but it does have those, and it lives up to them in its own right. It's the same with film.

p.s. Just in case you're wondering, I'm very well-aware that Twilight is a poorly-written novel, and an un-creatively-made film. I seek out more stimulating film and literature, but I still find Twilight entertaining in its own way. And just for fun, in summary of all my random analogies, I welcome back the resurgence of 80's fashion, though I'll never be caught dead in leggings, and I want to vomit whenever I hear country music :D:D

[DanielBenoit]

I'll take Bergman's Virgin Springs over The Last House on the Left any day. I've heard the argument that compares film remakes to music covers, but I don't buy it.

You know, I just saw that the other night. I wonder what Bergman thought of his religous masterpiece being turned into a slasher film. I watched it, and I just couldn't find any way how this great and emotionally subtle film could inspire three remakes, all of them gory slasher pictures. I think they missed the point of Bergman's film, or they walked out on the last scene.

[rimbaud]

What exactly is a "true film appreciator"? That depends one what aspect of filmmaking one appreciates. If you're speaking of someone who goes to a movie in the hopes of being purely entertained and distracted for a couple hours, then Twilight serves its purpose. That person is still an equally viable appreciator of film.

No, he's not! You can be distracted and be entertained by good movies too.
I am aware of the whole bad is here so we can recognize good. still that doesn't mean that we should do nothing to prevent bad.
this god off topic
and a true film can prefer a type of movie, but appreciate all well made, kick a!! movies there are.

and there is a problem with making lame remakes of an already good movies, sometimes because people just have problem with black and white or the computer work or the language, god forbids the "appreciators" should read subtitles, or this one is one of the worst - MAKING A MOVIE AFTER A VIDEO GAME! (hitman) also making worst sequels.

I understand your point and I do respect your opinion.
but we just have to agree to disagree :)

and I'm not saying that everyone should watch good movies, or be passionate about movies, I'm just saying that they shouldn't watch bad ones, like I said, it's making our generation dumber!

[Mathor]

What exactly is a "true film appreciator"? That depends one what aspect of filmmaking one appreciates. If you're speaking of someone who goes to a movie in the hopes of being purely entertained and distracted for a couple hours, then Twilight serves its purpose. That person is still an equally viable appreciator of film.

No, he's not! You can be distracted and be entertained by good movies too.
I am aware of the whole bad is here so we can recognize good. still that doesn't mean that we should do nothing to prevent bad.
this god off topic
and a true film can prefer a type of movie, but appreciate all well made, kick a!! movies there are.

and there is a problem with making lame remakes of an already good movies, sometimes because people just have problem with black and white or the computer work or the language, god forbids the "appreciators" should read subtitles, or this one is one of the worst - MAKING A MOVIE AFTER A VIDEO GAME! (hitman) also making worst sequels.

I understand your point and I do respect your opinion.
but we just have to agree to disagree :)

and I'm not saying that everyone should watch good movies, or be passionate about movies, I'm just saying that they shouldn't watch bad ones, like I said, it's making our generation dumber!

good and bad is completely subjective. I know a LOT about film, and I am a major film buff. Most people say that I have pretty good taste in film. But to insinuate that an entire area of filmmaking is superior to another is close-minded. If you act so selectively you miss out on a lot of films that might have taken you by surprise. There are a lot of gems in comedy, teen romance, etc etc that you might be missing out on.

And on the concept of remakes, that seems rather silly to conclude that remakes are inherently bad. Every single one of Alfred Hitchcock's movies was either adapted from a play, a book, or an older movie. Adaptation is the life blood of good filmmaking.

In the 90's there was a remake of "Psycho". It was terrible, but the only reason it was terrible is that the filmmaker chose to emulate every one of Hitchcock's shots in the original film. The purpose of a remake is to expand on the original idea of a film, to add something new. A purely perfect film cannot be made again the same way, but if it is completely re-invented, there is still room for genius.

[*Classic*Charm*]

and there is a problem with making lame remakes of an already good movie!

