|
|
Post by andydecker on Jun 27, 2017 19:43:31 GMT
It would certainly have been a lot more interesting had they remade the film to be more like the original book, rather than simply copying the Hitchcock film. If you mean the remake of 1998, I share your opinion. A waste of time and money.
The tv series though I thought very well done. Normally I really hate those "re-imaginings", but this did work for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by fritzmaitland on May 29, 2022 21:02:48 GMT
Recently read a fan review of the Hitch film, so decided to reinvestigate. Started off by watching Van Sant's version, which was fascinating for various reasons. I can understand why people dismiss it, but I got a lot out of it. Then returned to Bloch's novel. Read it once years ago (that superb Corgi edition). This time I've ended up with a Bloomsbury Film Classics reissue. Good stuff, especially Lila's journey into the old dark Bates house, as spine-tingling as the film. One of Bloch's descriptions, omitted by Hitch but included by Van Sant is Norman's taxidermy room (although Bob only gives him a squirrel). I think Stefano deserves some credit for restructuring the novel, but, as previous correspondents note, it's all there. The true horror of the shower murder is Mary's glimpse of her assailant.
|
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on May 30, 2022 10:12:38 GMT
It is one of those movies I regularily watch when it is on tv, the original I mean. I can't say how often I have seen this. I read about its making, I have seen the Hitchcock bio pic about it, I even watched the uneven tv version Bates. But I would have a problem to describe its fascination.
|
|
