quote:

ORIGINAL: henny

I liked the original fine, mostly because I thought it was really well constructed. There are some scenes that are incredibly well directed in it, in terms of manipulating the audience to build tension.

But It's basic point (i.e. self-referentially acknowledging the fact that it is a film, and using this to chastise the audience for consuming the violence on the screen) was already kind of old hat and unoriginal way back when the original one was released in the mid 1990s (i.e. it isn't anything that "Peeping Tom" or "Salo" didn't already do and do better way back in the 60s and 70s). As well directed as the film was, I always thought the self-referential scenes were kind of dumb and pretentious and handled with the subtlety of a sledgehammer, so I really don't see the point of the remake, as 15 years later they seem even more outdated. Like something a film student from the 1980s would have made and thought original. I guess it might be a fun practical joke to play on the public if it was released wide (I would have loved to see this advertised as the next "Ring" and released in suburban multiplexes to unsuspecting audiences), but it's being sold as an "art film" with a limited run, and as such very few are going to see it -so it's basically just preaching to the choir, and really nothing new or original.

I do love the director's other films, though, and he's one of few directors that I like enough that I'll see everything he releases. "Code Unknown," "The Piano Teacher," "Cache," and "Hour of the Wolf" were all good.