Agreed. Except that time Hitchcock re-made his own film...that was acceptable ;)

[DanielBenoit]

Here's my take on remakes (and adaptions for that matter), I think I already said this in another thread, but I'll say it here. Like Mathor said, the best remakes are the ones that go in a different direction than the original, so that it can then stand on its own as a film, as oppose to just some sort of mediocre imitation.

That said, I do not think that Hollywood must remake every single film that has ever existed. I find it rather appaulling that they're planning to remake Let the Right One In so soon, I mean, it just came out last year! What they're really doing is not remaking a perfectly fine film, but they're in a sense translating it, because of the sad fact that most American audiences run when they see a film from a different country and with subtitles. Come on guys, you can read!

[qimissung]

I haven't seen Let the Right One In yet, but want to very much. Can't say I'm to surprised to find out that Hollywood is remaking it. Sigh. They did that with Mostly Martha also.

[rimbaud]

good and bad is completely subjective. I know a LOT about film, and I am a major film buff. Most people say that I have pretty good taste in film. But to insinuate that an entire area of filmmaking is superior to another is close-minded. If you act so selectively you miss out on a lot of films that might have taken you by surprise. There are a lot of gems in comedy, teen romance, etc etc that you might be missing out on.

And on the concept of remakes, that seems rather silly to conclude that remakes are inherently bad. Every single one of Alfred Hitchcock's movies was either adapted from a play, a book, or an older movie. Adaptation is the life blood of good filmmaking.

In the 90's there was a remake of "Psycho". It was terrible, but the only reason it was terrible is that the filmmaker chose to emulate every one of Hitchcock's shots in the original film. The purpose of a remake is to expand on the original idea of a film, to add something new. A purely perfect film cannot be made again the same way, but if it is completely re-invented, there is still room for genius.


if you have not been reading, I'm not saying that there aren't any good comedies (meet the parents, the first one, the whole nine yards and the whole ten yards, naked gun, and many more...) or teen movies (10 things I hate about you, don't know if I can put Dead Poet's society, but still, you get my point)

As for the remakes, if these "geniuses" have something new to say, than make a good new movie. But ruining a perfectly awesome movie WRONG!

[DanielBenoit]

I haven't seen Let the Right One In yet, but want to very much. Can't say I'm to surprised to find out that Hollywood is remaking it. Sigh. They did that with Mostly Martha also.

Yeah it really is shameless. But. . .there are exceptions, that is, Scorsese's The Departed, which was a remake of the Hong Kong film Infernal Affairs. But Scorsese's picture is a work of art on its own and isn't some commercial Americanization of a foriegn film. I'm sure Scorsese would just as ready leave the original version the way it is if he didn't see something in which he can produce his own artistic merit in it.



As for the remakes, if these "geniuses" have something new to say, than make a good new movie. But ruining a perfectly awesome movie WRONG!

But the problem is rimbaud, is that all stories are in a sense "remakes", and it's been that way at least since the Greeks. Virgil's The Aenied (correct me if I'm wrong) was virtually a continuation of Homer's The Illiad, almost all of Shakespeare's work are "remakes" of older Greek tragedies and comedies, funnily enough, today almost all stories are based on Shakespeare now, in one form or another.

Don't forget either, that Tarantino's Resevoir Dogs was his own take on Kubrick's The Killing.

[Mathor]

Don't forget either, that Tarantino's Resevoir Dogs was his own take on Kubrick's The Killing.

Yeah, and Kill Bill was Tarantino trying to make a sort of modern day The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

[soundofmusic]

Yes, I am SoM, and I, am a vampire movie lover:ladysman:
Like alcoholism, a person never recovers from vampire love:

Dark Shadows: It was made when I was 10, it came out again when I had
a child that was 10, and it is now out on DVD.

Interview with a Vampire: Can anybody say they hated Tom Cruise (then
people... before he went on Oprah), Brad Pitt, Antonio Banderas,
and later, Aaliya...

