This is reblog of Sharon's review on The Omega Man and I Am Legend. So I am not going to repeat those story stuff. First thing first, I watch "I Am Legend" before "The Omega Man". Let me tell you about how I see those differences and similarities.
Vampires and Zombies
Vampires in The Omega Man have higher intelligent. Perhaps back in 70s the idea of zombies might not be that popular or back in those days there are lots of vampire movies.
Zombies based on my interpretation, they also afraid of daylights and they definitely are cannibal. However, they are not necessary high intelligent like "The Omega Man", they normally lost the scene of being a human. So in "I am Legend", They often act like berserk once they detected Humans.
However, I have to say "The Omega Man' has done a tremendous job down in 1970s. I cannot imagine such an innovative idea of such vampires or zombies apocalypse. Charlton Heston acted like a stand alone person fighting in the site and finding cure for those mutants. I would say it is more difficult for similar situation happens in 70s instead of 2000s.
My Favourite Scene
Despite the Meme's pictures, I do feel the death of Will's beloved Dog is the most touching moment. It makes me prefer I Am Legend than The Omega Man. Actually the dog is the only thing Will's daughter has left him. So perhaps in a stand alone area for nearly 3 years, Will and Samatha(The Dog) are like family.
I Am Legend Steal the House!!!
Despite the Omega Man did a really great job even in 1970s. Since those zombies in I am Legend more precise to me. And the storyline is a bit better than The Omega Man. Therefore I would say I am Legend over the Omega Man.
Rating:
I Am Legend 4/5
The Omega Man 3.5/5
Below is the Best scene in the I Am Legend.
Caution!!!! Do not click on this link without a box of tissues. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuVNOR3I7hc
Oh the 70's... safari suites, shiny puffy shirts, velvet jackets with lacy cravats, tape decks and huge, open topped convertibles. How could the 00's ever hope to compete on clothing, music and cruising around in those gas guzzlers??
Yes... I'm reviewing
The Omega Man - staring Charlton Heston
I am Legend - staring Will Smith
AND
Both movies are based on a 1954 novel by Richard Matheson, 'I Am Legend', which is generally acknowledged as the forerunner for the zombie genre and the notion of a 'worldwide apocalypse due to disease'. It was also the inspiration for the classic 'Night of the Living Dead' of 1968.
However, neither of the movies have stuck very closely to the original story line.
Where are the Vampires??
Matheson's novel, along with 1964's first attempt at getting the story to the big screen in 'The Last Man on Earth' with Vincent Price, both show the world overrun with vampires, not ...
Albino Cult Members
OR
Nasty, loud, super aggressive mutants
--- The Scare Factor ---
Now I'll be honest, when I first saw The Omega Man it scared me to death - and gave me nightmares for months afterwards... it was scary for 1971. But re-watching it as an adult, I giggled more than screamed! It's still creepy in parts though and there's no way I'd let my kids watch it - it would freak them out too!
Fast forward to 2007 and wow... now we're talking scary! I've seen this version several times and still can't watch (without half covering my eyes) the dog running into the dark building scene or the horrifying, full on assault of Will's 'fortress' near the end.
--- A Real Man ---
There are leading men (and there are leading men) and Charlton Heston plays the lead well. He is just all kinds of modern 70's man! He keeps his cool in most situations and he's in control.
He keeps a gun belt strapped around his leisure suite...
Bares his well haired chest!
AND
But he is also refined, a romantic, plays chess, is always cleanly shaven... with not a hair out of place.
AND
He drinks brandy from a brandy balloon...
He dresses to impress!!
Poor old Will just likes to sleep in the bath tub with his dog!
No - now that's too harsh. In Will's case, he feels responsible for the whole 'end of humanity as we know it' deal (he's actually right-he co-caused it) and has witnessed his wife and daughter blown up, while trying to escape an infested Manhattan. Also these mutants are completely bad ass, tear-you-apart-from-limb-to-limb and enjoy every moment of it, creatures. The Omega Man's mutants simply want to live a pre-industrialised life and burn Charlton at the cross!!
--- The Real Differences ---
There are so many differences between these two film that they hardly resemble each other. While Will hunts for food, Charlton hunts for mutants. While Will is constantly adjusting to the fear he has to overcome just to survive, Charlton is laid back about it all. While Will is quite confrontingly going potty with loneliness and isolation, Charlton has a few 'crazy' moments, but overall is quite relaxed.
The Omega Man also includes important social issues of the day, from interracial relationships, to views on the evil technology has brought upon humanity. I am Legend doesn't go that deep.
