HomeMy brother is always saying you can't condemn a new remake of a horror movie until you've actually seen it, maybe so, but I looked up this remake and in my opinion when the first three whole pages of reviews for it are all 1 stars '2 hours you'll never get back' and 'waste of my time'...that's usually a sign that it's really bad. I mean usually most movie review pages open up with somebody saying it's good, it's entertaining, NO, 3 pages of 1 and 2 stars out of 10. Has anybody seen this one to say for themselves how bad it is?
3 posters
The Wicker Man (2006)
Supernova- The Book Chamber
Join date : 2010-06-22
Posts : 11954
Rep : 182
Alan Smithee- ...is a 20G Chamber DIETY.
Join date : 2010-09-03
Location : 40º44’18.33”N 73º58’31.82”W
Posts : 25792
Rep : 381
I've only seen the 1973 version.
Shale- ...is a Chamber Royal.
Join date : 2010-09-27
Location : Miami Beach
Posts : 9699
Rep : 219
It was bad - This remake should never had been made.
The original movie was timely. A lot of young ppl were more into the occult in those days so the setting was feasible. Not so much any more, so the whole theme lost its believability.
Nicolas Cage's character was such a loser that we weren't really too torn up to see him go.
I even proposed that a sequel could have been made of the original movie, but a remake did not work.
The original movie was timely. A lot of young ppl were more into the occult in those days so the setting was feasible. Not so much any more, so the whole theme lost its believability.
Nicolas Cage's character was such a loser that we weren't really too torn up to see him go.
I even proposed that a sequel could have been made of the original movie, but a remake did not work.
Similar topics
|
|
|
» NEW ADDRESS: http://conversationchamber.ipbhost.com/
» New project
» st pattys day
» White smoke signals cardinals have selected a new pope
» Red?
» Do You Look Like a Celebrity?
» Canned Foods
» English Muffins or Toast?