Well, as soon as I knew this was going to be made in 3-D, I knew it would be nowhere as good as the original. I was right. It would be an excuse for more nudity and gore. I was right (total nudity in one scene that lasts about ten minutes-a woman in stiletto heels with a gun-nothing else). Gore and nudity replace plot, tension, and suspense. The 1981 original had a maniac with a pickaxe terrorizing a small Canadian town, he goes on a killing rampage, is supposedly killed, but the body is never found. Years later, the killings start again. I didn't notice where this was supposed to be, but it doesn't matter. The same basic plot with the same name for the killer, all other names that are kept, the characters are different. Good older actors with the caliber of Kevin Tighe and Tom Atkins ("The Fog"-original)are trying to give this dignity, but can't. Actually, the young actors aren't bad either, and production values are good. And it has a similar ending. So-with all that, This SHOULD have been far better than it was, given the original was a standout slasher film of the 80's, but, as I said, they choose to take the easy way out, throwing various body parts at you. About ** only for the cast and production values. Do yourself a favor and try to find the original.
Comments ... #
I wish this was about the band.
I thought both the original and the remake were a little ehhhhhh...
I should have warned you about this one, it really really sucked. Agree though the first one was nice if you're into 80's cheese.
I'm just curious, did you guys watch this in theaters or at home? When I saw it in theaters it was actually pretty good, with the 3D effects be amazing. But then when I saw it at home it was a total bore, and a waste of time. More of a movie theater movie IMO.
i saw it in the theatre. the 3D was the best part.
Yhe 2D was the ONLY part LOL I watched it on home video (in 3-D).