Dark Water

Fysh

Just watched and enjoyed the original a couple of days ago, went rooting around on the web afterwards, and discovered to my dismay that it has been remade for release sometime this year by some american studio.

Why is it that Hollywood is so keen to remake japanese horror films (while trying to stick in loud noise/flashing light "jumpy bits" which they seem to equate with horror), but will not put money behind original horror that tries to utilise similar ideas? I mean, the japanese horrors that have made big money are mostly ghost stories with vicious ghosts (

Ring = haunted videotape; dark water = haunted house; ju on : the grudge = haunted house; the eye = haunted body part

). And yet the best original horror-type film I can think of in recent times was Saw, which should have had some competent script editing before being filmed (I still maintain it could have been a very good film with minor changes and perhaps one re-casting). Or the Texas Chainsaw remake (*shudder*) or Wrong Turn (which was essentially the same thing again, only even less competently done).

Is it just me, or is the only innovation in american horror a direct result of copying the success of the japanese horror market? And, in light of the genre-spanning favour for remakes at the moment, are there any upcoming films which might, if succesful, change the trend?

TCamen

Remakes have always been a thing of Hollywood, particularly of late, and particularly with Asian horrors.

Some of the upcoming remakes I can think of -- 'War of the Worlds' remake with Spielberg & Cruise and the 'Amityville Horror' remake. Not to mention 'The Ring Two' and 'Dark Water', and I believe the rights to 'A Tale of Two Sisters' has been purchased for a Hollywood version.

I've watched the trailer for 'Dark Water' (US) with Jennifer Connolly. It looks decent enough, and I wasn't hugely impressed with the original, so I like the look of some of the added scares that feature in the trailer. Of course, the remake has been delayed a few times already, which is a worry, but the August 2005 date is set in stone now, so only time will tell.

The remake of 'The Grudge' was competent enough, and different enough to actually be worth seeing even if you've seen the original. Personally I prefer the original, but I like the remake also. 'The Ring' remake was more enjoyable to me than the original, but I like both for different reasons. One is more standard American horror, the other is more quintessentially Japanese.

The remakes of older horrors such as 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' aren't always a bad idea. I hate the original TCM, but I quite enjoyed the remake. I don't like the original 'Amityville Horror' a great deal, so I'm hoping the remake will be good.
On the flipside, I love the original 'The Haunting', but the remake with Catherine Zeta Jones and Liam Neeson was an abomination. It's all relative I guess.

It's always a shame that studios have an easier time adapting something foreign rather than get something original greenlit, but in general I don't have a problem with remakes if the intention is there to make a good movie. Aside from that, I think anything goes in terms of what's sacred/unalterable about a movie once the rights are sold -- it's all about money at the end of the day for the Japanese studios as much as the Hollywood majors.

As a side note, I enjoyed 'Saw' and 'Wrong Turn' also.

Fysh

TCamen wrote:

Not to mention 'The Ring Two' and 'Dark Water', and I believe the rights to 'A Tale of Two Sisters' has been purchased for a Hollywood version.

Well, I thought Ring 2 sucked. So, I'd imagine The Ring 2 will be similarly sucky for me. In fairness to it, The Ring was a competent enough remake (aside from that annoying little shitehawk of a child actor) - but I liked the original, so changing it into something that fit the mold of standard (ie with appropriate loud noise jumpy bits) american horror was never going to go down well with me. I haven't yet seen "A tale of two sisters", but it's on my list to see in the original form - from there I'll decide whether to watch the remake or not.

TCamen wrote:

I've watched the trailer for 'Dark Water' (US) with Jennifer Connolly. It looks decent enough, and I wasn't hugely impressed with the original, so I like the look of some of the added scares that feature in the trailer. Of course, the remake has been delayed a few times already, which is a worry, but the August 2005 date is set in stone now, so only time will tell.

This is down to personal taste, but I suspect that what you didn't like about the original is what I liked - relatively little in the way of jump-out-of-your-seat scares, but more of a slow burn horror, as you figure out (relatively easily, given how it's presented) exactly what happened in the beginning and what might happen to Ikoku. The trailer for the remake looks passable, in the same way as the trailer for The Ring did, but I don't like it when horror is dumbed down for the american short-attention-span horror audience, to whom horror means gore and some sort of pseudo-shocking image flashed up on screen.

TCamen wrote:

The remake of 'The Grudge' was competent enough, and different enough to actually be worth seeing even if you've seen the original. Personally I prefer the original, but I like the remake also. 'The Ring' remake was more enjoyable to me than the original, but I like both for different reasons. One is more standard American horror, the other is more quintessentially Japanese.

See above for comments on The Ring, but I haven't gotten round to watching the original Grudge yet. One problem I had with the remake was accepting that Sarah Michelle Gellar was actually not Buffy. There were some good parts where they built up the tension, but it still felt a bit too predictable in the sense of me being able to pinpoint almost to the second when something was going to jump out, with a suitable loud noise, and make the rest of the audience jump.

TCamen wrote:

The remakes of older horrors such as 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' aren't always a bad idea. I hate the original TCM, but I quite enjoyed the remake.

What?! Agh! The original had somewhat worse cinematography, admittedly, but the thing that put me right off the remake was the way the characters, who in the original were at least somewhat real, were replaced with the clichés that I know and hate from the slasher genre. I found the remake plodding and predictable, and it was very disappointing to know that the same guy whose ingenuity in getting the original produced was responsible for a worse film when given a bigger budget for the same project.

TCamen wrote:

I don't like the original 'Amityville Horror' a great deal, so I'm hoping the remake will be good. On the flipside, I love the original 'The Haunting', but the remake with Catherine Zeta Jones and Liam Neeson was an abomination. It's all relative I guess.

Beat me with the heretic stick if you must, but either I haven't seen those two or I have but don't remember them. I have seen (and despised) the Catherine Zeta Jones remake - the one where she bafflingly declares herself to be bisexual at the start, for no apparent reason, isnt it?

TCamen wrote:

As a side note, I enjoyed 'Saw' and 'Wrong Turn' also.

