Jump to content
Tim Bradstreet

Hollywood Remakes Of Classic Or Cult Films

Recommended Posts

I think this topic of conversation warrants a thread of it's own.

I'm going to copy over from a discussion a few of us were having in another thread.

 

I'll start it here with the post that ignited the flame -

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Shadowmach -

 

Nice post. Yeah, I really felt those vibes with Eckhart after seeing the trailer. Last year when I heard he got it I had a bit of a problem cuz to me Lieb Schiber fit the bill for Harvey Dent, especially his performance in the Manchurian Candidate remake.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Please join in and remember to keep it civil!

 

- TB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Tim Bradstreet -

-----------------------------------------------

Manchurian Candidate remake.

 

When I see those 3 simple words combined with each other in the above order it compels me to want to murder everyone responsible for it's conception.

 

Just saying ;)

 

- TB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Thomas Logan -

------------------------------------------------------

WO WO WO. Hold up a second Street.

 

Jonathan Demme's remake is a BRILLIANT remake. The actors in it add to the flavor, and the re-imagining of the original concept is much sharper and more interesting.

 

Liev Schreiber is hypnotizing in the film. He steals the show from Denzel Washington and at the same time has fantastic chemistry with him. Meryl Streep gives you a political fury that makes Hilary Clinton look like a Catholic schoolgirl.

 

The score is haunting and the cinematography (classic Demme) is dark and creepy. The scenes in the desert, shot in night vision are done better than the Buffalo Bill vs. Starling sequence in Silence Of The Lambs. The dream montages really take you to SUCH a dark place, and make you crave the truth behind it all from the moment they are first introduced.

 

I had SUCH a good time watching this in the theatre, and I really expected very little having seen the original prior to it.

 

*The only remake I feel Liev should not have participated in was The Omen, which compared to Gregory Peck's was a total waste of FOX's money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Tiara

--------------------------------

 

I am going to add my .02 cents in this. I absolutely hated the remake. One, because it was in color; two, because the performances of Sinatra, Harvey and Lansbury in the original could never be replicated in my opinion. All Streep did was watch the original, watched Angela and did a mimic. Sorry, but I needed to say that. Washington attached himself to it to get the film made. Schreiber was better as Orson Welles.

 

The speech done by Lansbury in the original is breathtaking. It takes my breath away every time I see it. I would put that woman in my living will because she knocked me out.

 

The original version is perfection in my opinion. When I heard they were doing a remake, all I could ask was "WHY?"

 

- Tiara

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Tim Bradstreet

--------------------------------------------

 

The original version is perfection in my opinion. When I heard they were doing a remake, all I could ask was "WHY?"

 

I found out it was being remade while sitting in a theater waiting to watch some other movie and the first trailer was for the Manchurian Candidate remake (still hurts to even write down). I was sickened. It put me off the film I came to see. It was like seeing a trailer for a Raider of the Lost Ark remake. Hell pick one of your favorite movies of all time, one of your top 5, and then imagine Hollywood is remaking it. I have similar feelings for the remake of The Day The Earth Stood Still. Hey, did you hear they're remaking "Casablanca?" . . . There are about a million stories that haven't been told and someone has to mine the Manchurian Candidate? I'm just glad Frankenheimer, Sinatra, and Harvey, didn't live to see it.

Hey! They're remaking Bullitt with Brad Pitt! AAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! (only kidding, no heart attacks please)

 

TL - My comment's intent has nothing to do with slighting Demme and company. It has everything to do with "Why fucking do it?"

Is nothing sacred? Apparently not.

 

It's OK for you to like the film, knock yourselves out. I wouldn't bash you personally for seeing or even liking it. Especially if you've already seen and enjoyed the original.

I'm just not onboard. And to be fair, I have forced myself to watch it.

 

Jonathan Demme's remake is a BRILLIANT remake.

 

"Brilliant" is a very strong word. I can agree that it was technically well done with some good performances. Calling it "brilliant" would be excessive in my opinion.

