have I posted about this before? perhaps, am not sure.

well, it's never too late to say it- this is a damn fine film.

it's a swedish vampire film set in the early eighties, and it is fantastic... easily in my top 10 horror films.

see it before the americans adapt it (cloverfield director attached).

have I posted about this before? perhaps, am not sure.

well, it's never too late to say it- this is a damn fine film.

it's a swedish vampire film set in the early eighties, and it is fantastic... easily in my top 10 horror films.

see it before the americans adapt it (cloverfield director attached).

by adapt do you mean ruin?

not necessarily.

but yes.

I don't quite see how the adaptation could ruin the original, but I can see how they can make a crappy version of it.

I don't quite see how the adaptation could ruin the original, but I can see how they can make a crappy version of it.

I love you, Maksimov - you're every bit as pedantic as I am! :)

have I posted about this before? perhaps, am not sure.

well, it's never too late to say it- this is a damn fine film.

it's a swedish vampire film set in the early eighties, and it is fantastic... easily in my top 10 horror films.

see it before the americans adapt it (cloverfield director attached).

JJ Abrams?

I was looking at watching that on the plane home from America, but I never got round to it. Regret it now, sadly.

I love you, Maksimov - you're every bit as pedantic as I am! :D

Yeah, I'm very pedantic about certain things and sometimes I just can't help myself... :lol:

But seriously...I really don't understand why people get so humpty about book adaptations and re-makes. If they suck, they suck. You've still got the book or the original film to enjoy, don't you? And when it comes to book adaptations, people quite often seem to have a problem understanding that you simply can't make a 100% faithful adaptation of a book simply because each reader creates their own version of the book in their mind as they read it and it all depends on how each person imagines the things they read. Usually the books simply have too much material for a normal length movie and some things that work well in written form, don't necessarily transmit well into good cinema. I always try to judge the movie on its own merits. If it's a good movie, it's a good movie, despite what the source material is. It's easier to compare re-makes of movies, but I'm usually most disappointed when the re-make is too similiar to the original. I mean, what's the point? Wouldn't you want to say or show something new from a new point of view?

I don't quite see how the adaptation could ruin the original, but I can see how they can make a crappy version of it.

ok, maybe ruin it is the wrong word but they can certainly remake a film thats utter sh*te compared to the original. its happened with loads of korean and japanese shock films.

have I posted about this before? perhaps, am not sure.

well, it's never too late to say it- this is a damn fine film.

it's a swedish vampire film set in the early eighties, and it is fantastic... easily in my top 10 horror films.

see it before the americans adapt it (cloverfield director attached).

I agree that it's a damn fine film. I usually don't like swedish films but this one I really liked. Original and well made. Nice to see that a movie can be about vampires and you can still have a good plot, good actors and not enough blood to fill an ocean.

I'm a bit worried about the remake. I just can't see how the americans can create the same feeling that the swedish version had. And JJ Abrams as director kinda scares me. I mean I do like his movies, but Let the right one in isn't a Star Trek or a Cloverfield.

Can Abrams make a slow and quite movie?

Too bad Hitchcock isn't alive because I wouldn't have mind if he made the remake.

ok, maybe ruin it is the wrong word but they can certainly remake a film thats utter sh*te compared to the original. its happened with loads of korean and japanese shock films.

Sure they can, but the original is still there for everyone to enjoy. A lot of these re-makes get people to watch the original as well(many of those would never have known about the original if it wasn't for the re-make) and that can't be a bad thing.

Usually it's best to stay away from the re-make if the original was a good movie. Most good re-makes are re-makes from bad movies. If you think you can't improve or put an interesting spin on the original idea, I don't see any point in doing the re-make. Haneke's own American re-make is probably the most pointless re-make that I know of. I have to admit I've only seen the original, but idea of a director of making an American re-make of his own movie just because Americans did not understand and/or appreciate the original just doesn't sound like a very good reason to do a movie. Gus van Sant's Psycho is pretty pointless as well. I mean, if you're doing a pretty much shot-for-shot re-make of the original it sounds more like an expensive film school exercise rather than a good film release.

JJ Abrams?

I was looking at watching that on the plane home from America, but I never got round to it. Regret it now, sadly.

no, he produced-like george lucas the empire strikes back, people often don't realise that they didn't actually direct the films.

Sure they can, but the original is still there for everyone to enjoy. A lot of these re-makes get people to watch the original as well(many of those would never have known about the original if it wasn't for the re-make) and that can't be a bad thing.

Usually it's best to stay away from the re-make if the original was a good movie. Most good re-makes are re-makes from bad movies. If you think you can't improve or put an interesting spin on the original idea, I don't see any point in doing the re-make. Haneke's own American re-make is probably the most pointless re-make that I know of. I have to admit I've only seen the original, but idea of a director of making an American re-make of his own movie just because Americans did not understand and/or appreciate the original just doesn't sound like a very good reason to do a movie. Gus van Sant's Psycho is pretty pointless as well. I mean, if you're doing a pretty much shot-for-shot re-make of the original it sounds more like an expensive film school exercise rather than a good film release.

i understand your point, and it is a bit stupid to get upset about it. but i do. one of my favourite films of all time is get carter. they remade it with sylvester stallone in the lead role and it was possibly the worst film ive ever seen. and it did piss me off that some people will never see the original and will forever think get carter was sh*t.

i understand your point, and it is a bit stupid to get upset about it. but i do. one of my favourite films of all time is get carter. they remade it with sylvester stallone in the lead role and it was possibly the worst film ive ever seen. and it did piss me off that some people will never see the original and will forever think get carter was sh*t.

