![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Stupid, stupid rat creatures! (part 2)
Jun. 28th, 2005 06:05 pmLatest news flash from Hollywood: they're remaking "Don't Look Now." If you haven't heard of it, I'm not surprised. I first encountered its plotline as a kid, hearing it being retold around campfires, and even then the kid who'd seen it couldn't remember the highly-forgettable title. But she remembered it scared the bejesus out of her, and her garbled retelling of the plot managed to keep the rest of us up all night.
Flashforward to last year, when I stumbled across a DVD with a familiar-sounding plotline at Monroe County Library. I figured I might as well watch all the classic horror I could find, so I took it out, and it really is a one-of-a-kind movie: dream-like, haunting, with one of the all time best WTF?! endings I can recall.
(Seriously, if I ever have kids, I will not buy them red raincoats. No. Way. In. Hell.)
And now they're remaking it. From Dark Horizons:
>>The original film, directed by Nicolas Roeg and based on a story by Daphne Du Maurier, "was very much of its time with a lot of atmospherics that wouldn't necessarily work today," said the update's producer, Mark Gordon. "But it has a great idea and a wonderful backdrop and setting. We hope to take the feeling of the story, continue to set it in Venice and make it contemporary."<<
Which is the sort of statement that's calculated to drive me nuts. 1) because it's bullshit (The American remake of "The Ring" is an example of DLN's oldfashioned 'atmospherics' - I mean, only there's only creepy imagery, a few off-screen killings and a finale starring a little girl - it's not like that kind of movie appeals to modern audiences, right?) 2) because the 'atmospherics' were what was universally praised about the original, and I have trouble envisioning just what kind of movie they'd be making without it.
Grr.
Ok, rant over. Just trust me on red raincoats, ok?
Flashforward to last year, when I stumbled across a DVD with a familiar-sounding plotline at Monroe County Library. I figured I might as well watch all the classic horror I could find, so I took it out, and it really is a one-of-a-kind movie: dream-like, haunting, with one of the all time best WTF?! endings I can recall.
(Seriously, if I ever have kids, I will not buy them red raincoats. No. Way. In. Hell.)
And now they're remaking it. From Dark Horizons:
>>The original film, directed by Nicolas Roeg and based on a story by Daphne Du Maurier, "was very much of its time with a lot of atmospherics that wouldn't necessarily work today," said the update's producer, Mark Gordon. "But it has a great idea and a wonderful backdrop and setting. We hope to take the feeling of the story, continue to set it in Venice and make it contemporary."<<
Which is the sort of statement that's calculated to drive me nuts. 1) because it's bullshit (The American remake of "The Ring" is an example of DLN's oldfashioned 'atmospherics' - I mean, only there's only creepy imagery, a few off-screen killings and a finale starring a little girl - it's not like that kind of movie appeals to modern audiences, right?) 2) because the 'atmospherics' were what was universally praised about the original, and I have trouble envisioning just what kind of movie they'd be making without it.
Grr.
Ok, rant over. Just trust me on red raincoats, ok?
