I loved the original with Virginia Madsen and thought it was a very unique horror movie at the time. Even the sequel that took place in New Orleans was pretty good. Is this new one just a retread of the original or is it trying to do something different?
shareIt is definitely worth seeing. It builds upon the original, but also offers something new.
shareabsolutely worth seeing. it takes some plot details from the original and does some different things with them.
& it's a very cool, stylish film. has some very neat shots, some cool details that i really enjoyed.
i'm less keen on the very end of the film, but i'd still recommend giving it a shot.
I'm a huge fan of the original. I saw some of your comments about the ending of this one and I don't think I'll bother. Not till it turns up on TV, anyway.
shareThe original was somewhat sophisticated, thought provoking, and artful. This on the other hand is racially overcharged and the complete opposite. This definitely leans more into a mindless slasher with a significantly higher kill count and gives Candyman full-on exposure from the jump. Compare this to the 1992 version where we only first get a glimpse of him 30 minutes into the movie and there are a little more than a handful of deaths where half were shown off-screen. Appreciate the original for what it is but please don't expect to get this same level of quality from this.
shareIt is trying to do something different, while organically building upon the original. It's not just a rehash.
But while the original was very creatively filmed and written, I think the new movie falls short in a number of ways. For the record, I think it's highly entertaining and very nicely filmed. Great shots, great atmosphere; this is a definitely a more modern horror film compared to the 90s original.
The original film was, as you said, unique. It had a very different type of narrative flow. This made it exciting and unpredictable imo. It also dealt with some pretty intense themes for a horror movie, especially for the time and it straddles the line between the real and the unreal (quite literally actually, given that that's one of the points of the film). The end product was this violent, surreal thing, and left you with a lot of questions, in a good way, leaving the events of the film open to interpretation...while still being just bloody good horror.
The new movie though, is only worth seeing I think, if you ignore the original, ironically, since the new movie does a great job of connecting back to the source material, for the most part anyways.
I think the new movie is far too on the nose; it pushes some of its ideas in a very heavyhanded manner...which would be fine, if those ideas made sense. But unfortunately, the movie doesn't really make total sense, and kinda just expects you to go along with it. Which IS how the original film was I admit, but again, the original was kind of surreal. This movie is relatively grounded tries to be explicit about what's happening, but stops short of that, so it just comes off unconvincing.
People sometimes criticize arthouse horror films that leave too much unexplained. Frankly, this would have gone better if they just stripped some bits of it, because I don't think this film really had a coherent vision.
I can't help but think the writers had some good ideas and images, and just shoved them together.
I really appreciate your post which gives a lot of useful information on the new film. It doesn't exactly sound like an unnecessary update like the Nightmare on Elm Street or Friday the 13th reboots or something like that awful prequel to The Thing. I am rewatching the original right now on Peacock not having seen it in years. I like how it doesn't feel like a by-the-numbers effort and the story keeps moving in unexpected directions. It also boasts a fantastic performance from Virginia Madsen and a hypnotic score from Phillip Glass. After reading your review and the other insights on here, I'm not sure I would enjoy this new remake and would set myself up to be disappointed by another "reimagining". I might wait for the new film to appear on streaming.
shareThat's a good reference point. It's not unnecessary like the The Thing prequel. But...still questionable.
But my issue is just, this movie is unfortunately not very good imo. I think it tried too hard to be something it's not (artsy, social commentary). And then when you bring the original film in the mix, it feels so uninspired in comparison.
Which sucks cause there's really cool bits in the movie. But alas.
Honestly, if I hadn't known the original, I'd probably be like, "oh this is a cool mainstream horror movie, like Insidious, or The Conjuring. It's trying a little bit too hard though. I'm not a huge fan of Get Out, but I think even that movie did the social commentary better"