Twilight: well, just look folks, there is something for everyone...and it was
written by a Mormon, you've got to love that...:angel:

[NickAdams]

Fact is, though, that blockbusters help the industry. As long as people are still going out and seeing movies in theaters, even if those movies are bad, it helps out the industry and allows for those companies to afford to take on the independent releases. The general public are always going to like crappy movies, this is never going to change.
:nod:




You know, I just saw that the other night. I wonder what Bergman thought of his religous masterpiece being turned into a slasher film. I watched it, and I just couldn't find any way how this great and emotionally subtle film could inspire three remakes, all of them gory slasher pictures. I think they missed the point of Bergman's film, or they walked out on the last scene.

I can always find at least one virtue in a film that I generally dislike; the virtue is usually more useful to me as a filmmaker. What I liked about The Last House on the Left was that when the girls were taken into the woods they were so close to Mari's house. Leading up to the car malfunction, I thought the two girls were just victims for the movies opener (I knew nothing about the film going into it) and they were doomed - end of story. But, and I'm aware how completely contrived it is, them being so close to Mari's home had me on the edge of my seat with hope. Usually the victim in a film is trying to get to a phone, the sheriff (there are a lot of rural, or suburban horror films), a populated area (all of which is not guaranteed safety, because the villain is somehow connected), but parents give the sense of a definite shelter from harm, at least it does in this film.




good and bad is completely subjective. I know a LOT about film, and I am a major film buff. Most people say that I have pretty good taste in film. But to insinuate that an entire area of filmmaking is superior to another is close-minded. If you act so selectively you miss out on a lot of films that might have taken you by surprise. There are a lot of gems in comedy, teen romance, etc etc that you might be missing out on.

And on the concept of remakes, that seems rather silly to conclude that remakes are inherently bad. Every single one of Alfred Hitchcock's movies was either adapted from a play, a book, or an older movie. Adaptation is the life blood of good filmmaking.

In the 90's there was a remake of "Psycho". It was terrible, but the only reason it was terrible is that the filmmaker chose to emulate every one of Hitchcock's shots in the original film. The purpose of a remake is to expand on the original idea of a film, to add something new. A purely perfect film cannot be made again the same way, but if it is completely re-invented, there is still room for genius.

I guess there is more to like when the new film expands on the original instead of exploiting it. A lot of remakes loose the originals plausibility by either giving it a modern context or changing the setting, especially horror. I can believe Michael Myers may have been able to run around in the 70's, but not in this decade. Even the J-Horror remakes, or especially those. Japanese and American culture are very different and so is how the authorities operate. They change setting and characters, but never consider cultural differences.


Yeah it really is shameless. But. . .there are exceptions, that is, Scorsese's The Departed, which was a remake of the Hong Kong film Infernal Affairs. But Scorsese's picture is a work of art on its own and isn't some commercial Americanization of a foriegn film. I'm sure Scorsese would just as ready leave the original version the way it is if he didn't see something in which he can produce his own artistic merit in it.

When I said I found excessive use of camera pushes and rotations obnoxious, I was thinking of The Departed:lol:.


Yeah, and Kill Bill was Tarantino trying to make a sort of modern day The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

Or Lady Snowblood.

[rimbaud]

Don't forget either, that Tarantino's Resevoir Dogs was his own take on Kubrick's The Killing.


Yeah, and Kill Bill was Tarantino trying to make a sort of modern day The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly


I might have put it wrong, but I'm talking about BAD remakes, about those "geniuses".

not about the Departed or Reservoir dogs or whatever
I'm talking about the bad productions, bad remakes of an excellent movies.

Like Daniel said, the best remakes are the ones that go in a different direction than the original, so that it can then stand on its own as a film, as oppose to just some sort of mediocre imitation.

and not making remakes just because the original is old, black and white, or is in another language

[NickAdams]

and not making remakes just because the original is old, black and white, or is in another language

I agree. Woody Allen and Marty made black and white films in the 80's to protest against the colorization of black and white classics. Beyond subtitles, don't the still dub movies. I really don't see the need to remake a movie that came out last year, because it's not in english.

[DanielBenoit]

When I said I found excessive use of camera pushes and rotations obnoxious, I was thinking of The Departed:lol:.