Until about two thirds of the way through I was really enjoying Saw, thinking that someone had finally made another film in the vein of Se7en. Then it started to get a bit silly, with Cary Elwes sadly descending into unbelievably bad acting and the cop's following suit. And then....that scene, the one that justified the title. Argh. And not in a "dear god, how horrible - hmm, this reminds me of a certain Japanese film" way, more a "wow, that's atrocious acting" way. Which, coupled with the way they threw away a potentially fantastic ending in favour of a far stupider one, closing the entire film on a cheesy line, utterly spoiled it for me.

Wrong Turn, now....there we just have to disagree. I'm sick of slashers because they so rarely do anything new, and Wrong Turn just bored me. Same old "gasp - we're *still* not safe" plot progression, same idiot characters. It felt like a second, and even more insulting, remake of TCM.

TCamen

Yay, the horror board is alive with debate & discussion

Well, I thought Ring 2 sucked. So, I'd imagine The Ring 2 will be similarly sucky for me. In fairness to it, The Ring was a competent enough remake (aside from that annoying little ****ehawk of a child actor) - but I liked the original, so changing it into something that fit the mold of standard (ie with appropriate loud noise jumpy bits) american horror was never going to go down well with me. I haven't yet seen "A tale of two sisters", but it's on my list to see in the original form - from there I'll decide whether to watch the remake or not.

AFAIK, the American ' The Ring 2' isn't like the Japanese one. I have the Japanese 2 + Zero on tape from when they were on scifi there a while ago, but I haven't watched 'em yet, just incase it ruins 'The Ring 2' (US). 'A Tale of Two Sisters' is far and away my favourite Asian horror -- it's slow-burning, extremely creepy, great story...did I mention it's DAMN scary?! I'm not sure how a remake would deal with the presentation, but they did make a fair effort with 'The Grudge's structure (even though it was massively simplified).

I haven't gotten round to watching the original Grudge yet. One problem I had with the remake was accepting that Sarah Michelle Gellar was actually not Buffy. There were some good parts where they built up the tension, but it still felt a bit too predictable in the sense of me being able to pinpoint almost to the second when something was going to jump out, with a suitable loud noise, and make the rest of the audience jump.

If you haven't see the original 'Ju-On: The Grudge', try and get hold of it + 'Ju-On: The Grudge 2'. I really enjoyed both movies, particularly how things go in #2 The American version was less subtle than the original, but there's some different stuff in the original, that judging from your taste, you should enjoy. As for SMG, she even wore a Buffy white poloneck in the film. Way to break away from being typecast there

This is down to personal taste, but I suspect that what you didn't like about the original is what I liked - relatively little in the way of jump-out-of-your-seat scares, but more of a slow burn horror, as you figure out (relatively easily, given how it's presented) exactly what happened in the beginning and what might happen to Ikoku.

'Dark Water'....I just found that, had the story not been so obvious in the beginning, I'd have enjoyed it more. As it was, there wasn't much going on for me, because there was no mystery, and not much in the way of scares. Now, I have no problem with slow-burning stuff - 'A Tale of Two Sisters' takes a somewhat standard-seeming setup and just spins it so completely that it takes the whole movie to figure stuff out (and many many repeat viewings). 'Dark Water' disappointed me because it didn't grip me with the story in the way I wanted.

The trailer for the remake looks passable, in the same way as the trailer for The Ring did, but I don't like it when horror is dumbed down for the american short-attention-span horror audience, to whom horror means gore and some sort of pseudo-shocking image flashed up on screen.

I agree that dumbing-down is rarely a good idea, which is why I do worry what will happen to 'A Tale of Two Sisters'....it's not going to be easy to adapt without changing it a lot. As I said though, if the Asian studios sell the rights, you can't blame the US studios for what happens after that. Everyone wants to make money...

What?! Agh! The original had somewhat worse cinematography, admittedly, but the thing that put me right off the remake was the way the characters, who in the original were at least somewhat real, were replaced with the clichés that I know and hate from the slasher genre. I found the remake plodding and predictable, and it was very disappointing to know that the same guy whose ingenuity in getting the original produced was responsible for a worse film when given a bigger budget for the same project.

There was a good debate last year when TCM remake was just out on DVD as to the merits of the original. I just found the original to be unscary, uninteresting and filled to the brim with DIRE acting. The remake, with its clichés and all, had some good chase sequences and looked nicer. I won't go on and on about it, but I've tried three times, and it's just one of those classic movies that expectations were not met.

Beat me with the heretic stick if you must, but either I haven't seen those two or I have but don't remember them. I have seen (and despised) the Catherine Zeta Jones remake - the one where she bafflingly declares herself to be bisexual at the start, for no apparent reason, isnt it?

'The Amityville Horror' is from mid/late 1970s, and was 'based on a true story' about a haunted house and what happened when a family moved in there. The 'true' elements of the family's tale have mostly been discredited at this stage, or found to be hugely exagerrated, but that's beside the point The movie just didn't interest me all that much. I might give it another go now that the remake is nearing release. I think there's about 6-8 Amityville Horrors in total, but most of the sequels are pretty silly...haunted killer lamp for example :rolleyes:

'The Haunting' is from c.1960, black & white slow-burner about a haunted house. It's got buckets of great atmosphere all delivered without garish, cheesy FX like the remake. You should have a look for this one, it's definitely worth seeing if you like subtle, slow-burners The remake is one of the most retarded movies I've seen. All bombastic FX and no tension/atmosphere at all.

Until about two thirds of the way through I was really enjoying Saw, thinking that someone had finally made another film in the vein of Se7en. Then it started to get a bit silly, with Cary Elwes sadly descending into unbelievably bad acting and the cop's following suit

Yes, Cary Elwes really did ham it up big time. I just think, they got so much right with the movie that I'm willing to overlook the less-than-stellar casting because the majority of the movie was enjoyable, including the ending. The titular scene was stupid though.

Wrong Turn, now....there we just have to disagree. I'm sick of slashers because they so rarely do anything new, and Wrong Turn just bored me. Same old "gasp - we're *still* not safe" plot progression, same idiot characters. It felt like a second, and even more insulting, remake of TCM.