Glad you were so impassioned by what you saw though ;)

 

To me it's like Green Day covering a classic Lennon song (not down with that either, in spite of good intentions, and it doesn't help that I am not a Green Day fan either).

A better way to introduce new audiences to a story is like what Leone did with Kurasawa's "Yojimbo".

Re-imagine it. Like what Ian McKellen did with Richard III (Dark dystopian future).

Straight remaking classic films like Psycho, The Omen, and The Manchurian Candidate leaves me very cold.

 

I wasn't even too keen when Darabont told me he was remaking Fahrenheit 451, as I am a fan of the original Truffaut film.

But at least Fahrenheit 451 isn't considered to be as sacred as the films above. It's way more off the radar and as such less offensive to my tender sensibilities ;)

Then throw in Tom Hanks . . . OK, I'm warming . . . Also, Fahrenheit 451 is based on the novel by Ray Bradbury, that Darabont has adapted for the screen.

Darabont has mastered working with writers like Stephen King so adapting Bradbury would seem to be in his wheelhouse. It seems more a case of adapting a classic novel than a classic film. Psycho was based on a novel too but Robert Bloch's book did not get remade by Gus Van Sant, instead he remade Hitchcock's film shot for shot. AND Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates? How about Jeremy Davies? Maybe it might have worked.

 

Perhaps I shouldn't be such a nay-sayer to remakes, the original will always be there to be discovered. For some reason though it just rankles me.

 

- TB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is anyone right or wrong?

Not really, as this is all just our own passionate opinion at work.

 

Love to hear more topics for discussion along these lines.

Feel free to weigh in on the subject of The Manchurian Candidate too.

 

What are your thoughts on these impending remakes?

1. The Day The Earth Stood Still - with Keanu playing Klatuu (surely not? . . . Nope, I mean it)

2. Near Dark - I'm going to vomit, if this film does get off the ground it has a lot to live up to.

3. Escape From New York - Gerard Butler is out, who will be in for playing Snake Plissken?

4. Friday The 13th - It was bound to happen.

5. The Birds - They keep trying to remake Hitchcock and no one has done it worth a shit yet.

6. Rosemary's Baby - The real reason Polanski won't come back to the US ;)

7. Heavy Metal - Really? Should we now remake Spinal Tap as well?

8. Casablanca - I was joking when I mentioned this earlier in the thread. At the time I had no idea someone would actually try and do it. Madonna wants to star.

Please don't play it again Sam!

 

Or these recent ones -

1. King Kong (Peter Jackson)

2. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre

3. Halloween

4. The Fog

5. The Producers

6. Fun With Dick And Jane

7. The Pink Panther

8. Poseidon

9. Flight Of The Phoenix

10. The Alamo

 

Or Foreign films poached and remade for the English speaking audience -

1. Le Femme Nikita VS Point of No Return

2. Ringu VS The Ring

3. Insomnia VS Insomnia

4. The Seven Samurai VS The Magnificent Seven

5. Wages of Fear VS Sorcerer

 

- TB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TB -- stop giving massive heart attacks please... :P

 

There are film that need to be left alone. Plain and simple. I don't want to revisit it. Unfortunately, these days suits run Hollywood. The creativity is gone. Whatever can make you come out of your house, away from your home entertainment system, pay some money and sit in the theatre, that is what Hollywood is focused on.

 

Hey, they gonna remake "Notorious" and "Dark Voyager"! Just kidding!

 

Imagine remaking "The Grapes of Wrath". I would fly out to California and do some work on a fucker. Just leave it alone. I couldn't even watch "In Cold Blood" as a remake; I just remember sitting in front of the screen and crying. It upset me that much.

 

The reason they do remakes is to tap into a market with the younger people who will never watch the originals. No patience to sit through a black and white movie. So suits step in, say hey let's get a big name and who gives a fuck if we are destroying a masterpiece? Those kids never saw it to begin with. Imagine remaking "The Entertainer". In color no less. Yeesh.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Want a heart attack?

