>>109236803This.
The problem is not that the movie went photorealistic, unlike what
>>109235135Seems to imply. That is merely a symptom of the real problem. The real problem here is that this new version is literally just a less good imitation of the original. At its best points it rises to be as good, but it never surpasses the original in any way. There is literally no reason to see it and all it does is make you realize how much better the original is in comparison.
If it was on its own, without the original, it would be totally adequate. Not amazing but not bad. Compared to the original, particularly by people with nostalgia goggles, it looks like total crap.
