 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Been reading nothing but positive reviews myself, but I guess it depends on which sites you follow (Bloody-Disgusting for example).
I think Variety panned it, but they also seemed to like the earlier version, which I thought was a near-total botch (apart from the ever-delightful Fred Gwynne).
|
|
|
|
|
|
I bet that'll be the trend (between fans of the original and all). Oh well, I guess you can do worse than that thing as far as King adaptations. Not to mention ANYTHING'S better than Pet Sematary Two.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Apr 2, 2019 - 10:19 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Mr. Jack
(Member)
|
85% at Rotten Tomatoes is a VERY encouraging sign for any horror movie, let alone a remake.
And the 1989 film suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucks. Re-visited it last week on Amazon Prime, and was crestfallen at how weak it was compared to my memories of watching it on VHS as a teen. Even then, I found it a poor substitute for the novel, but I still thought it had a few good jolts. Now, even those graphic shocks seem horribly tame, and only Fred Gwynne's impeccable performance stands out, ayuh.
Even if this new version takes more liberties with the book than the original film did, I'm totally fine with that, so long as the book's tone of mournful inevitability remains intact, instead of the tacky 80s schlock of the Lambert film (replete with RAMONES ROCK SONG at the end). I think people who look back fondly on the 1989 film had to have been very young and impressionable when it was first released, because it's awkward, badly-acted (except for Gwynne), flatly-shot, and more disgusting than disturbing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I reeeeaallly hope this movie doesn't offer some hip new cover of that song.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Always prepare for the worst! 
Though who knows, could easily be better than the original song.
Just surprised there's been nothing as far as cover art being revealed, track listing, sound samples, etc. But I guess Young's not that active on social media, so he's not really into hyping up this sort of thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think people who look back fondly on the 1989 film had to have been very young and impressionable when it was first released, because it's awkward, badly-acted (except for Gwynne), flatly-shot, and more disgusting than disturbing.
I still believe (as I've said incessantly) that it's a truly brilliant premise for a horror novel/film that King didn't quite pull off and Lambert definitely didn't, but the idea is strong enough that it could certainly have an impact on a youthful viewer despite the film's (to say the least) flaws.
What the 7-year-old girl I spotted at a recent Us screening thought of THAT film I can only imagine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I saw Creepshow when I was three years old, and look how I turned out! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think it is one of King´s best novels. The Lambert adaptation did not work for me because it lacked the strong emotional connection to the family and concentrated on the shock/gore elements.
From the reviews and the trailers I suspect that this new film actually makes that connection much more intensive, so I am looking forward to it a lot.
But I still really love Goldenthal´s score which, despite its similarities to Schifrin´s "The Amityville Horror" is its own beast: beautiful, sad and haunting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm surprised Goldenthal sued Bates over TITUS/300 in the first place.
It's a thing (follow the temp-track) that's happened in Hollywood for years and, as Goldenthal did the very same thing on PET SEMATARY with the AMITYVILLE crib, Lalo could just as easily have been that way inclined and sued the 'just starting out' Goldenthal in the same way.
People in glass houses...
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm surprised Goldenthal sued Bates over TITUS/300 in the first place.
It's a thing (follow the temp-track) that's happened in Hollywood for years and, as Goldenthal did the very same thing on PET SEMATARY with the AMITYVILLE crib, Lalo could just as easily have been that way inclined and sued the 'just starting out' Goldenthal in the same way.
People in glass houses...
I think it's that Bates did such an amateur job with it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
I hope he (and whoever those guys are he "gets ideas from") pull out some new tricks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ha, called it. New cover of the song. Oh well!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I appreciate the really long tracks, as expected from C. Young. The shortest cue of the bunch is 3 minutes! He's always good at arranging it that way, long cues so the music can breathe and build its atmosphere.
I wouldn't bother listening to samples. I'd rather my first impression be the full cues rather than random choices of 30-second bits before awkwardly cutting off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
63 minutes of Young music, folks! I'm sure there will be violent protests to the song at the end, but I don't mind. If the song's that bad, I'll just replace it with a good ol' Alice Cooper or AC/DC song or something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mar 17, 2019 - 9:27 PM Edit Post Report Abuse Reply to Post
By: Kev McGann (Member)
I hope they don't get some whiny croaky voiced girl singer in to do a sad fuck piano version of the Ramones song from the original film.
---------------------------
Posted: Apr 5, 2019 - 10:01 AM Report Abuse Reply to Post
By: danbeck (Member)
Álbum released at iTunes... and it includes a cover slower version of the Ramones song at the end.
------------------------
Ghaaaaaahhhhhhhh!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
