DAMN the original was awful.. People are so strange in their defence of "cult classics" (IMO, not meaning to insult anyone... They seem to vigorously defend something with such inferior acting just because it's the original. The new one and Zoe (and the new actors for Roman and his wife) was just so much better, genuinely creepier, and with a better story flow/story telling, by far. (again imo).
The new one wasn't a perfect thriller, not by any stretch, but it was a very worthy remake that was done well.
***SPOILERS FOLLOW***
In the original you find out immediately the husband is dirty..although you suspect it in the remake, it's never 100% confirmed till the second half.. and they really go more into it and how it has affected him psychologically too. Therefore the suspense is so much better. The original's acting was so typically 60's OTT and camp.. it took away the tension. The guy playing the husband was pure comedy gold..
I was discussing this with my mum the other day, as she is now in her 70's and has always been a huge fan of the classics. So I was *really* surprised when she agreed with me about the quality of the acting overall in that period of movies (anything 70s and before really).. Basically the acting was a much lower quality than the actors we have today, forced and incredibly over the top, like they are reading their lines from a script and purposely overdoing every emotion to add fake drama. For me, very unconvincing, basically.
Honestly I watched the original with a completely open mind, and all I did was laugh pretty much non stop, it was that camp and bad.
reply
share