OK, I admit it -- sometimes I just want to watch a cheesy, brainless slasher movie I think 'Wrong Turn' provided a fairly decent, gory flick, even if it was hugely flawed and dumb. I can think of much worse modern horror movies, for example 'Darkness Falls' & 'Urban Legend'. I really don't like those movies!

Fysh

TCamen wrote:

AFAIK, the American ' The Ring 2' isn't like the Japanese one. I have the Japanese 2 + Zero on tape from when they were on scifi there a while ago, but I haven't watched 'em yet, just incase it ruins 'The Ring 2' (US). 'A Tale of Two Sisters' is far and away my favourite Asian horror -- it's slow-burning, extremely creepy, great story...did I mention it's DAMN scary?! I'm not sure how a remake would deal with the presentation, but they did make a fair effort with 'The Grudge's structure (even though it was massively simplified).

Having watched the trailer for The Ring 2 last night and slept on it, I may give it a chance. Irritating little bastard of a child actor aside, it looks like I could quite enjoy it. Which would be nice. Ring 2 and Ring 0 I saw somewhere on Sky (probably on Sci-fi, I should think) but just....meh. More of them same, only less engaging and I feel asleep during both. Repeated viewings confirmed that I hadn't missed much.

TCamen wrote:

If you haven't see the original 'Ju-On: The Grudge', try and get hold of it + 'Ju-On: The Grudge 2'. I really enjoyed both movies, particularly how things go in #2 The American version was less subtle than the original, but there's some different stuff in the original, that judging from your taste, you should enjoy. As for SMG, she even wore a Buffy white poloneck in the film. Way to break away from being typecast there

I recently got the original on DVD - once I watch that, I may have to scratch around and find the second one. Thanks for the heads up

TCamen wrote:

'Dark Water'....I just found that, had the story not been so obvious in the beginning, I'd have enjoyed it more. As it was, there wasn't much going on for me, because there was no mystery, and not much in the way of scares. Now, I have no problem with slow-burning stuff - 'A Tale of Two Sisters' takes a somewhat standard-seeming setup and just spins it so completely that it takes the whole movie to figure stuff out (and many many repeat viewings). 'Dark Water' disappointed me because it didn't grip me with the story in the way I wanted.

I agree, the story was pretty straightforward and the plot development was pretty linear. But what I liked about it was that, with that kind of linear story, the film focused more on the mother trying to cope with the stress of unidentified strangeness at home and wondering whether she's just cracking up, rather than on the Lurking Horror Waiting To Consume Them All (TM). It was more creepy than scary, I suppose.

TCamen wrote:

There was a good debate last year when TCM remake was just out on DVD as to the merits of the original. I just found the original to be unscary, uninteresting and filled to the brim with DIRE acting. The remake, with its clichés and all, had some good chase sequences and looked nicer. I won't go on and on about it, but I've tried three times, and it's just one of those classic movies that expectations were not met.

I didn't meant to say that every true horror fan should prefer the original or anything - that'd be dumb. And I agree, some of the cinematography was sharper, and the make up/scenery was better than the original. The chase sequences were pretty good. But the characters (as opposed to the acting - I have sadly resigned myself to crap acting in pretty much every horror film I watch) in the original were moer interesting, and the ones in the remake seemed like they were taken straight from the slasher cliché mold that the original film preceeded. I think what made me hate it so much is that they changed some of the visual aspects which would improve the film but also changed some of the things that they got right first time, replacing them with the conventions of a dying genre. Gah.

Mind you, I know how you feel about "classics" that are underwhelming. To an extent I felt that way about The Exorcist - I quite enjoyed it because I liked the premise, but as a video nasty I was kind of dismayed to find that it hadn't caused me to go out and take part in orgies followed by a spate of mass murder. So much for the hype :rolleyes:

TCamen wrote:

'The Amityville Horror' is from mid/late 1970s, and was 'based on a true story' about a haunted house and what happened when a family moved in there. The 'true' elements of the family's tale have mostly been discredited at this stage, or found to be hugely exagerrated, but that's beside the point The movie just didn't interest me all that much. I might give it another go now that the remake is nearing release. I think there's about 6-8 Amityville Horrors in total, but most of the sequels are pretty silly...haunted killer lamp for example :rolleyes:

Now now, there's nothing wrong with random haunted objects. Surely that level in the original Splatterhouse game, where you fight haunted knives, a haunted chair, a haunted painting and ultimately a haunted chandelier, proves that....heh. Again, may take a look at the original if I get a chance sometime (I suspect the sequels would be much like the Friday 13th/ Halloween sequels in their relative quality & originality).

TCamen wrote:

'The Haunting' is from c.1960, black & white slow-burner about a haunted house. It's got buckets of great atmosphere all delivered without garish, cheesy FX like the remake. You should have a look for this one, it's definitely worth seeing if you like subtle, slow-burners The remake is one of the most retarded movies I've seen. All bombastic FX and no tension/atmosphere at all.

Yeah, I remember making some vague mental note about this when I heard about the remake. Sadly, I no longer have sky's movies package, so I'll have to try and find it on DVD or video somewhere (or cross my fingers and hope that TG4 show it sometime soon).

TCamen wrote:

Yes, Cary Elwes really did ham it up big time. I just think, they got so much right with the movie that I'm willing to overlook the less-than-stellar casting because the majority of the movie was enjoyable, including the ending. The titular scene was stupid though.

The ending was spoiled for me by the fact that it involved essentially introducing a new character to explain a bunch of things. I thought it could have been so much better if it had gone for the darker option of revealing that the killer was manipulating people into doing his work, but leaving his actual identity in the dark. Sort of one step on from se7en - not only does the killer win, but we don't even have the faintest idea who he is. Instead, we were given the laughable idea that the killer was able to stay completely still for 6 hours in a room with two of his prospective victims and never give himself away, and we then find out the even more preposterous reason for his killing spree. It was a bit of a let down considering how well they built it up - they even found a way of putting jumpy-type scares in it that felt natural to me (and I usually hate them because I can see them coming).

