[metternich1815]

They were actually going to make another remake of this film? The original was a brilliant film by Brian De Palma (I believe it was one of the first films to be based off a Stephen King work). I especially like how De Palma changed the ending, so that it was even more difficult to sympathize with Carrie, causing greater confliction. The acting was brilliant, especially Sissy Spacek as Carrie and De Palma's use of the camera was brilliant. Don't get me wrong there are some remakes that were good and others that greatly exceeded their originals. For example, The Thing (1982), Thirteen Ghosts (2001), The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003), and Dawn of the Dead (2005). First, The Thing (1982) which I consider to be one of the greatest horror movies of all time. The acting was incredible, despite the size of the cast, especially Kurt Russel as Macready. The film plays with ideas of paranoia and claustrophobia. It takes a very pessimistic view on human nature and is clearly the product of the Cold War. Therefore, the film is much better than the original Howard Hawk's The Thing from Another World (1951), which was a good film, just not a masterpiece like John Carpenter's version. Second, was Thirteen Ghosts (2001), which has received the lowest critic rating of all the films that I personally loved (12% on Rotten Tomatoes). The setting was much darker than the William Castle original and the acting was terrific (There was not even a best performance, I think everyone was equally amazing). Additionally, the plot was far more more intriguing than the original and the makeup was extremely realistic, even scary. Third, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003) had a plot that was related to the original, but in many many ways completely different. The acting was relatively strong (perhaps even better than the original, in that regard in some ways). The background information was intresting, although it did destroy some of the mystery of the original film. I did not really buy into the whole skin cancer idea, but that as well as the extensive amount of torture were the only true weak points of the film. The original was better than the remake, which was a masterpiece, but it was as good as a remake of a masterpiece like this could possibly get. The fourth and final film, Dawn of the Dead (2005) had really good acting and the setting was relatively dark. Also, it was interesting to watch the evolution of the characters. The film was good, although not better than the original. The original had interesting philosophical questions regarding the counter culture ideas, such as concern related to cosumerism. Also, it had an interesting setting directly related to the deeper meaning. Most importantly, there was a collaboration among Dario Argento and George Romero (The official director), and the special effects artist Tom Savini, who obviously did the special effects and makeup for the film. The ultimate horror movie collaboration. Ultimately, my point is that there are some remakes that are greater than the originals (very rare althiough) and some that are at least good, although not better than their originals. However, there are plenty others, such as Psycho (1998), The Omen (2006), Halloween (2007), Friday the 13th (2009), and A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) which were either terrible or unnecessary, maybe even both. I will not go into detail on why I believe these are terrible because I have already written a book on the subject here. So, it is possible that this second remake could be good, but there are plenty of remakes are terrible, so I am cautious about remakes (I will being seeing The Evil Dead remakes), but if they do end up coming out with it, I would probably go see it.