Lol, that's funny. I can see what you're saying in the case of any other director, because rotations and pushes can easily get obnoxious. But in the case of Scorsese, I find the fact that in almost all of his films his camera is in a constant state of movement to be one of his best qualities, it adds a sense of depth and urgency to his characters.

[NickAdams]

Lol, that's funny. I can see what you're saying in the case of any other director, because rotations and pushes can easily get obnoxious. But in the case of Scorsese, I find the fact that in almost all of his films his camera is in a constant state of movement to be one of his best qualities, it adds a sense of depth and urgency to his characters.

It never bothered me in his other films ... you know what it is: the combo platter. There is a sequence in the departed where the edit goes from rotate to push, rotate to push. It might be because television directors have exploited his signature.

I don't think I truly got into a Scorsese film after The King of Comedy, which I think is very underrated. I like his work in the 90's, but I love his stuff from the 80's and 70's.

[DanielBenoit]

Just learned that the first film I'll be reviewing as a critic, the French thriller Tell No One is going to be remade, and is already in the pre-production process. Stop making Americanized remakes Hollywood! I'm sure American audiences can be open-minded enough to search out a foriegn film on their own if you'd just let them!

[rimbaud]

Just learned that the first film I'll be reviewing as a critic, the French thriller Tell No One is going to be remade, and is already in the pre-production process. Stop making Americanized remakes Hollywood! I'm sure American audiences can be open-minded enough to search out a foriegn film on their own if you'd just let them!

my point exactly!

[NickAdams]

I think I prefer remakes over the reboot trend that's happening in Hollywood.


my point exactly!

:lol:

[manolia]

And more importantly: stop making Vampire movies! there is something as too much.


Not sure if this has been said before (too lazy to read all the posts :p) but i strongly recommend this film

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1139797/

Watched it last night at the theater and i liked it very much :nod:
(ok it's not your typical vampire film..but still there's a vampire in it)

[Maximilianus]

Not sure if this has been said before (too lazy to read all the posts :p) but i strongly recommend this film

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1139797/

Watched it last night at the theater and i liked it very much :nod:
(ok it's not your typical vampire film..but still there's a vampire in it)

I can't remember to have ever seen a Swedish movie, let alone about vampires. It must be surely different, I figure.

[DanielBenoit]

I can't remember to have ever seen a Swedish movie

Well that's something we are going to have to fix. I'm going to give you a name, just one name: Ingmar Bergman.

Through a Glass Darkly
Winter Light
The Seventh Seal
Wild Strawberries
Persona
Cries and Whispers

There you are, now GO to your local video rental store and SEE them. ;)


Anyway, the King of all vampire movies is Nosferatu. Nobody has made a better vampire, not even Bela Lugosi, than Max Schreck.

http://www.buzzbishop.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/nosferatu.jpg

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Everyone%20Else/images/Nosferatu-Shadow.jpg

Probably the greatest example of German Expressinism.

[NickAdams]

I can't remember to have ever seen a Swedish movie, let alone about vampires. It must be surely different, I figure.


Well that's something we are going to have to fix. I'm going to give you a name, just one name: Ingmar Bergman.

Through a Glass Darkly
Winter Light
The Seventh Seal
Wild Strawberries
Persona
Cries and Whispers

There you are, now GO to your local video rental store and SEE them. ;)


You can watch at least four of those films on youtube. I just found Hour of the Wolf on youtube and I'm going to watch it tonight. They're all great; I would go with Through a Glass Darkly, Winter Light or The Seventh Seal, but only because I favor Gunnar Björnstrand over the other Bergman regulars ... I never hung a poster on my wall as a teen, but if I had seen Persona in my youth, there would have been a poster of Bibi Andersson on my wall.:nod:

[manolia]

I can't remember to have ever seen a Swedish movie, let alone about vampires. It must be surely different, I figure.