I haven't seen the re-make and I've heard so much bad things about it so I'm in no hurry to see it. There's so much interesting stuff I'd rather see.

Is Stallone the reason it sucks or have they changed in other ways as well? Surely the style is different at least.

I wonder whether it is just normal always to prefer the version you saw first? (Though I can't imagine why anyone would try to improve upon Michael Caine's Carter!)

At the moment I am watching (with one eye) a 2008 TV made version of The 39 Steps. I have also see the 1978 version with Robert Powell (aka Jesus) as Richard Hannay, the 1959 version with Kenneth More and the black and white 1935 version with Robert Donat directed by Alfred Hitchcock. In my opinion the 1935 version is vastly superior to all others.

Similarily with the Titanic

My favourite Titanic is the 1953 version with Clifton Webb, Robert Wagner and Barbara Stanwyck. Then there was A Night To Remember with Kenneth More in 1959 and the hugely over-rated Titanic with Leonardo di Caprio and Kate Winslet in 1997. Each successive version got more hammy and emotionally manipulative.

However ..to return to my initial point .. it may just be that I end up preferring the film I saw first. And I have no intention EVER of watching Stallone play Carter!

Edited August 26, 200916 yr by moi

I wonder whether it is just normal always to prefer the version you saw first?

I think it's to be expected, especially if you liked the the one that you saw first. Although I have to say that I saw the Coen Brothers' remake of Ladykillers before I saw the original and I liked the original more. The re-make was absolutely horrible. Then again, I've never liked Tom Hanks.

I haven't seen the re-make and I've heard so much bad things about it so I'm in no hurry to see it. There's so much interesting stuff I'd rather see.

Is Stallone the reason it sucks or have they changed in other ways as well? Surely the style is different at least.

its everything. the acting, the setting, the way they try to "update" the story. i hate everyone involved in the making of that utter tripe.

the new get carter has to be seen my everyone who saw the original. it's magnificently bad.

remakes or reimaginings aren't always a bad thing though.

the newer scarface compares well with the original, and so many german (and other european) films were remade in the early hollywood era, plus essentially the same stories are often retold even if it would be a stretch to call them remakes.

vanilla sky- there's a bad remake.

Recently saw "Mutiny on the bounty" with Marlon Brando. I haven't seen the original version but I doubt it can be much better than the "new" one.

One remake I can't understand why they made is "Psycho". Perhaps van Sant wanted to pay tribute to a great movie, but making a bad remake surely isn't the right way to go?

Anyone seen the original "Oceans Eleven"? I have only seen the new version but I've heard that it's a good remake.

Then we have the asian-horror-turned-american-movies. I've seen both Ringu/The Ring and Ju-on/The Grudge and both remakes sucked. Not that the original versions were brilliant, but they were loads better than the american version.

I'm currently a bit curious about "Quarantine". I've seen the original ("Rec") and I thought that one was really good. I doubt Quarantine will be anywhere near as good.

I haven't seen the original Oceans Eleven either, but many have said that it's better than the original. I remember reading that it was just something for the rat-pack to do while nursing hangovers. They partied during the night and did the movie by day. Not sure if it's true, though.

I've yet to see Departed, but I've seen Infernal Affairs(the original) and it was ok. Anyone seen them both? How do they compare?

I've only seen Abre los Ojos, but I'd like to see Vanilla Sky as well, although I've heard some bad things about it. I thought Abre los Ojos was ok, but nothing brilliant. I've heard they've used loads of pop-culture references in Vanilla Sky, but I'm not sure if there are other differences as well.

I'm not sure if it counts as a re-make, but I've heard Reservoir Dogs heavily borrows from a movie called City on Fire. I'm not sure if it's a re-make of it, though.

I haven't seen the original Oceans Eleven either, but many have said that it's better than the original. I remember reading that it was just something for the rat-pack to do while nursing hangovers. They partied during the night and did the movie by day. Not sure if it's true, though.

I've yet to see Departed, but I've seen Infernal Affairs(the original) and it was ok. Anyone seen them both? How do they compare?

I've only seen Abre los Ojos, but I'd like to see Vanilla Sky as well, although I've heard some bad things about it. I thought Abre los Ojos was ok, but nothing brilliant. I've heard they've used loads of pop-culture references in Vanilla Sky, but I'm not sure if there are other differences as well.

I'm not sure if it counts as a re-make, but I've heard Reservoir Dogs heavily borrows from a movie called City on Fire. I'm not sure if it's a re-make of it, though.

most prefer infernal affairs. I think I prefer the departed, possibly because the role jack nicholson plays really helps make the film, and in infernal affairs the character does a lot less. but it's good- and it's a decent trilogy too.

Edited September 3, 200916 yr by gullit4

Just responding to the first post I don't know if this could be quite described as horror although there are elements in there but this is definitely one of my most favourite flicks ever.

you're right- it's not really a horror film.

but it goes in my list because there aren't many that I like.

anyone got to see dead snow yet? looks like a horror in a similar mould to the evil dead films.

anyone got to see dead snow yet? looks like a horror in a similar mould to the evil dead films.

I've seen it and I quite enjoyed it. It's a norwegian Evil Dead with lots of snow.

Pre-pubescent girl Vamp on Norwegian housing Estate

Sub plot: Above person avenges bullying of 12 year old boy (who looks like a young David Mc Callum)

Both walk off into the sunset - The End

That's about it