TCamen wrote:

OK, I admit it -- sometimes I just want to watch a cheesy, brainless slasher movie I think 'Wrong Turn' provided a fairly decent, gory flick, even if it was hugely flawed and dumb. I can think of much worse modern horror movies, for example 'Darkness Falls' & 'Urban Legend'. I really don't like those movies!

See, I would usually just dig out one of the original slashers when I want that sort of thing. Or one of the slighly more original ones, like Deathwatch (not a great movie by any stretch of the imagination, but functional enough and I liked the way it was set in WWI). Stuff like Urban Legend, etc, I will even avoid when it's on TV - I may not pay for it (though I contend that braincells commit suicide when you watch films like that) but I have better things to do with a couple of hours than watch that sort of drivel.

Karl Hungus

Oooh! A Debate! Excellent stuff.

First of all worth noting that I agree with Fysh on the slow burning point. For me, Dark Water was nothing but a cash in on Ringu for Hideo Nakata, a bit more of the same really, but with that said, he damn well hit the mark on the atmosphere, and pace of the film, making it worth a watch in my eyes, but nothing amazing.

I think that's the same reason that in my eyes The Others was such a great film, despite the fairly contrived twist ending. It captured a sense of dread, and an atmosphere that was totally it's own. Better than Dark Water I thought, which is an interesting notion that an original US/Spanish production can get one up on a Japanese horror film.

And the whole idea of slow burning horror is reason I think that remakes of Japanese horror films are doomed to fail, and be vastly inferior to the originals. I have a younger sister, and if she's watching a film where there's a second of silence, she'll start yammering on like only a teenage girl can. I'm sure you can understand how such an irrelevant "Oh my GAWD, I was shopping yesterday, and like, you will NEVER believe what happened..." can destroy any deliberate, paced, suspense building scenes, and by proxy, make the entire movie pointless and ****.

I think that the scene in Ring where Sadako comes out of the TV is easily one of the most perfect scenes in any horror film from any era, of any country. It's such a slow build-up that had me cringing and edging back in my seat away from the TV, and it didn't end in some contrived hollywood "Jump" scene, it was the very deliberate pace of the build-up that scared the absolute ****ing **** out of me, not the culmination. That is a scene that defines what horror truly is.

Now along comes Hollywood, and sits Gore Verbinsky, director of Mouse Hunt at the helm of the remake to strangle any sense of suspense out of the film, and thus making a film that chattery teenage girls with no attentions spans can watch without fear of "boring" scenes where "nothing" happens, but plenty of idiotic crap where "something" happens like sucidal horses running about, and a big car chase spliced in and out with the penultimate scene. The film is the very antithesis of what horror is.

Now I don't want the above to sound like a bash on Verbinski, because Pirates Of The Caribbean was an excellent film, it's just demonstrating that Hollywood got it so very wrong altogether, with someone completely unsuited to horror in every aspect.

A lot of people might argue that remakes have no effect on the originals, but that's fairly untrue, because in America it's near impossible to get hold of any of the originals of foriegn films that are up for a remake now. So that's a huge effect on the original films, and it's fairly undenyable.

There's a pretty interesting debate (Although slightly nutty) over at imdb.com about remakes of Asian films being racist, which you can check out here.

So you might pardon me for breaking Godwin's Law and expanding on the notion prosed by the thread in question, but seeing as there's plenty of comparison of America under the rule of Bush and Hitler's regime, it's worth noting that in Nazi Germany you could only watch German made films, and all "Inferior" foreign films were banned. It's uncanny when you look at it like that, considering Hitler's stranglehold on the media is quite like Bush's. I mean, take this for example: We Love Our Leader. Spooky!

Anyway, enough of that! Lets move on to the crapfest that was Saw. It's a film that has fallen into the trap layed out by The Bone Collector, where Hollywood is caught up trying to deliver the next big twist by revealing that the killer was a character we saw for all of 2 seconds in the film. I agree that it could've been saved if the killer was never revealed, and we might've been able to overlook the glaring plot holes, like why the hell Cary Elwes cut through his own leg when the chain was attatched to a rusty pipe! Se7en will always have the one up because it revealed the killer's identity in the latter half of the film without any kind of contrived twist.

Fysh

Karl Hungus wrote:

I think that's the same reason that in my eyes The Others was such a great film, despite the fairly contrived twist ending. It captured a sense of dread, and an atmosphere that was totally it's own. Better than Dark Water I thought, which is an interesting notion that an original US/Spanish production can get one up on a Japanese horror film.

I see where you're coming from about The Others, but I have a growing loathing of seeing actors with recognizable faces in horror films (same thing with Buffy, I mean SMG, in The Grduge...) which somehow nullifies any aspect of the film that I might enjoy. Plus the ending was a bit wanky.

Karl Hungus wrote:

I think that the scene in Ring where Sadako comes out of the TV is easily one of the most perfect scenes in any horror film from any era, of any country. It's such a slow build-up that had me cringing and edging back in my seat away from the TV, and it didn't end in some contrived hollywood "Jump" scene, it was the very deliberate pace of the build-up that scared the absolute ****ing **** out of me, not the culmination. That is a scene that defines what horror truly is.

I agree. The new version with the sexx0red-up effects still felt inferior, because it was building to something, instead of just being horrific of itself.

Karl Hungus wrote:

A lot of people might argue that remakes have no effect on the originals, but that's fairly untrue, because in America it's near impossible to get hold of any of the originals of foriegn films that are up for a remake now. So that's a huge effect on the original films, and it's fairly undenyable.

There's a pretty interesting debate (Although slightly nutty) over at imdb.com about remakes of Asian films being racist, which you can check out here.

So you might pardon me for breaking Godwin's Law and expanding on the notion prosed by the thread in question, but seeing as there's plenty of comparison of America under the rule of Bush and Hitler's regime, it's worth noting that in Nazi Germany you could only watch German made films, and all "Inferior" foreign films were banned. It's uncanny when you look at it like that, considering Hitler's stranglehold on the media is quite like Bush's. I mean, take this for example: We Love Our Leader. Spooky!

