Whoa! Just horrible!

100% agreed. The acting in this awful remake made the acting in the original look Oscar worthy in comparison. The actors were just reading lines, they in NO way became the characters.

And even though Grim was a minor character, they completely screwed up that part of the story. Eli Roth as Grim was funny and interesting and he just seemed like a fun skating stoner type. Whoever the guy in the remake was, he just seemed like a creepy guy who follows young children around.

This remake was awful. All prints of it should be burned and all records of it destroyed.

Exactly.

I said basically the same thing in an earlier thread where I discussed, in detail, how the characters compared between the first two movies.

It came down to a one or two sentence of how each character came across as, the way they were portrayed as in the original.
Then, when I got to doing the same thing for the reshoot* (see explanation below), instead of listing each character and how they were portrayed, I summarized it as something like "All characters: completely bland with no personality. None of the actors had any feel for who their character was. Nor did any of them have the talent to either deliver their lines (especially the more comedic one) or to give the proper reaction to any line or scene of their fellow character/actors."

Absolutely nobody can portray Deputy Winston like Giuseppe Andrews did. He has that ooomph way of acting Winston as the nerdy, country bumpkin, always want to party, only took the job for access to all the "lost" party paraphernalia evidence he could get his hands on, all so he can become the ultimate "party-girl magnet" so he can get his dues.
Why they switched his character to I girl, I can only imagine because they KNEW no male actor could compare to his performance of the character. But the results was an utter failure of having the same character trying to be portrayed as being a lesbian ("Your girlfriend is so hot, go back in and get yourself some of that"), but, once again, the actor had no real feel as to who their character was supposed to be, nor how to portray them as such.


*As for the reshoot: I refuse to call it a remake because remakes are more defined as a re-imagining, re-telling. They are not supposed to be a shot-by-shot, scene-by-scene, word-for-word, fail-to-deliver, "I don't know who my character is, have no idea how to deliver, nor react to any of my lines or my fellow actors. But as long as I can speak the correct words in each scene, that ought to work", kind of a disaster.









I'm being extremely clever up here and there's no1 around looking impressed! What's the point in having you all? DrWho

Like The Psycho Remake

 Women, can't live with em; So stuff your mother and live with that.(Bullet Tooth 504)

Agreed! This wasn't the kind of movie that needs or benefits from a remake. The acting here is terrible. Like the OP said everything was rushed and the actors didn't give anything to the characters like in the original. A shot by shot remake can be good if done right. The American version of funny games is a good example of that. I actually thought the remake of funny games was better then the original. This movie just failed on all levels.