Get a load of this, which Darabont sent over to me a little over a month ago -

 

Bay to embark on new ‘Odyssey’ for Warner

Platinum Dunes to produce Kubrick/Clarke redo

By MICHAEL FLEMING , Variety, April 1st issue

 

 

Michael Bay is in final negotiations to direct Warner Bros’ new version of “2001: A Space Odyssey”.

 

WB plans a reimagining of Arthur C. Clarke’s classic novel, from his short story “The Sentinel”, which inspired the 1967 Stanley Kubrick sci-fier released by MGM.

 

Bay, Andrew Form and Brad Fuller will produce through their Platinum Dunes shingle, while Peter Guber and Cathy Schulman are producing for Mandalay Pictures.

 

Scott Rosenberg (“Con Air”, “October Road”) has completed a first draft and Jake Wade Wall, scribe on Platinum Dunes’ recent reimagining of “The Hitcher” is being brought aboard to begin a rewrite. Other new scribes may be brought aboard as well.

 

“We think we have a very contemporary take,” Schulman said. “In the original, the computer just begins acting crazy and it was kind of like, why is this happening? This time, there’s a reason why it occurs and (people) have had something to do with it. There’s an environmental slant to what could result in technology fighting back.” Schulman adds that at this point, unlike the original, the entire film is being designed to be set during the titular year, in order to avoid any unnecessary confusion.

 

The project has been underway for sometime, but was held up due to the hesitations of original author Clarke. His recent death has cleared up matters to the point that the project is allowed to safely proceed.

 

It is hoped that Bay will begin work on “Odyssey” as soon as he fulfills his commitments to “Trasnformers 2”. WB has planted its tentpole flag in the July 4, 2010 slot which means that there would be some overlapping on the two projects.

 

“I am thrilled at this opportunity to improve on this visionary look at the future,” says Bay in a statement. “It’s always been my opinion that (Kubrick) was forced into releasing the film before it was finished. For example, whole sequences don’t even have any sound. And I’m certain he meant to shoot a scene where everything gets explained so the audience can be clear on what is going on. These are fixes I feel we can make while making it even more exciting for today’s audience.”

 

Currently set to play the astronauts Bowman and Poole are Shia Labeouf, who was seen last summer in Bay’s “Transformers” and Zac Efron, who hopes to segue to the project after completing production on “High School Musical 3: Senior Year”. Added to the project is a new character, a female astronaut named Fisher. Jessica Alba is currently in talks for the role. To play the villainous computer HAL, Michael Clarke Duncan, who worked with Bay on “Armageddon” and “The Island”, is currently in the midst of talks. There is no word yet if any original cast members will be enlisted for cameos.

 

In anticipation of launching a new franchise, Warner has procured the rights to Clarke’s follow-ups to his novel, “2010: Odyssey Two” and “2061: Odyssey Three”. “2010” was already produced by MGM in 1984 but it is expected little will remain other than the titles. Warner is so high on the potential series that the studio has already set a tentative July 4, 2012 release date for “2010”.

 

Deal comes as Bay, Fuller and Form ready an early May start for "Friday the 13th," New Line's relaunch of another iconic baddie, Jason Voorhees. Marcus Nispel will direct from a script by Damian Shannon and Mark Swift ("Freddy vs. Jason"). At Rogue Pictures, the Platinum Dunes team is prepping an exorcism thriller to be directed by David Goyer and a "Near Dark" remake to be directed by Samuel Bayer. Bay, Fuller and Form are also developing a Universal remake of Alfred Hitchcock's "The Birds," with Martin Campbell directing Naomi Watts.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

He actually had me going on my first skim-through.

Then I saw the date of the article PHEEEEEEEEW!

 

;) - TB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude, that is just sinister... :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

What are your thoughts on these impending remakes?

1. The Day The Earth Stood Still - with Keanu playing Klatuu (surely not? . . . Nope, I mean it)

2. Near Dark - I'm going to vomit, if this film does get off the ground it has a lot to live up to.

3. Escape From New York - Gerard Butler is out, who will be in for playing Snake Plissken?

4. Friday The 13th - It was bound to happen.

5. The Birds - They keep trying to remake Hitchcock and no one has done it worth a shit yet.

6. Rosemary's Baby - The real reason Polanski won't come back to the US ;)

7. Heavy Metal - Really? Should we now remake Spinal Tap as well?

8. Casablanca - I was joking when I mentioned this earlier in the thread. At the time I had no idea someone would actually try and do it. Madonna wants to star.