If this was the film board, ObeyGiant and a couple of others would jump in on this, and it'd turn into another argument about whether Tarantino's a cock or not. As it is, I think we're in the clear...for the time being. I agree that any remake will influence the perception of the original, especially in cases where the original is not likely to have been seen by most of the audience due to distribution problems. So much for that defence. Although hearing someone saying "yeah, we shat all over that film. And? We bought the rights to do it and it did well at the box office" wouldn't be much better, imo...

Karl Hungus wrote:

Anyway, enough of that! Lets move on to the crapfest that was Saw. It's a film that has fallen into the trap layed out by The Bone Collector, where Hollywood is caught up trying to deliver the next big twist by revealing that the killer was a character we saw for all of 2 seconds in the film. I agree that it could've been saved if the killer was never revealed, and we might've been able to overlook the glaring plot holes, like why the hell Cary Elwes cut through his own leg when the chain was attatched to a rusty pipe! Se7en will always have the one up because it revealed the killer's identity in the latter half of the film without any kind of contrived twist.

Well, they did show one of the blades snapping when Elwes went mental trying to cut the chain itself (which, from experience in such matters, is almost guaranteed to bugger it up). And he was only a doctor, so we couldn't expect him to do anything clever like use the saw slowly on the big pipe to see if it would give way. Oh no. (It could even have been justified if the film had made us believe he cared about his family enough, but didn't do it).

*sigh*

ah well...

Karl Hungus

Fysh wrote:

I see where you're coming from about The Others, but I have a growing loathing of seeing actors with recognizable faces in horror films (same thing with Buffy, I mean SMG, in The Grduge...) which somehow nullifies any aspect of the film that I might enjoy. Plus the ending was a bit wanky.

That's a bit boggling, I thought Nicole Kidman was very good in it, and didn't deract anything from the film.

Fysh wrote:

If this was the film board, ObeyGiant and a couple of others would jump in on this, and it'd turn into another argument about whether Tarantino's a cock or not. As it is, I think we're in the clear...for the time being. I agree that any remake will influence the perception of the original, especially in cases where the original is not likely to have been seen by most of the audience due to distribution problems. So much for that defence. Although hearing someone saying "yeah, we shat all over that film. And? We bought the rights to do it and it did well at the box office" wouldn't be much better, imo...

Bah, why did you have to bring up He Who Shall Not Be Named? He's got nothing to do with anything in this thread. We're talking horror ferchissakes!

Fysh wrote:

Well, they did show one of the blades snapping when Elwes went mental trying to cut the chain itself (which, from experience in such matters, is almost guaranteed to bugger it up). And he was only a doctor, so we couldn't expect him to do anything clever like use the saw slowly on the big pipe to see if it would give way. Oh no. (It could even have been justified if the film had made us believe he cared about his family enough, but didn't do it).

*sigh*

ah well...

I dunno, I posted a massive rant about the film on the film board a while ago, you can see it here, and I think that covers all the bases on why I disliked the film.

TCamen

Right, so I'm just gonna clear up that I do like slow-burning horror suspense movies -- I just thought that 'Dark Water' didn't really deliver enough for me.

Has anyone actually seen 'A Tale of Two Sisters' ? There's fabulous build-up and suspense from the very beginning, and a superior plot to 'Dark Water', which makes it a much better movie to me. I *wanted* to like 'Dark Water' but I was disappointed by the obvious plot more than anything.

I see where you're coming from about The Others, but I have a growing loathing of seeing actors with recognizable faces in horror films (same thing with Buffy, I mean SMG, in The Grduge...) which somehow nullifies any aspect of the film that I might enjoy

I think it's entirely dependent on the actor. Nicole did a great job in 'The Others' I thought -- she had a good year with that & 'Moulin Rouge' SMG was decent in 'The Grudge', but she's been better elsewhere -- it's a pity they didn't use Clea Duvall as the lead rather than a minor player.

I think that the scene in Ring where Sadako comes out of the TV is easily one of the most perfect scenes in any horror film from any era, of any country. It's such a slow build-up that had me cringing and edging back in my seat away from the TV, and it didn't end in some contrived hollywood "Jump" scene, it was the very deliberate pace of the build-up that scared the absolute ****ing **** out of me, not the culmination. That is a scene that defines what horror truly is.

As I mentioned, I like both 'Ringu' and 'The Ring' for different reasons, however, the TV finale is far creepier in 'Ringu'...the claustrophobic nature of the Japanese house/apartment works much better than the huge open plan loft in 'The Ring'. The deliberate advance of Sadako in such a confined space is spine-chilling.

I'm not really gonna defend 'Saw' too much. I liked the movie, but it certainly wasn't 'Se7en' in terms of originality and execution.

What about 'Switchblade Romance'/'Haute Tension'? I quite enjoyed that...the opening act of the movie has a tense, electric atmosphere that just really impressed me.

Karl Hungus

TCamen wrote:

Right, so I'm just gonna clear up that I do like slow-burning horror suspense movies -- I just thought that 'Dark Water' didn't really deliver enough for me.

Has anyone actually seen 'A Tale of Two Sisters' ? There's fabulous build-up and suspense from the very beginning, and a superior plot to 'Dark Water', which makes it a much better movie to me. I *wanted* to like 'Dark Water' but I was disappointed by the obvious plot more than anything.

I won't begrudge anyone who didn't enjoy Dark Water, I can understand why someone wouldn't like it.

I've seen half of A Tale Of Two Sisters, and ****ing hell did it ever scare the absolute bejaysis out of me! I mean it, I could seriously taste the adrenaline in my mouth. I would say that so far it does seem superior to Dark Water. I'll have to watch the rest of it sharpish, because Ebonyks is calling me a pussy, and I just cannot have that. No sir.

TCamen wrote:

As I mentioned, I like both 'Ringu' and 'The Ring' for different reasons, however, the TV finale is far creepier in 'Ringu'...the claustrophobic nature of the Japanese house/apartment works much better than the huge open plan loft in 'The Ring'. The deliberate advance of Sadako in such a confined space is spine-chilling.

