... "But let's remake it anyway!"
"...Son, one time I had full confidence in a fart... (I) *beep* all over myself."
- Mayor Buckman
Hiya trolls.
shareI agree. The original sucked monkey balls.
shareI do not agree
shareHere's the deal, the original did suck. But it had a great premise, they should be remaking films like these because the core ideas were great it was simply bad writing and execution. Night of the Demons could've been up to Exorcist quality. I only wish these movies were being properly remade by talented individuals. Instead of pouring money into a Nightmare on Elm St. remake they should've dumped money into Night of the Demons and brought it up to Nightmare,Halloween, Shining stature.
The weird thing is they are making the great horror films into the generic caricature of horror "gore/tits, bad writing/directing" and also squandering the opportunity to remake the crappier horror flicks "with a good idea" into something worth-wild.
"You know someone lacks intelligence when their only argument is Dont See It."
[deleted]
Let Me In was decent enough. Most American audiences will not watch a Swedish horror movie even dubbed. And, lets face it, Let the Right One in was good but was no masterpiece. It was slow and, for a horror movie, that's a major drawback. Plus that kid had SEVERE issues. Who keeps a Serial Killer Scrapbook? His mother was no help. The only thing she apparently worried about was whether or not Oscar had his hat. Plus wasn't Oscar suppose to be fat? But at least Eli/Abby was a cool bloodthirsty and LETHAL vampire unlike the popular sex crazed or sparkly vamps we have flooding the multiplexis and HBO.
As for the original NotD, I love that movie. This movie was, at best, more like NotD 4. My only real complaint was that it moved way to fast to where the film felt rushed. I mean from the time Angela was bitten it seemed like half the party was already being turned. The original took its time and was able to incorporate some fairly unique kills. And why did the filmmakers insist on making it a comedy?
"What's the fastest way to kill a slasher flick? Slap it with a PG-13."
The original was so bad it was good. It's overall cheesy nature is why a lot of people like it, and in the end, that's probably it's saving grace(including Roger, who's probably one of my favorite horror characters).
The thing is, like others said, a remake could've expanded upon the creepiness of the original. Actually, that's what I also think remakes SHOULD do. If there's potential to turn bad movies into good movies, do it, don't just take the superficial themes and amplify them one-hundred fold(which is what most remakes do). It's like the makers of the remake said, "Okay, what is Night of the Demons' about?", then skimmed through the original(fast-forwarding) and said, "It looks like it's about rowdy teens having a party, then demons possess them! So what should we do? Let's add more rowdy teens(er, adults), and instead of a small party, it's a BIG party. Let's also make all the demons look like animals!! It'll be cool!!". They totally ignored one of the best things about the original, the atmosphere. Dammit, Hull House was one creepy looking place. For being a cheapo movie, the atmosphere was awesome. This one, the mansion isn't creepy enough.
You know you have a bad remake when it's a remake of a bad movie, and it happens to be WORSE than that movie. Sometimes the saying, "There's no where else to go, but up" is wrong.
Yeah it did have a great location and atmosphere. And surprisingly enough there aren't enough halloween themed films. It also has a bunch of "exorcist type" possessed people roaming the grounds. So the potential for a remake is great but Hollywood likes to squander all of their chances to improve. I have no idea why they chose to make the demons look like they do in the remake. The original had a great take on it and all they had to do was copy the makeup effects and subtract the goofy demons.
"You know someone lacks intelligence when their only argument is Dont See It."
I actually love the original movie. It's one of those fun 80's horror movies. Very nostalgic. However, I have to say that the girl that plays Angela in the original, has always made me think of Tim Curry in the Rocky Horror Picture show.
shareIn my opinion, the only reason a movie should be remade is if the original isn’t good enough.
shareExactly. For instance, I don't know if any of you seen the movie The Suckling, but that one should be remade. Bad movie, though I loved the concept of a mutant fetus going after it's parents after they had it aborted in a crack/whore house.
Regarding Night of the Demons, there was so much they could've did right to enhance the original's creepiness. They just totally failed miserably. Though, I think, in general, most people they get to remake movies are totally the wrong people to be doing so. They're the ones who don't have a good grasp of what made the originals good. They only see the originals on a superficial level, not the real potential that always existed in those movies.
The original is just a fun '80s movie, sure it had it's flaws but it was entertaining.
The remake - well, all it really had to offer was a little more updated graphic violence, really ugly-looking silicone-enhanced breasts, and the recent trend of using the F word in every other sentence. And as somebody else said, the house wasn't even scary or atmospheric like the house in the original. Not the worst film I've ever seen, but once was enough. I'll stick with the original.
laeyisoracle, I was browsing on Netflix the other day and I saw a movie on their called Hanger. The plot sounds kinda similar, in case you wanna watch it.
shareSure the original was bad...but in a bad 80's b-horror kind of way. It was the epitome of 80's horror down to the bad acting, gratuitous nudity, sex and bad jokes! The remake had all the same elements that amused us in the 80's but not so much now. I was however amused by seeing Edward Furlong looking Uncle Fester in a bad wig.
share