The Verdict...
I am Legend is amazing with it's action and fast paced, confronting, in-your-face scenes. Will's character is believable in the way a lone human, especially one obsessed with putting things right, could act. It is truly scary, on the edge of your seat viewing. One question though - what have those mutants been eating for the last few years??
The Omega Man on the other hand is quite cheesy. In its favor however, is that I really enjoyed the strong female lead, unusual for it's time and the inclusion of character development in actors other than the main lead. This made a much more interesting story overall.
So surprisingly my winner, by a narrow margin, is --- The Omega Man ---
By Sharon Bejjani Wow heavy opening, but really it could just have easily read
"If it bleeds, we can kill it"...
No, hang on a minute, that's another Arnie film -- Although it would have been a great fit for Conan the Barbarian.
Arnie always has great lines in his films, so when asked - "What is best in life?" - by the bad ass Mongol General, Conan (Arnie) replies:
"To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women!”
... what a Barbarian!! As I've said before, love that Arnie, but Conan pushed me to my absolute limits of trying to like the film. In saying that, skip forward nearly 30 years and Jason Momoa didn't do much better!
Even the fluffy, animal skin undies, carnivore tooth necklace and studded leather head band couldn't save it for me.
Annabella was right in saying that the original provided a more realistic feel with it's settings and fight scenes. Even the witch craft and sorcery played minor roles in 1982, keeping the focus on the actual quest. As Annabella said, this was Arnie's vehicle to 'stardom', but Jason hasn't been so lucky - best keep that Game of Thrones contract alive. I can't really pick a winner here. Conan 1982 had a bit of a 70's porn feel to it, whereas the 2011 version had a better story line, great monsters (who doesn't like creepy, sand warriors and multi-headed snake creatures) and it had much better scenery shots. But I think the relationship side stories added more feeling to Arnie's Conan. So there you have it, by a slim shot, Conan 1982 slips in as my pick.
There
is no denying that Roald Dahl’s Charlie
and the Chocolate Factory is an all-time favourite children’s book. I
remember reading this book at least five times in school; I would imagine the excited look on Charlie
Bucket’s face when he found a golden ticket, the silky dark ribbons of
chocolate rippling down the waterfall and the Oompa Loompa’s singing cautious
warnings to the winners with funny and catchy lyrics.
Every
time the TV would be airing Willy Wonkaand the Chocolate Factory, I would
also make sure to stay home that night and enjoy all the tantalising sweets
shown, over and over again.
When
Tim Burton’s Charlie and the Chocolate
Factory, I was just as excited in experiencing the same excitement with a
touch of the director’s usual weirdness.
To
start things off, Mel Stuart’s adaption of Willy
Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971) was very different to Tim Burton’s
approach. Stuart’s direction was aimed for children and I felt it was more
family friendly. The music was very animated and lively which I found to be
very suitable for his film. However with Tim Burton’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005), it wasn’t “cartoony”
enough – I just don’t think the kids would like it! But on a positive note, in
Burton’s film, it was very modern and not old-fashioned.
In
WWatCF, there wasn’t much character
development which I felt was important to understand why the naughty little
children and Wonka act as they do. It was a good move on Burton’s part to
include in CatCF more character
development; for example, Violet Beauregarde’s competitive personality stems
from her mother’s insistence on being the winner.
Both
films proved to have provided good actors (even for kids, which I hear is very
difficult!); especially Stuart’s choice in picking Gene Wilder as the title
role. I felt that the dialogue was very well delivered in the 1971 film, and
fell a bit flat in the newer adaption. This could be because both directors
were using the same source material and certain things such as dialogue and
scenes would remain the same. I should quickly add – I particularly enjoyed the
graphics and CGI of the CatCF and I found
it very visually stimulating.
I thoroughly enjoyed the two different
approaches that Stuart and Burton undertook in portraying the Oompa Loompa’s. I
liked how in the 1971 film, they were all different shapes and sizes and how
they provided comedic look about them. In the 2005 movie, the Oompa Loompa’s
were portrayed by one actor with tricky CGI or whatnot, but I still enjoyed the
amusement that came along with it.
It’s
not surprising that I favour Willy Wonka
and the Chocolate Factory; ever since I can remember I sat in front and
centre of the television waiting for this the film to air and trying to sing
along to the songs. I adore how this movie was very family friendly and how I
could relate and empathise with Charlie Bucket and his grandfather, Joe.
However in saying that, I did enjoy all of Tim Burton’s trademark quirkiness
and how Johnny Depp portrayed the eccentric chocolatier.