I'm not really gonna defend 'Saw' too much. I liked the movie, but it certainly wasn't 'Se7en' in terms of originality and execution.

What about 'Switchblade Romance'/'Haute Tension'? I quite enjoyed that...the opening act of the movie has a tense, electric atmosphere that just really impressed me.

Glad to see we're on the same note reguarding the scene in Ringu being vastly superior. I've not seen Switchblade Romance, but it didn't strike me as anything majorly interesting. I might try and look into it again though.

Fysh

Karl Hungus wrote:

That's a bit boggling, I thought Nicole Kidman was very good in it, and didn't deract anything from the film.

She acted well - it's not down to someone's performance, it seems to be wired directly into whether I recognize their face. And, given the amount of hysteria about Moulin Rouge around the same time, I could never quite get rid of that itchy notion that this mother trying to protect her children had also recently been mucking about in France wearing skimpy knickers. *sigh*

Karl Hungus wrote:

Bah, why did you have to bring up He Who Shall Not Be Named? He's got nothing to do with anything in this thread. We're talking horror ferchissakes!

But...but...but...we can't talk about films without talking Taranti-
drags self off to be shot in the head behind the cowshed

Right. Now I've gotten that out of my system, back to the discussion. We apologise for the interruption in service, etc.

Karl Hungus wrote:

I dunno, I posted a massive rant about the film on the film board a while ago, you can see it here, and I think that covers all the bases on why I disliked the film.

Overall it was wasted potential, I think - aggravating not just for what it did, but for what it could have been if only they'd had someone in there who could recognize what parts of the project were worthwile. Which brings me to my next suggestion...

If you could get an Oriental director to remake an american film in a japanese horror style, who would you choose and what film would it be? For the sake of example, I'll go for "Saw" and Takashi Miike (even though, going by "Old Boy", Park Chan-wook might be a better choice).

monkeyfudge

Fysh wrote:

If you could get an Oriental director to remake an american film in a japanese horror style, who would you choose and what film would it be? For the sake of example, I'll go for "Saw" and Takashi Miike (even though, going by "Old Boy", Park Chan-wook might be a better choice).

Actually I'd like to see Takashi Miike's take on Terms of Endearment.

Karl Hungus

Fysh wrote:

She acted well - it's not down to someone's performance, it seems to be wired directly into whether I recognize their face. And, given the amount of hysteria about Moulin Rouge around the same time, I could never quite get rid of that itchy notion that this mother trying to protect her children had also recently been mucking about in France wearing skimpy knickers. *sigh*

So you can't see past the actor? I dunno, there's a lot of actors who are just themselves in every film they're in, and can't act to save their lives, but I don't think Nicole was one of them.

Fysh wrote:

Overall it was wasted potential, I think - aggravating not just for what it did, but for what it could have been if only they'd had someone in there who could recognize what parts of the project were worthwile. Which brings me to my next suggestion...

If you could get an Oriental director to remake an american film in a japanese horror style, who would you choose and what film would it be? For the sake of example, I'll go for "Saw" and Takashi Miike (even though, going by "Old Boy", Park Chan-wook might be a better choice).

Nixon is pro war and pro remake.

I don't think anyone should bother with remakes tbh.

Fysh

Karl Hungus wrote:

So you can't see past the actor? I dunno, there's a lot of actors who are just themselves in every film they're in, and can't act to save their lives, but I don't think Nicole was one of them.

Weirdly, I don't have a problem with people like Johnny Depp or Brad Pitt (hooray, I sound like a teenage fangirl) but for some reason Nicole's face is a bit too well-known for me to be able to ignore it. The fact that it was involved in the video for that abominable Robbie Williams duet may have contributed to this.

Karl Hungus wrote:

I don't think anyone should bother with remakes tbh.

I don't think they should be totally dismissed out of hand - without remakes we wouldn't have John Carpenter's The Thing, or the original Assault on Precint 13 (dodgy as some people consider it to be, and despite th fact that the new version may be even dodgier). Crap remakes we can do without, but there should always be space for someone to re-tell a story from a different perspective.

I'm not sure whether this should extend to directors who claim their original work didn't have the budget/actors/experience to work as they'd intended - so far the examples of this haven't been all that good.

ObeyGiant

Fe Fi Fo Fum, I heard someone mention Tarantino!

Naw, just kidding. Leaving aside any mention of QT, and just briefly mentioning the Bush/Hitler thing (by suggesting that, in their reluctance to distribute foreign films uncut, Miramax (or any other movie distributor) is following a mainly political agenda and not a business one, you have successfuly crossed the line from Cynical Liberal to card-carrying Conspiracy Loon), I'd like to jump straight into the "remakes" debate.

I don't think remakes are an essentially bad thing. Nor do I think that they have to use the exact same techniques and create the exact same atmosphere as the original to be completely effective - I think that part of the fun of the remake is the ability to try out different things and different approaches to the material. With this in mind, I'd personally, I'd choose the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake over the Psycho remake any day of the week.

The other thing I like about remakes is that they don't actually do anything to hurt the original movie. At all. You can still go back and re-visit the original as often as you want. As a matter of fact, for fans of the originals, a remake is likely to result in a fancy new updated version of the movie being released on DVD. So we all benefit.

Sure, we can bitch and moan about the Western remake, but the debate about whether or not they're actually a good thing for the original or expanding mainstream acceptance of other cultures is not one we're actually ever going to resolve. So I'm not going to get drawn into that.

Oh, and I'd also recommend Haute Tension - not very scary, but totally entertaining and fantastically bloody.

koneko

ObeyGiant wrote:

Oh, and I'd also recommend Haute Tension - not very scary, but totally entertaining and fantastically bloody.

Second this, even if

the "twist" is completely obvious from the start

, very enjoyable.

While I agree that even if a remake is bad, you can still watch the original as much as you want, it does leave a bad taste. The General Public (as dumb as they can be sometimes) often isn't going to go to the effort of looking up an original of a film, when they can just watch the remake. For instance, someone I know watched the original Japanese The Grudge (JuOn The Grudge), and after finding out the remake was released that weekend said "Oh if I'd known there was an American version I'd have gone to see that instead" (the complete opposite to what I personally would have done).