I second Daniel's recommendations Max! You should watch some sweedish cinema :nod:

[optimisticnad]

I'm totally with u, it's annoying and it SEEMS like generations are getting dumber - but they're not, we just have higher expectations now. Also, I think when you get to our age you forget what it's like being young. I remember drooling over Dicaprio when I was 12 and having all his goodies so I can't frown on teenage girls and this whole Pattinson thing. They're young. Pretty soon they'll by cynical and miserable (!) like us and all the beauty and colour they see in things will be gone. Let em be!

[Dinkleberry2010]

Like them or not, vampires are here to stay. They've been around in print for almost two hundred years, and on film for almost a hundred.

[Maximilianus]

Well that's something we are going to have to fix. I'm going to give you a name, just one name: Ingmar Bergman.

Through a Glass Darkly
Winter Light
The Seventh Seal
Wild Strawberries
Persona
Cries and Whispers

There you are, now GO to your local video rental store and SEE them. ;)
By your command, sir! :D



You can watch at least four of those films on youtube. I just found Hour of the Wolf on youtube and I'm going to watch it tonight. They're all great; I would go with Through a Glass Darkly, Winter Light or The Seventh Seal, but only because I favor Gunnar Björnstrand over the other Bergman regulars ... I never hung a poster on my wall as a teen, but if I had seen Persona in my youth, there would have been a poster of Bibi Andersson on my wall.:nod:


I second Daniel's recommendations Max! You should watch some sweedish cinema :nod:
Wow, so many eager recommendations will put me to work! ;)


I'm totally with u, it's annoying and it SEEMS like generations are getting dumber - but they're not, we just have higher expectations now. Also, I think when you get to our age you forget what it's like being young. I remember drooling over Dicaprio when I was 12 and having all his goodies so I can't frown on teenage girls and this whole Pattinson thing. They're young. Pretty soon they'll by cynical and miserable (!) like us and all the beauty and colour they see in things will be gone. Let em be!

That's true. When I was a teenager I was drooling over whatever, and now I perceive all that "whatever" without any beauty or colour at all. I figure I have finally made my way through the cynicism and misery of adulthood :D

[DanielBenoit]

I'm totally with u, it's annoying and it SEEMS like generations are getting dumber - but they're not, we just have higher expectations now. Also, I think when you get to our age you forget what it's like being young. I remember drooling over Dicaprio when I was 12 and having all his goodies so I can't frown on teenage girls and this whole Pattinson thing. They're young. Pretty soon they'll by cynical and miserable (!) like us and all the beauty and colour they see in things will be gone. Let em be!

Yeah, I suppose their joyus optimism seems a bit naive for those of us who are old (only speaking for myself of course ;) :lol: ).

And you know, when you mentioned "higher expectations" it brought something back up to me, because this has been on my mind for a while: The reason why so many of the classic old films, as well as the New Hollywood ones of the 60's and 70's seem so superior to the ones made today because each generation (take the Baby Boomers) which had grown up watching Bonnie and Clyde, 2001: A Space Odyssey and To Kill a Mockingbird look upon the films of today with much less admiration due to their nostaliga. The truth is; nostaliga is doomed to prevent any appretiation of the present. In time, The Lord of the Rings will be regarded as a popular classic epic, just as Star Wars, Lawrence of Arabia or Metropolis. City of God will be remembered as a great crime film, just as Charlize Theoren's performance in Monster will be regarded as legendary. It's just so hard to judge now because today's films haven't been given their time. Let Twilight be popular and then forgotten.

[Maximilianus]

^ - What an interesting analysis Dan! I'm very much of the same opinion. If such opinion is true, then my nostalgia must be near to nothingness, because I really love and appreciate most of what today's being done. In fact, I can't quite conceive a life worth living without my modern movie industry :D

[JuniperWoolf]

I don't think that people are getting dumber, there's always been some pretty silly stuff out there. My mom used to like Milli Vanilli.

I don't get why people are so into vampires. I like werewolves myself, why aren't they more popular? Tearing stuff up, losing control, I love it. If you've ever read that Swamp Thing with the housewife who turns into a werewolf, you'll get why I'm so into them. They're very female.