Please don't play it again Sam!

 

Tim, don't forget Creature From the Black Lagoon. I see this is a go with locations already scouted.

Personally, I don't care for the idea of remakes. Sometimes I enjoy them, mostly not. Understandibly, studios want to remake "classics" that should gurantee money, but why dosen't someone take a crack at remaking a bad film? There have been lots of films that have cool posters, great actors, or just great ideas that seriously end up lacking. Remake one of those so it kicks ass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
“I am thrilled at this opportunity to improve on this visionary look at the future,” says Bay in a statement. “It’s always been my opinion that (Kubrick) was forced into releasing the film before it was finished. For example, whole sequences don’t even have any sound. And I’m certain he meant to shoot a scene where everything gets explained so the audience can be clear on what is going on. These are fixes I feel we can make while making it even more exciting for today’s audience.”

 

This is my favorite bit. It's so completely ludicrous and yet so completely believable when you consider Michael Bay.

 

When I first read this I misunderstood the part about HAL 9000, I thought the article was saying Jessica Alba was going to do the voice of HAL.

I was skimming this article while on the phone. I was outraged that they would try and sex up the computer with Jessica Alba's voice ;)

Then when I re-read and realized she was just to be a "third Astronaut" I was still stricken dumb.

It was only THEN, that I realized it was a joke.

 

But we shouldn't laugh too hard . . . uhg.

 

- TB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just felt a deathgrip there. Can I ask for some forgiveness? *GULP*

 

For this movie at least, I enjoyed it. Was I floored enough by the movie to consider it one of the best? nope. My dad had said the same thing when he saw this and compared it to the original. Remakes have always been a double-edged sword to begin with. So in my defense to cool the fires down here's how I feel about other remakes:

 

-I have a major hatred for The Invasion and respected and enjoyed the Body Snatchers and it's 1978 remake.

 

-Pink Panther: Peter Sellers has carved a spot in my love for comedy and Steve Martin was a typical mockery of the french.

 

-Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The original gave me nightmares for two days straight but I loved it, and the Michael Bay remake was

a fleshfest of crap.

 

-3:10 to Yuma: Saw the Remake first and then the orginal and compelled me enough to watch more westerns.

 

I understand how remakes can be nothing more than a short-term cashcow ploys and it's always mixed as to how people will react, but hey I understand that there's something much greater in the original material as opposed to an 'update'. It really comes down to generations, and audience. What you or I or other people enjoyed at that time, may not be what the younger audiences are tuned to. It's just apples and oranges.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just felt a deathgrip there. Can I ask for some forgiveness? *GULP*

 

No need for forgiveness . . .

I'd say more a need to give you a slap on the back for inspiring me to start this much needed thread topic ;)

 

It's just apples and oranges.

 

Well, in some cases it's apples and oranges.

And in some cases it's apples and rotted, syphilis-ridden, human body parts of the naughty variety (by way of comparison).

 

It really comes down to generations, and audience.

 

That's precisely what scares me ;)

 

Tiara hits on my feelings when she said this - "Hey, they gonna remake "Notorious" and "Dark Voyager"! Just kidding!"

That's why I ask "Is nothing sacred?"

Do we really need a straight remake of films like Casablanca, Gone With The Wind, Citizen Kane, 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, or dare I say it . . . Blade Runner? Can't Hollywood leave well enough alone?

 

I'm on the other side of the argument too. I loved Payback, a remake of the classic John Boorman/Lee Marvin masterpiece. I loved John Carpenter's remake of Howard Hawks' The Thing From Another World, and I loved Phillip Kaufman's 1978 remake of Invasion Of The Body Snatchers.

It's never an easy thing to reinvent a classic. It certainly helps when that is accomplished.

 

Mainly I hate the idea of it where it concerns classic or classic cult films unless it's the original director taking another crack.

