am i the only fan who loved the WHOLE film not just the beginning/end?
-
HenryCW — 15 years ago(October 24, 2010 12:58 PM)
I agree in general that the middle part contributes significantly to the film. The main problem with the remake is that it basically stretches the first 20 minutes of the original into a 90-minute film. It is simply impossible to sustain the viewers interest for that long, when we know that practically nothing would happen until the end. More importantly, the middle part of the original film enables us to understand better the mindsets of the characters especially that of the killer in the film. We actually develop some kind of sympathy for him. By contrast, we know absolutely nothing about the killer in the remake.
It may appear a little strange to talk about sympathy for the killer when we know he murdered two children at the very beginning. But the court had ruled that he was insane and there is no reason why one should not accept that. In the film, after his escape from the mental institution, he didnt harm or even threaten anyone until he tried to kill Jill at the end. He was probably just feeling lonely and helpless. (He had no money and had to beg in the streets). He was not violent towards the middle-aged woman he picked up at the bar, even after he learned that she had betrayed him. They treated each other decently. It was the other people who were nasty to him. One guy in the bar beat him up when he tried to start a conversation with the woman. The woman later betrayed him and helped the detective to set a trap. The detective himself had turned into a hit man and relentlessly tracked him down. He clearly intended to murder him while he was sleeping rather than bring him back to the institution I think because of all that, he decided he just had to go back to finish what he left off after killing the children seven years ago namely, to kill the babysitter. In any case, this is my interpretation. In my opinion, the middle part of the film provides an interesting study of the psychology of the killer and the other characters.
I think one main reason why many people do not like the middle part of the film is that the story just becomes rather disjointed. Jill disappeared from the scene after the first 20 minutes, and the focus shifts totally to the escaped killer and the detective hunting him down. We arent told what happened to Jill after her traumatic experience, and in fact we dont even know whether she would return to the film later on. I think there would be fewer objections to the second part, if the film gives more emphasis to the continuity of the narrative by including some scenes on what happened to Jill and her family after her traumatic experience, rather than brings her back suddenly at the end. It is rather ironical that the film appears to offer more insight into the psychology of the killer and the detective rather than the mental state of the girl after those terrible murders. -
BoSoxRules — 9 years ago(June 06, 2016 03:02 PM)
"It may appear a little strange to talk about sympathy for the killer when we know he murdered two children at the very beginning."
More than a little strange, Henry. We should feel sympathy for him because he's insane? That's pretty idiotic, don't you think? The piece of sh!t should've been put to death. -
ricky_may1 — 14 years ago(June 02, 2011 05:17 AM)
i love the whole film as well. Its the first horror film i ever saw as a child and it scared the hell out of me when i seen it. Tony Beckley is one of the best villains ever. he plays the role of Curt Duncan so terrific (its the only film i ever seen him in as sadly he passed away from cancer after filming wrapped)
Personally i always too the ending of the film to mean that he wasnt truly dead as the last shot is of the house in view of Duncan's chilling eyes. -
FireWave — 14 years ago(August 08, 2011 02:10 PM)
I didn't like the middle section. In " Scream " we found out that is scarier when killer dosen't have a motive, when we don't have anything about him and that is why remake works better for me. That killer can easily kill anyone.
In original, he is out just because of revenge on Jill.
In the original, they made a killer so boring that I wanted to shot my computer. -
Mithrandir-Olorin33 — 14 years ago(November 08, 2011 11:30 AM)
All 3 acts are good, but the film jumps around between different Genres, that can be appealing in some cases but not in others.
The title in my opinion far more accurately describes the Remake, in this it only fits the 1st 20 minutes.
This is ultimately more of a Portrait of a Serial Killer type film, or maybe a detective film, with the Suspense thriller being just a glorified prologue.
"When the chips are down these
Civilized
people will Eat each Other" -
-
knight-in-black-leather — 11 years ago(June 02, 2014 08:59 PM)
I didn't hate the middle, and actually found it an interesting take - to show the killer's POV and his make-up etc, but I think because the end and beginning were so good, it would have been better to leave the middle for a lesser film and concentrate more on the babysitter/family.
"This is a faithful sayingJesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief." -
FranLovesBetteD — 11 years ago(June 21, 2014 07:09 AM)
Since I had seen the remake first, I was hoping that the original version would be similar, then I got truly disappointed when I first watched it, about three years ago. I was like "who cares about the murderer? Why expose him and the detective all that much?".
However, I re-watched it a couple of nights ago, and I must confess I enjoyed it much more this time around, and yes, the whole film, not only the beggining and the end. I think it had to do with the fact that Collen Dewhurst was such a magnificent actress, and even though she wasn't the main character and we get to see her only a few minutes, her screen presence was so powerful and her amazing face and attitude convey so much that she gets you to care about her. Of course, Charles Durning did a great job, as well, and so the actor who played the killer.
It's a rather unconventional horror movie, with many psychological-thriller elements in it, which makes it all the more interesting, though it must be rather boring for the fans of the genre who are only expecting for gore. Very well directed for the most part. The climax at the end really gave me the creeps. The last 20 minutes, or so, are really unsettling.
Animal crackers in my soup
Monkeys and rabbits loop the loop