Which leads one to ask? Why in the hell did they remake Psycho? Just stupid! IMO Hollywood is getting TOO remake happy. If the first one sucks then maybe, but Psycho? NO! LOL
I don't mind Reimaginings, but I don't really like straight out remakes!
Actually, remaking PSYCHO was not at all stupid, if you take into consideration the filmmaker's intent. The gist of Van Sant's point in making it was, "They always remake movies that weren't all that great or were maybe just OK, and try to improve them. What if you remade a movie that was already perfect the first time it was done?"
What Van Sant did was take the original screenplay and remake the film with new actors, an up-to-date setting, color film, etc., and see how it would turn out. I think this project was entirely Van Sant's idea as an artist, not the studio's idea as a moneymaking scheme. It was actually a very interesting project, with (in my opinion) a mixed outcome. If you take it by itself, forgetting the existence of the original, it's an OK film. (One extremely fatal flaw was Vince Vaughn's performance as Norman Bates--he comes across as crazy and not all that likeable from the start, not sympathetic like Anthony Perkins was in the original.)
To bring this back on topic: I'm really looking forward to seeing DEAD OF NIGHT. I saw DARKNESS AT BLAISEDON at a DS fest many, many years ago, but wasn't all that crazy about it. DEAD OF NIGHT sounds like it should be better.
