Another Unnecessary Remake
The 1980s are the greatest decade for movies ever, IMO. The decade has so many classic, cult, and memorable films in every genre. And that's where they should live, not being remade for the "Zoomer" generation.
shareThe 1980s are the greatest decade for movies ever, IMO. The decade has so many classic, cult, and memorable films in every genre. And that's where they should live, not being remade for the "Zoomer" generation.
shareThis one is actually better than the original
shareNot even close.
Doug Bradley >>> Jamie Clayton
Frank and Julia > Voight and Trevor
'87 Cenobites > '22 Cenobites
'87 Special Effects > '22 CGI garbage
Kirsty > Billie Eilish (if she lived in a van down by the river)
- '87 BDSM leather costumes, along with the blue lighting, look so much more intimidating. Especially the female cenobite, who is really menacing. The cenobites in '22 look like they walked out of a "Resident Evil" video game.
- There are no interesting characters in '22 at all. Frank and Julia, on the other hand, are interesting. You actually get some satisfaction when they meet their fate.
The bum eating the crickets is more disturbing than anything in the '22 remake.
Obvious trolling.
shareWHY SHOULDN'T THEY BE REMADE?....HOW DOES A REMAKE IMPACT THE ORIGINAL?...IF THE REMAKE IS GOOD IT WILL DRAW MORE ATTENTION TO THE ORIGINAL...IF THE REMAKE IS BAD IT WILL DRAW MORE ATTENTION TO THE ORIGINAL...ALSO...REMAKES AND SEQUELS ARE A TRADITION AS OLD AS FILM ITSELF.
shareI liked the homo and transe aspect of the film. I disliked the non-black cast but loved the Jewish woman lead despite not being a great actress.
share