| re: More Rocky Horror | |
|
Posted by: |
Conas 03:39 pm UTC 10/19/10 |
| In reply to: | re: More Rocky Horror - Jacqueline 02:59 pm UTC 10/19/10 |
| Gus Van Sant's version was the first one I saw even before the orginal, and I quiet liked it to be honest. When you watch it now it feels kind of weird watching Vince Vaughn playing Norman Bates, because he's considered a comedian these days. The reason why they continue to touch "classics" is to get more money. A lot of films like Rocky Horror and Psycho have a cult following, so money is guaranteed to be made even before it's released. Take the SAW film series for example, they released one that went down a big success, and now they'll have the seventh installment out this week. That kind of thing is worse than remaking a classic in my opinion, because all the installments that came after the first one have been crap. I should no I watched them all. lol I thought Meat's version of "Left in the Dark", and "BFG" were solid, but not as good as the originals alright. But to give him credit I thought his version of "Surfs Up", "Frying Pan", and "Original Sin" were better than the originals. Some of Jim's music seems to get better the more it's recycled, that's quiet unique in my opinion. Meat said he hates "Dance in my pants" and "Stark Raving Love", but I must say the latter is quiet catchy. > I'm not a big fan of Rocky Horror either - and I've seen > it a lot of times. I just don't understand why people > have to touch "classics." > > Case in point, Gus Van Sant's remake of Hitchcock's Pyscho > (although Vince Vaughn masturbating was one for the sexual > "Highlight Reel"). Sorry Gus, brave attempt but alas... > > Sort of like when Meat recorded Left in the Dark or Bad > For Good. Sometimes you've just got to leave a > masterpiece alone... > | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: Left In The Dark - Conas 07:17 pm UTC 10/19/10 |
| Next: | re: More Rocky Horror - Tremorlor 12:31 pm UTC 10/20/10 |
| Thread: |
|