It’s finally here! The post you’ve all been waiting to read! (Okay,
well maybe just Sharon…) But now it’s ready for you’re reading pleasures.
Here we have two movies based on the very popular book series in
the 1930’s by Robert E. Howard, set in the fictional Hyborian Age filled with witches, sorcerers and sword fighting bandits.
The protagonist, Conan, was raised and trained to be tough and brutal since
birth; and as a result grew to be a man with strength, as well as a nice
muscular frame!
Conan the
Barbarian (1982)
If
it wasn't for Conan the Barbarian,
Arnold Schwarzenegger would not be as famous as he is now – this film shot him
into stardom! It starts off with Conan’s village being raided by the
antagonist, Thulsa Doom; during the attack, his father is murdered and hid
mother is beheaded, as Conan is stands next to her.
After the attack is done, they take Conan as a slave and make him
work at pulling “The Wheel of Pain”. As he grows up, he is eventually sold and
is forced to become a gladiator to amuse the local crowds.
Eventually his popularity diminishes as he wins every battle and it freed. As
he wanders the lands, Conan becomes friends with a Sandahl
Bergman’s Amazonian named Valeria and an archer named Subotai.
The
three friends break into the temple of a local snake-worshipping cult and as
this occurs, Conan recognises the insignia used by the cultist. It’s the same
as the necklace worn by Thulsa Doom – the man who killed his mother and raided
his village. Thus, he seeks revenge.
Conan,
Subotai and Valeria set off and travel to the Mountain of Power, situated at
Doom’s Stronghold. They each battle a variety of monsters and other enemies,
until finally Conan is face to face with the man responsible for parent’s
death, Thulsa Doom and beheads him.
Conan the
Barbarian (2011)
Now,
this remake begins with a similar childhood, with the exception of some details; Conan was literally born on
a battlefield as his mother lays dying. As he grows up he insists on being a
part of the ranks of the Cimmerian military, despite the fact that he’s too
young. He’s forced to act against a warlord’s raid, Conan and his father Corin,
are taken as prisoners; Corn is tortured in front of his son.
It’s revealed that the reason as to why the warlord, Khalar Zym, raided
the Cimmerians is because they possessed the last shard of an ancient mask; this
magical mask allows the user to render great power. It is because of this, that
the ancient kings broke it into pieces and hide it somewhere in their own
kingdom.
Conan is unable to rescue his father from death; he escapes and as he grows up
to be a marauding barbarian, he swears revenge against Zym for what he had
done.
As he is on his journey to avenge his father, his gains some allies, most notably a young and beautiful monk named Tamara; she has royal blood which means that royal blood is required to restore the power of the ancient mask and is therefore hunted down by Zym. Conan is faced with monsters (on land and sea) as well as other worldly sprites that sprout from Zym’s daughter Marique - who necromancer (in other words, a witch).
Tamara is captured and through a series of epic sword fighting and well-choreographed
action sequences, Marique is beheaded and killed and Zym is burned to death by
falling into lava. Thus avenging his father’s death, Conan returns Tamara her
home and sets off to return to his village.
Don’t forget to tune in and check out our blog
for the PART II of my review.
Now this is PART II of my review on Conan the Barbarian – here I will be
discussing some key differences between the movies and I’ll be talking about my
thoughts on both films.
The Final Verdict!
Comparing both Conan films, I would have
to say that they shared interesting plats while providing us with a reassuring
amount of violence, gushing blood and gratuitous nudity. The action sequences
assisted in telling this tale of an epic journey, despite the differences in
the plot.
(Side note – I did prefer the newer Conan
regarding the plot as I felt it was more interesting and I felt like it had
more layers)
None the less, the 1982 version presented itself with longer and somewhat
clearer fighting sequences as I found it easier to follow; and I found that the
fighting was given a more barbaric and primitive style. The 2011 remake leans
toward a more modern style of fighting, with fast battle sequences – I found it
a bit hard to keep up.
What I found visually attractive is the technological advantage that Conan the Barbarian (2011) had received
when they released this movie in 3-D. It made me feel that the attacking foes
and thrusting swords were coming right out! The computer effects that were used
in this movie was another element that I enjoyed as I felt it was used quite effectively
(especially the magic sand warriors).
The acting from both characters were done very well
for its time – Schwarzenegger displayed to have a good acting ability and was
physically fit for the role; whilst Momoa instances of wittiness and intelligence.
