I see my local library has this, so I will check it out. Thanks.
I’m also on board with both of you. I think people dread the thought of remakes simply because so many have been shite. When it’s one’s own favorite, it makes them feel like something has been stolen from them in a way.
I don’t have a problem with remakes, per se, I just hold very little faith in anyone’s ability these days to do scary properly. Every director seems to feel the need to pander to the blood and guts crowd, and nuance and atmosphere are a thing of the past. That said, I’m open to seeing remakes. If they suck, they suck. Doesn’t take away from the original.
And just to add something positive, I think “The Woman in Black” remake was awesome, so it *can *be done.
I second that emotion. But I’d go even further and not make a new DS a movie, but a whole new series, not like the half-hearted 90s night-time soap, but a twisted macabre mindf*** like “American Horror Story.”
(BTW, yes I know there was a pilot for a new DS series sometime in the last ten years, but that would’ve been another CW teenybopper soap. I want something bloody, scary and no-holds-barred.)
I’d like to see a remake of the Exorcist too. I even did a thread specifically about the idea a few months back. I suggested Amy Adams for the Ellen Burstyn part and Ian McKellan for Father Merrin. Still not sure who’d be right for a new Father Karras.
I just recently netflixed The Dunwich Horror, and to my surprise it was not the utter camp-fest I expected. Some parts were actually creepy and intriguing. But it did leave a lot of room for improvement. (To begin with, “Dunwich” is supposed to be pronounced “New England” style, with a silent ‘w’ - ‘Dun-itch’, not ‘Dun-which’) And with the whole “zombie apocalypse” fad tiring out, maybe the “stars are right” for Lovecraft’s Cthulhu mythos to make a return to glory.
Can you remind this Stephen King fan of the book’s ending? I thought in the book there was an ambiguous / happyish ending, whereas in the movie the father shot his son to save him from the “monsters”?
If I have that straight, I think the movie ending is better, though I don’t think it is a great movie.
Yep, your memory is correct. I don’t remember exactly how the book ending went, but I do remember that the tone of it was as you said.
The movie ending was one of the biggest downers I’ve ever seen in a commercial film, but I think it worked.
You sir, or madam, strike me a someone with impeccable taste and are quite obviously a person of high intellect.
I’m one of the 5 people in the world who liked the 1996 version of The Island of Dr. Moreau. Why such hate for it, I don’t get it? I found it gripping and even liked the quirky performances of both Brando and Kilmer. And, it didn’t hurt that I had a huge crush on Aissa* (move over Julie Newmar, there’s a new cat in my heart). I’d bring plenty of kitty-litter to spend the night with that slinky tigress.
Anyway, I think a new, darker, mistier version of Dr. Moreau should be made. Imagine how riviting it could be with Anthony Hopkins, Jeremy Irons and Angelina Jolie as the three leads. And, if the creatures were made with CGI as high-quality as that used in Avatar, it could be a great flick (of course no CGI at all would be needed if they cast Gary Buseyas one of the creatures).
*Just to be clear, Aissa, the one I had a crush on, is the one on the far left.
I didn’t exactly mind the new ending, could have been much worse, but I don’t know why it got changed. The book ending, as I recall it:
The man, his son, and the woman they met at the grocery store are travelling south, getting gas very carefully and breaking into motels to sleep. The story ends with a note of hope, as the man reflects that, although he hasn’t told the woman for fear of letting her down, he had heard the name of a city very faintly in a bit of static on the radio. (Boston, perhaps.) Implying that there might still be civilization there to head for.
Oh, and I would LOVE a semi-serious live action Scooby Doo. Maybe Shaggy is a little befuddled and just thinks his dog talks to him sometimes, but the rest of the crew humors him because he has really good instincts or is a master of unlocking or something. 
Speaking of “masters of unlocking,” I wouldn’t mind a Resident Evil that was pretty true to the game lore. I never saw the sequels, though, maybe they were better.
Hartford.
Just to clarify my position: this quote is close to my views on the whole remake issue. It’s not a “Don’t touch my movie” thing, more of a “It’s highly unlikely to be as great as the original so why bother?” Really, why? I’d rather see something new.
There have been two versions of The Dunwich Horror, both of them with Dean Stockwell. They might not be camp-fests, but they’re neither of them even remotely faithful to Lovecraft’s story. I’d love to see a decent adaptation of it. I’m sure the H.P. Lovecraft Historical Society, if they had enough backing, could do as good a job with it as they did with The Call of Cthulhu or the Whisperer in Darkness.
For that matter, I’d like to see Lovecraft’s The Shadow Over Innsmouth and The Case of Charles Dexter Ward done right. I know that there are more versions that have been made than the ones I’ve seen, but the versions I’ve seen have been awful, and I find it hard to believe that others have done these justice.
I’m glad John Carpenter didn’t feel that way about The Thing.
