Gawd I hate Michael Bay.

The vampire "call" subtitles are red and fade into blood when they disappear. Stuff like that.

Oooo, neat. Thanks.

this is a blatant contradiction

It's sloppy writing, but I think the author meant "in which" to refer to the film, not the story. Either way, I do not think this was a necessary remake.

It's sloppy writing, but I think the author meant "in which" to refer to the film, not the story. Either way, I do not think this was a necessary remake.

Well, it sounds like they are calling the film "Bodega Bay" (did Michael need his name IN the title as well as before it, or something?), so it doesn't sound like they are going back to the original, at least in terms of setting.

Also, the orignal story, if I remember correctly, was more of a mood piece than anything else, which is why Hitchcock basically had a script written up from scratch based on basically just the premise of birds attacking.

Michael Bay will remake Hitchcock's ''The Birds.'' The producer-director will do for the 1963 horror classic what he did for ''Amityville Horror'' and ''Texas Chainsaw Massacre''

That would be - shit all over it?

That would be - shit all over it?

Well, it's what birds do, after all.

I saw a fun movie last night called Nightwatch that I think Buffistas would enjoy. In the world it sets up, there are "Others" that live among us regular humans who have various powers -- shapeshifting, vampirism, clairvoyance, etc -- and must choose to be either "Light" or "Dark." A long time ago, a truce was established between Light and Dark, with each side setting up a police force to make sure the other side plays by the rules. (The Light's police are called the Nightwatch, the Dark's police force are called the Daywatch.)

I saw the preview for this before Kung Fu Hustle this weekend and it looked really, really bad. Though it sounds like the trailer may not have been doing it justice.

Jim -- Yeah, I know we hear shots, but I don't think it's certain that he's killed. (I mean, I tend to think so, but it's not definite). I'm also not sure about Mamet being much of an influence on Tarantino back in 1990.

Nutty -- To be fair to JB, I was lazy & didn't retype the whole paragraph. Part of his argument is that it's not operating in anything like a realistic universe, and that the story is designed to keep the audience off-balance and maximize the shocks. So I think he means that stylistically it's got a lot more in common with horror movies than heist/gangster movies, even if it's using plot elements from the latter. I agree with you about honor in the movie, but I think his is an interesting perspective, too. I like new angles.

But I should look at the essay again when I get home, because I could just be making stuff up.

Jim -- Yeah, I know we hear shots, but I don't think it's certain that he's killed. (I mean, I tend to think so, but it's not definite). I'm also not sure about Mamet being much of an influence on Tarantino back in 1990.

If I remember correctly, we hear a burst of shots and then silence, indicating that he is, indeed, dead.

And yeah, it's definitely not operating in the real universe. Of all of QT's movies, Reservoir Dogs feels the most stagey. I'd have to see the essay to get the main point of the argument, I guess, but I think of horror films as mostly relying on shocks along with the gore, and RD seems to rely more on trust and distrust. The gore is almost beside the point.

Of all of QT's movies, Reservoir Dogs feels the most stagey.

I think it was designed that way, so that the budget wouldn't be a major consideration (i.e. as few sets as you can, etc.). I seem to remember reading that QT had come into some money (for selling TRUE ROMANCE, I think, or possibly FROM DUSK TIL DAWN) and was prepared to shoot it guerilla style if he had to, but that a deal came together because of Harvey Keitel and Monte Hellman.