In
Conclusion…
Both films, I find, are very well made and the
stories are told well. The original Conan
the Barbarian is low budget, rough and features more T & A than the
remake; however the 2011 movie is professional with dark cinematography, has technological
advantages and a more complex plot. Ultimately the sword wins in this battle,
but the sword belongs to the Arnold Schwarzenegger’s 1982 Conan.
The first Spider-man released in 2002 and the remake "Amazing Spider-Man" released in 2012. Only Ten-years time but totally different deductive method. Perhaps they are afraid of audience getting bored with the same "Spider-Man"
In the 2002 Spider-Man, Tobey Maguire was the Actor of Peter Parker(Spider-Man). He delivered the character as a nerdy person and introverted. It makes a huge contrast with what he was for being the Spider-Man. While the 2012 Spider-Man, Andrew Garfield gave me the feeling of an more energetic teenager that was gifted with the special ability. So he was a bit humour and funny in the film. However, I still prefer the old Spider-man.
Differences and similarities
Costume
As you can see there are some differences with the costume. I do think the 2012(left) one looks better. May be they have a better costume technologies nowadays. Indeed, it doesn't have a much changes on the costume.
Abilities
The similarities of two Spider-man are they have "spider-sense" which is a kind of survival skills avoid them from getting hurt. A slight difference is that 2002 Spider-man can shoot web from his hands while the new one can shoot webs that trigger from his implanted device. Actually it makes the hero being no that superior. It was because one special feature of Spider-man is Web-Swinging and shooting, without the device he is just a sneaky spider.
Uncle Ben's Death
To fans of Spider-Man, Uncle Ben's Death is the most touching moment in two stories. And it is a must include scene for Spider-Man, otherwise it is not Spider-Man. It talks about how Peter Parker witness his Uncle being shot by a Robbery. Then he wants to revenge and become the Spider-Man. However, there is a bit different and it makes the 2002 Spider-man better is that the Peter Parker can actually stop this happened but he didn't. It makes Peter Parker in great compunction and regret. For the old Spider-Man it involved more emotion than the 2012 one.
Villain
The one on the left is Green Goblin(2002), the one on the right is The Lizard(2012). They have similarity is that their mind twisted after doing some experimental human trail which turned them into monster. However, Green Goblin in comics should be the 2nd Villain instead the 1st one in Spider-man. Therefore, it should be the Lizard. However, might be because it was hard to make a good animation for "The Lizard" Down in 2002. Therefore they switched it but still I was not too into Villain. To me it is more important on Spider-man.
Love Story
Mary Jane Watson(2002) on the left and Gwen Stacy on the right(2012). Mary Jane had a lot more screen time than Gwen. So Mary Jane was better fleshed out as a character. However, Gwen made a much better match for Peter and the relationship and more convincing. Actually I like the actress in 2012 than 2002, therefore I prefer Gwen instead of Mary Jane.
2002 vs 2012
They did not give a huge difference with the filming technologies. If I have to say, I prefer the 2002 Spider-Man. It was because the 2002 has more touching moment, and it delivered a message of it is not easy to be a hero and makes the Spider-Man so cool. However, if you never watch the 2002 one, I do prefer you stay on the 2012. It was because there are more amazing spider-man movies coming up and perhaps crossover with Wolverine(Marvel Super Hero). Otherwise you would have spoiled the story line.
So I was sceptical when I first
saw the trailer to the 2010 Karate Kid
– “Another terrible remake!” were my
thoughts. However this film to prove itself to be quite a heart-warming film.
I agree with Claudia’s comment
on how the director, Harald Zwart, modernised this classic film through small
ways. Through music, the use of technology that the youth use nowadays and even
through the very well-done choreography of the fighting sequences.
Also, I found it amusing that both protagonist's have the same cocky and confidant personality; it really brings out the characters insecurities about moving to an unknown location and trying to connect to other people from there.
The absence of the “Crane Pose” was
always present on my mind, but I'm happy to settle with the “Karate Kick”, (despite
the fact that Kung Fu is practised in this film and not Karate?!)
I found it a bit hard to digest
that Jackie Chan played the mentor, only because I was anticipating an older,
more grandfatherly type of person.
But I thought it was a very good
decision to move the location to Beijing instead of a couple of states in the
other direction of America; it really does educate the viewers what Kung Fu is
really about and the importance of this skill.
Finally, as Claudia said – If you
enjoyed watching one movie, then it’s a good idea to watch the other. You won’t
be disappointed.
Vampires in The Omega Man have higher intelligent. Perhaps back in 70s the idea of zombies might not be that popular or back in those days there are lots of vampire movies.
My Favourite Scene