Remakes should only really be done if the director or writer feel they can add something to the story, give it a different twist or do things slightly differently. The Psycho remake you mention in particular is quite bad, they just did the same scenes, shot for shot exactly the same, there's no art or imagination required for that, it's just an excercise in filmmaking, using cameras, doing all the technicalities like that without actually creating something. At least The Ring (as much as I personally disliked it) put it's own twist on the story and gave the film a different feel.

Karl Hungus

I don't think they should be totally dismissed out of hand - without remakes we wouldn't have John Carpenter's The Thing, or Assault on Precint 13 (dodgy as some people consider it to be). Crap remakes we can do without, but there should always be space for someone to re-tell a story from a different perspective.

John Carpenter is obviously the exception to the remake rule, and that goes without saying. So it didn't need to be brought up.

Naw, just kidding. Leaving aside any mention of QT, and just briefly mentioning the Bush/Hitler thing (by suggesting that, in their reluctance to distribute foreign films uncut, Miramax (or any other movie distributor) is following a mainly political agenda and not a business one, you have successfuly crossed the line from Cynical Liberal to card-carrying Conspiracy Loon), I'd like to jump straight into the "remakes" debate.

Perhaps I should've stuck in some sarcasm tags when taking the Conspiracy Loon card out of my wallet.

I don't think remakes are an essentially bad thing. Nor do I think that they have to use the exact same techniques and create the exact same atmosphere as the original to be completely effective - I think that part of the fun of the remake is the ability to try out different things and different approaches to the material. With this in mind, I'd personally, I'd choose the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake over the Psycho remake any day of the week.

I do believe I must clarify one thing here, I didn't suggest that a remake should use the same techniques and attempt to create the same atmosphere. I think you might've picked up that notion by my point about the TV scene in Ringu being vastly superior to the coresponding scene in the remake. My point being the remake should've never been made, and that scene was perfection. The Thing is obviously the perfect example of a remake that does things very differently to the original, and ends up all the better for it.

I do agree with you 100% in principle though, a remake is fair game if we're talking a different artistic aproach, or a different take on the same source material, I mean nobody would call Peter Jackon's Lord Of The Rings a remake of Ralph Bakshi's film, and that's because the film was made for a love of the source material, not a blatant cash-in. That's why I disagree with you 99% in practice, because none of the remakes being churned out today are for a different artistic view on the material, it's all for lining the pockets of producers who neither know of, nor care, for the art of film.

The other thing I like about remakes is that they don't actually do anything to hurt the original movie. At all. You can still go back and re-visit the original as often as you want. As a matter of fact, for fans of the originals, a remake is likely to result in a fancy new updated version of the movie being released on DVD. So we all benefit.

Rubbish! You know for a fact everyone is grinding their teeth with seething anger when a shiny new box set arrives that outdoes their DVD they bought a few months ago.

Besides, I previously pointed out this:

A lot of people might argue that remakes have no effect on the originals, but that's fairly untrue, because in America it's near impossible to get hold of any of the originals of foriegn films that are up for a remake now. So that's a huge effect on the original films, and it's fairly undenyable.

Of course, that's not inclusive of all remakes, but it is a huge negative effect none the less.

Sure, we can bitch and moan about the Western remake, but the debate about whether or not they're actually a good thing for the original or expanding mainstream acceptance of other cultures is not one we're actually ever going to resolve. So I'm not going to get drawn into that.

That's all a discussion board is really... A place to bitch and moan. Besides, if it was something we could resolve, there'd be no fun in discussing it whatsoever.

ObeyGiant

Karl Hungus wrote:

Perhaps I should've stuck in some sarcasm tags when taking the Conspiracy Loon card out of my wallet.

Perhaps so - you can never be too careful these days, so I tend to assume everything is meant sincerely.

Karl Hungus wrote:

I think you might've picked up that notion by my point about the TV scene in Ringu being vastly superior to the coresponding scene in the remake.

That's not really what prompted my statement. More the condemnation of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre for going the hackneyed slasher route instead of the creep-out route of the original.

Karl Hungus wrote:

That's why I disagree with you 99% in practice, because none of the remakes being churned out today are for a different artistic view on the material, it's all for lining the pockets of producers who neither know of, nor care, for the art of film.

I can't argue with this, but I'd suggest that things are looking better. For example, we had things like Planet of the Apes (say what you like about it as a movie, it was at least different from the original, and with that "difficult" ending, they can't have expected to do amazing business) Another example of this working well would be with Dawn of the Dead - initially people were hostile towards this movie with cries of "ZOMBIES CAN'T RUN!" and "They're not following the same story! This isn't a remake, they should change the name!", but the filmmaker's changes work really well.

(And yes, it is a remake, and yes, they should keep the name).

Karl Hungus wrote:

Rubbish! You know for a fact everyone is grinding their teeth with seething anger when a shiny new box set arrives that outdoes their DVD they bought a few months ago.

Not really. The examples that spring to my mind are (again) the Texas Chainsaw Massacre and the Dawn of the Dead DVDs. Without the remake, it's questionable whether the studios would have taken the time to really produce something worthwhile (Especially when, as with Dawn of the Dead, they go all-out to appeal to fans with a 4-disc set).

And of course, when I said fans of the original, I did mean fans of the original. These are people who have no problem buying the new package of the DVD, if it's got significantly better features than the copy they already have. I can say this because I've had no problems buying the Ultimate Edition of Dawn of the Dead and others, but can't justify buying the new version of Assault on Precinct 13 (one crappy extra feature compared to the version I have already).

Karl Hungus wrote:

Besides, I previously pointed out this:

In my statement, I was actually referring to western remakes, but I should have made that clear. But even still... at best, you're apparently making a mountain out of a molehill. What the American distributors are doing is buying the rights to the original and not releasing it until after the remake has been in the cinema. Then they release it and market it as "The film that inspired <remake>!". It's not called show business for nothing.

Fysh

ObeyGiant wrote:

That's not really what prompted my statement. More the condemnation of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre for going the hackneyed slasher route instead of the creep-out route of the original.