OK, so I watched Count Dracula (link to full movie on YouTube), and it is indeed very faithful to the novel, which made me happy. Unfortunately, the quality of the movie as a whole was undercut by cheap special effects, a cheesy soundtrack, and questionable casting. Still, it was on the right track.
So yes, I’d like to see a movie like that, but with higher production values.
Keeping with the Stephen King theme: I’d like to see a remake of Cujo. The original version just couldn’t make the St. Bernard menacing. A CGI 300-pound rabid dog, though, has potential to rock mightily.
There were some rumblings about a remake back in 2013, but nothing seems to have come of it. Couldn’t get the funding, I guess.
The first half of Jess Franco’s Count Dracula (1970) is amazingly faithful to the book, and it has Christopher Lee as Dracula! Filmed in an actual castle(not a set)! Klaus Kinski as Renfield! Herbert Lom as Van Halsing!
Unfortunately, the second half falters badly, with cheap effects and other disappointments. But the first half blew me away.
For all its problems, I still like Coppola’s version. It’s the only version that seems to try to use all of Stoker’s characters, for once. Even if it screwed with the story, and Van Helsing comes off as more of a loon than usual.
Watchers by Dean Koontz. Never saw the movie, but I heard it was beyond horrible.
To be honest, I’m not familiar with most horror-genre movie directors enough to speak authoritatively about their work, but from what I’ve seen, there are lots of swings and misses; rarely any hits on base and virtually no home runs. I’m not simply being nostalgic for the past, either; there weren’t a lot of grand slams back in the old days either.
I think directors like Tim Burton show flecks of brilliance. He has a fantastic eye for the macabre, but falls short on the suspense and horror scale. Shyamalan shows “signs” of eeriness, but otherwise, meh. Craven and Carpenter, are good with camp and shock-fun, but don’t make me start popping my beta-blockers. Hitchcock was a master of suspense, but didn’t quite venture into Horrorville (though Psycho and The Birds are masterpieces).
A director who I wish attempted full-bore horror is Stanley Kubrick—I have little doubt he would have hit a grand slam in horror, the same way he did with sci-fi, black comedy, etc… Imagine The Shining and A Clockwork Orange smushed up together and kicked up a couple of notches with hot pepper.
I want a director to be able to put onto the Silver Screen what Stephen King, at his best, puts onto the synaptic screen of your mind. When I read my first King novel, IT, as a young adult, I felt like my mind was being raped. Hey, why is this King guy picking on me and how does he know exactly what haunts me on such a primitive, basic level; a level I’ve never revealed to anyone since infancy? How dare he stick his probe thing in my brain like that in order to learn what scares the hell out me. Then, it became apparent that he affects millions of other people the same way. Then, jealously, I wanted his mind probe thing all to myself (eh, not that there’s anything wrong with it, but, I’m not gay, ok?!).
King can take the simplest, least offensive concept and turn it into pure horror. He can even do so with a single word. But, he takes that single word and puts it in just the right context, in just the right spot and massages the horror out of it.
A lesser writer would write something like: “everything bleeds down here” or “everything rots down here”, or “everything explodes down here.”
But, King wrote, “everything floats down here.”
WTF? “Floats”? That’s not a scary word. People float on inner tubes on the water for fun. Ice cream floats in root beer. People say, *“hey, dude, whatever floats your boat” *all the time. If anything, “floats” is a sissy kind of a word that evokes feelings of joy and happiness.
But, when a sociopathic shape-shifting clown says, “everything floats down here”, it’s time to take out your Smith & Wesson and put a bullet through your skull—game over, pal, that’s some scary shit.
In similar fashion, but used only once, as I recall, King used another word in one of his books that still haunts me decades after reading it (although, ironically, I can’t remember which book it was). If anything, this word is even more innocuous than “floats”, but in the context and placement King used it in, it was horrible. The word he wrote was “slippage.”
“Slippage” was exactly the right word to describe a slow, but accelerating falling away (like rotted flesh from the carcass of an animal) of the earnestly built and maintained façade of reality and having nothing left but the abyss of complete and utter loneliness in a cold and uncaring universe. Brrrrrr…if that’s what reality is at the core, get me outta here!
Stephen King at his best is a genius of horror.
Imagine if Kubrick directed IT. You all would still be peeing your pants and calling for mommy just thinking about it. I mean…I wouldn’t do that, but you would. 
Like you, I haven’t seen another movie as scary as The Exorcist, but Case 39 comes close. While watching it I was aware of becoming more and more uncomfortable—until I realized I was scared. Psychological horrors are far scarier to me than zombies and vampires.
I’ve been thinking that Matthew Perry may be wasting his talents chasing these comedy sit-coms. I can see him as a real villain if he went with his dark side while insinuating touches of his sardonic humor.
Except for the early castle scenes, I can’t endorse Coppola’s version at all. Quick cut after quick cut. It’s like short-attention-span-Dracula. Hopkins screaming like a lunatic, bad acting and bad accents all around, and Dracula turned into a tragically romantic figure. Blecch.