Randolph-3
Aug. 1999 ist beigetreten
Willkommen auf neuen Profil
Unsere Aktualisierungen befinden sich noch in der Entwicklung. Die vorherige Version Profils ist zwar nicht mehr zugänglich, aber wir arbeiten aktiv an Verbesserungen und einige der fehlenden Funktionen werden bald wieder verfügbar sein! Bleibe dran, bis sie wieder verfügbar sind. In der Zwischenzeit ist Bewertungsanalyse weiterhin in unseren iOS- und Android-Apps verfügbar, die auf deiner Profilseite findest. Damit deine Bewertungsverteilung nach Jahr und Genre angezeigt wird, beziehe dich bitte auf unsere neue Hilfeleitfaden.
Abzeichen2
Wie du dir Kennzeichnungen verdienen kannst, erfährst du unter Hilfeseite für Kennzeichnungen.
Rezensionen13
Bewertung von Randolph-3
This is a very good example of a film that is scary without resorting to elaborate special effects or extreme gore. The effect is achieved through psychological terror, mood, and effective performances. This movie reminds me of the 1960's version of The Haunting in that way. However, The Other is not a gothic type of film like The Haunting, which relied on a spooky mansion in a remote location. The Other takes place in a more ordinary setting, very familiar to many people. In a way, that makes it even more effective.
This movie is not a remake of the 1963 film classic. In fact, it is only loosely based on the Jackson novella that is supposedly its source. Sure, the characters' names are the same and the basic situation is the same, but beyond that, almost everything has been changed. The ending, especially, was drastically changed to make the main character into a kind of a savior, rather than the hapless and pitiful (but highly sympathetic) victim of the original. I guess that was done to appeal to modern sensibilities? Also, this film relies heavily on special visual effects, whereas the 1963 classic relied exclusively on psychological terror and suggestion. As a result, the newer film is only about a tenth as effective -- that is, scary -- as the older one. I suggest all potential viewers skip the 1999 film and go straight to the 1963 one.
This film has two things in its favor. It has terrific production values. More importantly, it has taken the interesting position that the original story, as told in Stoker's novel through a collection of diaries and journals, doesn't tell the "entire" story of what happened. That is, this film says the characters' Victorian sensibilities wouldn't allow them to record all the details exactly as they happened. Unfortunately, this film is marred as it continues the post-Hammer era trend -- now a hackneyed cliche -- of trying to portray Dracula as both a romantic hero and an evil bloodsucking human vampire. You want to portray Dracula as "too much in love" with Mina to bite her? It just doesn't work. As of the date of this writing, the great horror film that could be based on an accurate adaptation of Stoker's novel has not yet been made.