View Single Post
Old 11-08-2011, 06:21 AM   #27
MarkWarner
Stalker
 
MarkWarner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Indiana
Posts: 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chomp View Post
It’s not just Wood’s height….it’s his meek body frame. He looks fragile. There’s just no intimidation factor. And I don’t see the relevance of bringing up Wood’s performance as Kevin in Sin City seeing as its derivative of the source material (as it should be). There is no source material for the character of Frank Zito aside from Joe Spinell in the original. Wood is either going to blatantly rip it off or try something different…either way I don’t see it working. I just don’t see his “boy next door” demeanor working as a insane serial killer.
So because he doesn't have a book to base his performance on, he can't make it work? I don't buy that. In fact, I think that may make him even better in the role, since there are a few directions he could go with the character.

And not all serial killers are like Frank Zito. Many have been charming, unassuming types, and I'm willing to bet the people behind this film are aware of that (hence this casting decision). Frank Zito is the cliche, so I think it would be pretty refreshing to see someone like Wood playing a killer for once.

Quote:
The original doesn’t “get by on its bad charm”. The movie isn’t charming in any sense of the word.
I wasn't referring to literal charm. I was referring to the fact that the film being aware of its sleaziness doesn't make it any better.

Quote:
It isn’t “so bad its good”…it is just a visceral and nasty picture. The plot isn’t suppose to be complex or thought provoking.
Nobody was saying that it needed to be. I just don't think the fact that the film has such low standards makes it good.

Quote:
It’s not Taxi Driver. Like I said before Lustig’s only other directorial credits were that of porn films, why on Earth would anyone be expecting a plot? It is just suppose to disgust. Plain and simple. It’s clearly evident by the infamous headshot everyone is so caught up on. Maniac is a porn flick in a sense, but instead of using man gravy, Lustig used Savini’s mind blowing effects as the money shot. Maniac was the very beginning of what everyone likes to call the “torture porn” genre that is so prevalent today. As much as everyone likes to belittle Maniac for having a simple and unoriginal plot, it still was a innovator in every sense of the word.
If its sole purpose is to disgust, then why the outrage over remaking it? Any filmmaker can disgust an audience. I can understand being outraged over a remake of a film that had a point to it, but remaking a film that exists to merely disgust an audience? I don't see anything wrong with that, especially if you're going to try and elevate it beyond its own limited standards.
MarkWarner is offline   Reply With Quote