According to a well known film book (and IMDB) you're wrong as well.Poi E said:nicto![]()
It's Klaatu barada nikto!
According to a well known film book (and IMDB) you're wrong as well.Poi E said:nicto![]()
Maltin said:I'm not sure if I've seen the original, so can't comment, but all film books that I've checked tonight think the original is far superior. I guess critics from the current era may disagree, but I imagine that's probably more a critique on them than the film.
Although you've edited your original post which may have included other films and I know you're only restricted to 12 titles, the biggest grossing films of the decade that you have missed, which perhaps could be included, are:Reno said:Mine is Invasion of the Body Snatchers, though I like all films on this list.
Maltin said:Although you've edited your original post which may have included other films and I know you're only restricted to 12 titles, the biggest grossing films of the decade that you have missed, which perhaps could be included, are:
The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms
The Fly (already mentioned)
It Came From Beneath the Sea
It Came From Outer Space
Destination Moon
Creature From the Black Lagoon
Unfortunately, I've not seen enough of these to select one.
I like the remake, and as I say, I can't remember if I've seen the original or not (I think I have!), so don't want to compare (and doubt that they are really comparable given the size of budgets available at the time).Reno said:Depends on when your books were written. The Carpenter remake was trashed by most critics when it first came out and it flopped big time. ET was on it's way to becoming the most successful film ever made and nasty aliens weren't fashionable at the time. Since then the critical view on Carpenter's The Thing has turned. The original is still a classic, but the remake is considered one as well now and rightly so IMO. I think it's fine to apprecciate both films for what they are.
I agree, the box office result is irrelevant to the quality of a film, but of the films you chose these were the biggest films of the era that you missed off, and some of these are rated reasonably highly.Reno said:I'm aware of them and I have seen all of them. In the end I don't see the point of going by box office results, for me that's not what films are about. I went for what I think are the best films.
I prefer the remake too. I love the 70s San Franciso, Tales of the City style setting. And it's got Leonard Nimoy in it.Kaka Tim said:And - although this may be heretical - I prefer the 70s remake of the bodysnatchers - I think its more scary and the ending is better (in fact its an all time classic sci-horror ending).
Reno said:I think you answered your own question: most people prefer the remake. The shape shifting alien was abandoned for the 50's film, because the special effects weren't up to it at the time. Still the original was the first alien monster movie of it's kind I believe and it feels like a Howard Hawks film (he is rumored to have had a very hands on approach as a producer).
ICB said:Forbidden Planet for me, monsters from the id scared the shit out of me when I was a kid, such a cool idea as well.
![]()
Agree that The Thing (82) is a classy piece of work.
Forbidden Planet was the not the first movie to cost $1m.DexterTCN said:Forbidden Planet was in colour and was the first movie to cost $1,000,000 iirc.
DotCommunist said:Thing from another world...I'm sure carpenter did a far superior remake with Kurt Russel