hi
I've seen the 1960 and the 90s version and of course i prefer the original, i was wondering what other peoples opinions were on it.
Erika
- X -
It Wont Rain All The Time, The Sky wont Fall Forever
The 1960 version wins by a mile! I find that it is infinitely more suspenseful, and, the black and white film serves to increase the tension and the eerie nature of the film. The children weren't anywhere near as good in the 1995 film.
share60's by far. The 90's one was somewhat pathetic.
shareMaybe a more subtle director than Carpenter (subtle as a sledgehammer ;o) could have made a decent version of it. As it stands, the 60's version is FAR, FAR better.
Everyone tells me that I have my grandmother's hands. So what?
Grandma's dead, it's not like she needed them anymore.
I am your grandma, speaking to you from beyond the grave. I did need my hands to shake with God and the other dead people and I resent that you took mine. If and when you get here I'll give you what for; you can rely on that. This will give you another reason to fear death.
shareI agree with the rest of you guys, the 1960 version is much better. I was somewhat disappointed that the 1995 version wasn't so much better, after all, John Carpenter's remake of The Thing was such a spectacularly well-crafted remake, that was so much more true to the original "Who Goes There!" than the original movie had been, and so I had expected his remake of Village to be equally well worked-out, and to incorperate more of the elements from MIDWICH CUCKOOS (such as, say, the part about the alien ship being spotted in the center of the village by high-flying plane during the Dayout, or some of the more... erm... cynical speculation by certain characters about what the unseen aliens' *real* reason for "gifting" us with these kids might have been). And why the heck did he move the setting from England to America? They don't call small communities "villages" here, we call them "towns"!
I'd also hoped the remake might lead to a remake of the original's sequel, Children of the Damned, a film that had quite an impact on me years back, and formed in me strong feelings about how one must never, ever prejudge, and must NEVER, EVER make hasty decisions! A feeling about how we must PROTECT that which we do not understand, and NEVER destroy something unless there is literally NO other choice. That ending still brings tears to my eyes, more than 20 years after I originally saw it.
Did I mention it had a profound effect on me? :-)
As an aside, I actually saw the sequel first, and wasn't aware at the time there were two films and that I wasn't actually watching the first one. Sometime later, I saw the original, and realised it definately measured up to its praises.
Hi there (sorry if i make any mistakes in English because i'm French so this is a bit hard for me).
Being a HUGE fan of BIG John (Carpenter of course!). I couldn't let you people tell something bad about him :-).
Of course the original version is AMAZING. The black & white enhances the feeling of oppression coming out from the children and straight to your face !. The "kids" are simply great ! (and scary)
The thing is that the 90's version was given by Universal for Carpenter to direct. It's a studio movie not a director's vision of the movie.
It's a thing the studios do very often (Tim Burton's version of "Planet of the apes" or Paul Veroehen version of "The Invisible Man", "Hollow Man for instance).
Some of Carpenter's touch is visible though (the filming in scope is one).
Don't forget also that the original movie is from 1960 and at this time it was the cold war if i'm not mistaken and you can easily see that the children are a bit like the communist threat (unique mind, unique thought etc...).
Of course this is a bit irrelevant today.
I think it's interesting to see both. Hoping that the vision of the remake will make people turn to the little masterpiece that the original movie is
Wolf Rilla's movie is really unique and i'm really glad that WB studos have finally decided to release it with its sequel on dvd on august 10th.
My dvd collection was waiting for that one for a LONG TIME.
I'm with the majority...1960 version rules!
The performances are all excellent, and the screenplay even allowed some of original author John Wyndham's sci-fi philosophizing to come thru(if we, as humans, are NOT the superior species, should we not allow the higher being surive? Is that not the law of the jungle?).
I didn't like the way the children were interpreted in Carpenter's version- they are supposed to be cold and emotionless(VERY well acted by the British bunch, especially Martin Stephens), but these kids were bratty, prone to temper tantrums and pouting. THAT key factor really ruined it for me. And all the hammy performances from Mark Hamill and Pippa Pearthree really made this version rather campy rather than terrifying. Sadly, the last major role for Christopher Reeve(who was actually quite good).
I can't wait for the DVD widescreen release in a month!
The 60s one is better and creepier. Carpenter's almost completely copied off the original recipe, almost a total rip-off. Carpenter was thinking of the update version earlier like in the 80s, but it has asset of it. It should've been done a few years earlier. Also it became a disappoinment at the box office, so I suggest don't bother watching it. See this one instead.
shareI actually saw the original at the movies when very young. I thought it was about the creepiest thing I'd ever seen. I've seen it many times since and have seen the remake. I really like John Carpenter movies, especially The Thing and They Live. But his version of VOTD really did nothing for me. It is an Ok movie and might have seemed better if viewed first. But it seemed to be a total copy(Except for a few unneeded plot lines) of the original with a few better special effects. But the children's eyes going "white" in the original seemed a little creepier for some reason. I think John C. went a little too far with this effect and made the children look a lttle lifeless when they did that. Almost like thet were not real or something. Also the scene at the end was much better done in the old version. Anyway, my vote is for the original 1960 version.
share[deleted]
Well,
I bought Both. I thought they were both quite good. i have no complaints.
"You know mother, life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you’re going to get. You're life, on the other hand, is like this box of ACTIVE GRENADES!"
-Stewie
I've only seen the original and I love it.
Oh, who watches family guy. Does anyone think that Stewie (the baby) was loosely based on David Zellaby. You know - a little evil kid with good strong british accent. I don't know why - but Stewie reminds me of David. Just a thought.
Well, I feel a bit frisky for the Mr McJiskey who gets a bit brisky of this year's whiskey.
I prefer the original over the clumsy and unnecessary remake. The original is much more vague, subtle and eerie, which makes it the by far superior version.
"Warren Oates died for our sins"
I would say the 1995's remake. It's the first version that I have seen and I think Carpenter was a genious to give us hope with David who started to have emotions and compassion...I think it's a great add and a great vision that is missing in the original...
shareYep, have to agree with most of the others, it's the original version for me. Still as eerie and atmospheric as ever.
Make a move and the bunny gets it.
I saw the remake before the original, and I have to state that I personally liked the remake better.
However, I usually find that whichever version I watch first tends to be my favorite.
I am also in the (very very small) minority who actually liked the remake of the AmittyVille Horror better than the original.
However, I saw the original Omen before the remake. I liked the original, but the remake just sucked.