Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TheFuriousWombat]

OK, so who here as seen the original? When I heard they were remaking this, I was confused. Then I heard Haneke (the original's director) was re-doing it himself. Then I heard it was a shot by shot remake using the same exact script. This makes very little sense to me. The trailer looks really disappointing as well. The original was so well acted (each character seemed ideal for their role) but this absolutely does not appear to be the case here. The only consolation I have is that the new trailer is extremely misleading and it'll be funny to see how many people get lured in thinking they're about to see a typical thriller. Any one have any thoughts?

[tomselleck69]

The fact that Naked City was replaced with the Nutcracker song in the new trailer grates on my bullshit indie spider sense or whatever those sensibilities are called, but I guess it was unavoidable... I knew it would happen---we all knew.

I think the cast for the remake is a very good approximation of the original cast (not that the original cast is full of familiar faces or anything, but still) and judging from the trailer, the biggest potential problem seems to be Michael Pitt's goddamn overacting. While it is a strange idea, I don't think remaking this specific movie is a bad idea. I am giving Michael Haneke the benefit of the doubt. I trust him to... y'know, rape me into independence once again.

[KvP]

I'll quote a friend of mine from another forum, since he puts it better than I would:

The original was an extremely juvenile joke masquerading as a post modern satire playing on the notion of what drove the audience to see violent movies. The idea was, "well, you think you're enjoying the violence- let's strip all morality away and see how you stomach it then". All that happened though, was that the narrative wankery it was laden with (punching through the fourth wall, antagonists rewinding the movie when  it suited them to reach another outcome) made suspension of disbelief impossible making the film descend into self parody very quickly. For a movie that wished to deconstruct violence, it relied on a lot of cheap shock tactics to make its point and played like an immature director's belated teenage rebellion.

No doubt though the remake will be something truly worthy of discussion.

Apparently the remake is shot-for-shot, but the trailer didn't allude to any of the weird narrative tricks so yeah, it's really misleading. And I don't know what it is with Naomi Watts and roles that involve degradation. I suppose it's better for "serious actress" points than wearing prosthetics. And man, Michael Pitt will never stop being "heroin addict Leo" to me.

Also, anybody who wants to see this movie, don't watch the unrated trailer, because it contains a HUGE spoiler.

[TheFuriousWombat]

About that trailer, it contains one spoiler given away early on and another spoiler which isn't really much of a spoiler after all considering what happens. Still, it's definitely best not to watch it if you plan on seeing this and haven't seen the original. Of course, if that's the case I would recommend just tracking down the original on DVD and watching that. Like the others have said, Michael Pitt seems to be doing his overacting thing here as well which is going to potentially ruin a crucial, incredibly sinister and sadistic character. I'll see this but I don't really have high hopes.
Also, for some reason, this movie just sounds better in German. Somehow that language is feels more appropriate. I think a remastered re-release of the first one woulda been a much better idea.