Ah, that would be me. And I stand by my comments - I'm all for reinvention of a film when remaking, but you can't seriously be claiming that adhering to the worst clichés of an already-limited genre can be considered a worthy new vision of what was quite a ground-breaking film.

ObeyGiant wrote:

I can't argue with this, but I'd suggest that things are looking better. For example, we had things like Planet of the Apes (say what you like about it as a movie, it was at least different from the original, and with that "difficult" ending, they can't have expected to do amazing business)

Yes, but it would also have been different if the second half of the film was a documentary showing mark walberg acting like a monkey and flinging poo everywhere. It wouldn't make it a particularly good or worthwhile film though, which is the point in question.

ObeyGiant wrote:

Another example of this working well would be with Dawn of the Dead - initially people were hostile towards this movie with cries of "ZOMBIES CAN'T RUN!" and "They're not following the same story! This isn't a remake, they should change the name!", but the filmmaker's changes work really well.

(And yes, it is a remake, and yes, they should keep the name).

This I agree with wholeheartedly, and I have to say that changing the nature of the zombies worked very well as far as I was concerned.

ObeyGiant wrote:

In my statement, I was actually referring to western remakes, but I should have made that clear. But even still... at best, you're apparently making a mountain out of a molehill. What the American distributors are doing is buying the rights to the original and not releasing it until after the remake has been in the cinema. Then they release it and market it as "The film that inspired <remake>!". It's not called show business for nothing.

I don't have numbers to back me up here, but given the way most japanese horror remakes are of dodgy quality (compared to the originals) to appeal to the "general public" these days, I can't see there being that lucrative a market for the original films without at least some editing. Which means that it's edited versions which sell - not really good for anyone except the people making profits.

ObeyGiant

Fysh wrote:

Ah, that would be me. And I stand by my comments - I'm all for reinvention of a film when remaking, but you can't seriously be claiming that adhering to the worst clichés of an already-limited genre can be considered a worthy new vision of what was quite a ground-breaking film.

Is it as groundbreaking? No.
Is it as memorable? No.
Does it adhere to all of the rules of "mainstream" cinema? Yes.
As it is, is it as effective as the original? Yes, just in an entirely different way.

ObeyGiant wrote:

Yes, but it would also have been different if the second half of the film was a documentary showing mark walberg acting like a monkey and flinging poo everywhere. It wouldn't make it a particularly good or worthwhile film though, which is the point in question.

I know what the question is, thank you. Since "good" is so terribly subjective (for example, I liked the Planet of the Apes remake), I was trying to show that the remake of PoTA was worthwhile because it did something different with the source material.

(Now's the time when someone points out that "it wasn't a remake, it was a re-imagining")

ObeyGiant wrote:

I don't have numbers to back me up here, but given the way most japanese horror remakes are of dodgy quality (compared to the originals) to appeal to the "general public" these days, I can't see there being that lucrative a market for the original films without at least some editing. Which means that it's edited versions which sell - not really good for anyone except the people making profits.

This is entirely conjecture - you're guessing that they'd cut the movies with absolutely nothing to support this theory. As it stands, for the three examples I could immediately think of (Ringu, the Eye and Ju-On) were released uncut in the US.

Karl Hungus

Hmm... its strange that while we're talking of remakes, this happens.

Although it's probable that it was released solely because of A Tale Of Two Sisters. It's a good example though that a remake that takes an entirely different route to the original.

(Now's the time when someone points out that "it wasn't a remake, it was a re-imagining)

It's my opinion that Tim Burton deserves a kick in the back of the skull for every time that term is used.

TCamen

At least The Ring (as much as I personally disliked it) put it's own twist on the story and gave the film a different feel.

This is what I was saying -- I have no problems with remakes if they try and do something different within the constraints of the original story. The changes to 'Ringu' to make it more appealing in the West didn't RUIN the story that was adapted, it just CHANGED it. I think 'The Ring' stands out as an effective remake because of the changes, not despite them.

Now, I did think it a little pointless that 'The Grudge' was remade with the same director Takashi Shimizu, who at that point had directed 4 'Ju-On' movies, including the TV originals. It ended up causing the remake to differ too little to the source material to make it an entirely worthwhile endeavour (except for the box office receipts). It'll be interesting to see how the American sequel fares, considering it's the same director yet again. Personally I much prefer 'Ju-On' and 'Ju-On 2' to 'The Grudge' (US) because I think the story just works better within the sensibilities of Asian horror.

Same goes for 'A Tale of Two Sisters', which I really can't see getting a remake that will come close to the excellence of the original. The dense narrative and unconventional storytelling is bound to cause problems for Americans. Although, in fairness to the producers of 'The Grudge', I really expected them to abandon the 'broken timeline' approach in their remake, so you never know.

'Dark Water', I'm less concerned about because the story is less localised and can be adapted easier in my opinion, and the trailer actually makes it look rather decent. So even if they've beefed up on the standard 'jump' scares, and lost some of the creepy atmosphere -- if it makes the movie entertaining, I'll be happy.

....remake that does things very differently to the original, and ends up all the better for it.

I think we can, for the most part, agree that remakes that dare to tackle the source material in a different, yet interesting manner can work. Now, obviously the major studios can just as easily greenlight a dumbed-down rehash of an old/foreign movie, but that's always going to happen. 'The Haunting' is my own personal flogging horse on that issue -- the remake was pointless and ruined everything good about the original. I like 'The Ring', and I think it's an enjoyable movie that can sit comfortably on my DVD shelf beside 'Ringu'.

Ultimately I think, once a studio has decided on the course of a remake, it's either going to annoy or delight fans of the original and it comes down to how easily the fans can accept the changes made. These changes will occur regardless, so I really feel that I can't dismiss any remakes out of hand until I see them. I'm looking forward to 'Dark Water' (US), and hoping that a slightly different take on the disappointing original works. I don't have high hopes for 'A Tale of Two Sisters', but I'm willing to give it a chance, same with 'The Grudge 2', 'The Amityville Horror' and 'War of the Worlds'.