MovieChat Forums > Straight to Hell (1987) Discussion > Isn't this just 'Straight to Hell'?

Isn't this just 'Straight to Hell'?


...A remake? ...a sequel? ...WTF?

reply

No its a director's cut of the original Straight to Hell. It has six minutes of additional footage as well the look of film is different and adding digital blood and bullets hits.

reply

[deleted]


Yeah, it is.

I'm sorry, but adding a few minutes of extra footage and adding some additional special effects does not make an entirely different movie. What pretentiousness!















Live Full & Die Empty. Tap Your Potential and Realise Your Dreams!

reply

True but I didn't mind it too much. Except for the CG blood which still looks fake and bad. They can make Transformers look real enough but they can't make blood look realistic. But then again, I've been against CG blood, its something that should be buried and be forgotten about.

reply

I have always felt the same way about CG smoke. They can't use real smoke when they need it in the foreground of a scene because they can't control it so you can always tell CG smoke because it's so fake.

reply

[deleted]

He clearly isn't marketing this as an entirely new movie. It's a redux for the small group of cult fans who appreciated the film. And consiering the upped quality, extra footage and cgi I thought it was well worth ordering for $15.

P.S.
Relax on the use of the word pretentious, it just makes you sound unintelligent.

reply

Glad I read this, I was SO CONFUSED. I just started watching this and was like..."this looks familiar, wait what, no ones aged, wait, this IS the FIRST film? HUH"

Darn and I recently watched Straight to Hell 86, and now I want to see this, but I can't do the same film twice in a month.

grrr arg h4x0r 7Eh pl4NE7

reply