2
1.
Susan 1 year ago
#6 - the new one is decent but it definitely did not outshine the original. Given a choice I’d watch the 1951 version.
2
2.
Wyncha 1 year ago
Susan,
no.
no.
2
3.
Susan 1 year ago
Wyncha, yes
2
4.
Rusty 1 year ago
Susan,
1951 is a very good movie
carpenters version is a masterpiece
the prequel is pretty decent too
1951 is a very good movie
carpenters version is a masterpiece
the prequel is pretty decent too
1
5.
Jackie 1 year ago
#11 - Oye the topic of this was successful reboots. The Tom Cruise one was the reboot and that failed spectacularly.
1
6.
Virdie 1 year ago
#5 .... and now FUTARAMA
1
7.
Muriel 1 year ago
#10 I have to agree. Karl Urban did a great job.
#13 It shouldn’t have been a made for tv movie. Now that it’s ok to divide a book into 14 different movies, it played better. They still avoided the one thing that makes it a very creepy book by a very creepy writer.
#17 Me too.
#19 Totally different. The show was dramatic while the movie was comedy action. Apples and oranges.
#1 I could never get into it. It’s such a stupid premise. Just like Transformers.
#13 It shouldn’t have been a made for tv movie. Now that it’s ok to divide a book into 14 different movies, it played better. They still avoided the one thing that makes it a very creepy book by a very creepy writer.
#17 Me too.
#19 Totally different. The show was dramatic while the movie was comedy action. Apples and oranges.
#1 I could never get into it. It’s such a stupid premise. Just like Transformers.
no.
1951 is a very good movie
carpenters version is a masterpiece
the prequel is pretty decent too
#13 It shouldn’t have been a made for tv movie. Now that it’s ok to divide a book into 14 different movies, it played better. They still avoided the one thing that makes it a very creepy book by a very creepy writer.
#17 Me too.
#19 Totally different. The show was dramatic while the movie was comedy action. Apples and oranges.
#1 I could never get into it. It’s such a stupid premise. Just like Transformers.