But believe me, I have no problem eating crow when a successful remake proves my initial distaste wrong.

Didn't happen with Manchurian Candidate though.

 

- TB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tim, don't forget Creature From the Black Lagoon. I see this is a go with locations already scouted.

 

Here is a case of "maybe it's about time?"

Maybe I feel that way because in spite of the cool as shit original "CREATURE" make-up, I never really considered the actual film to be that incredible.

Maybe it's because Creature From the Black Lagoon is not in my pantheon of all-time favorites (for whatever reasons).

I remember back in the late 80's John Carpenter was going to do this. Not sure what ever happened with it.

 

With the right creative team in place I could see this being pretty cool.

Odd how no one has gotten close to it until now. The rest of the Universal Monsters have been done, well, I guess there is The Invisible Man and The Wolfman too.

 

How about Creature From The Black Lagoon directed by David Cronenberg?

Or Guillermo Del Toro . . .

 

Bottom line, I PRAY there is a good script if it's going to happen.

 

- TB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather see del Toro's Frankenstein. I remember reading he said something about wanting to direct a script Darabont wrote.

 

Seeing as how he's doing The Hobbit now, and if those movies make a fuck load of money maybe he'll get the clout to do it. Though I'd prefer if he would use it to finally make At the Mountains of Madness.

 

The only problem I have with him doing The Hobbit is it's going to keep him from making his smaller films for a couple of years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I see that Creature is being directed by Breck Eisner with a script by Gary Ross (Pleasantville, Seabiscuit).

Eisner (son of Michael Eisner) last gave us the Dirk Pitt (Matthew McConaughey) action vehicle, Sahara.

 

Jury is still out for me . . .

 

Edit

Also, it's "announced" (take that for what it's worth) that Eisner is slated to direct another cult horror remake, George A. Romero's The Crazies due in 2010.

I hope this guy is good. I did enjoy Sahara (no throwing rotten fruit or vegetables) on Vid. But Sahara is NOT filling the mighty shoes of Romero.

 

- TB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe it's because Creature From the Black Lagoon is not in my pantheon of all-time favorites (for whatever reasons).

I remember back in the late 80's John Carpenter was going to do this. Not sure what ever happened with it.

 

Bottom line, I PRAY there is a good script if it's going to happen.

 

- TB

 

Last thing I heard it was supposed to start this past February.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone hear they are "in talks" to remake "Let the Right One In"? Hammer Films (Beyond the Rave) are behind this. For those that don't know this will be a remake of the Swedish film, based on the novel by John Ajvide Linqvist.

 

The original told the story of a 12-year-old boy who befriends his new neighbor that's revealed to be a vampire, who takes care of the bullies that torture the boy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd rather see del Toro's Frankenstein. I remember reading he said something about wanting to direct a script Darabont wrote.

 

And that would be the script Darabont wrote for Mary Shelly's Frankenstein from 1994.

It's BRILLIANT. Seriously. The Hollywood community on masse was ga-ga over Darabont's script.

Then it got offered to Kenneth Branagh to star in and direct. That was the kiss of death where Darabont's script was concerned.

 

Over the last few years Del Toro and Darabont have become good pals.

It makes sense that Del Toro would want to do it.

I hadn't heard either of them ever mention it, but there is a LOT I do not know ;)

 

That would be absolutely wonderful though.

Frank's script deserves an honest film adaptation.

 

- TB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No need for forgiveness . . .

I'd say more a need to give you a slap on the back for inspiring me to start this much needed thread topic ;)

 

And I thought I was imagining you with a loaded m16 when I read this thread lol.

 

Honestly, I asked myself that question about the sacredness of movies, but here's how I saw it later on: If I don't like the ride, I'll get off it. I'm seeing more and more of the recent remakes as their own product with a nice "label"and none of the inspiration from what they've said to have taken from, kinda like remixing a song or some terrible rap song taking the beautiful parts of what one cherished in the song and slabbing it with BS.

 

I hear your cry on Manchurian...lets wipe the slate clean (if possible lol)....now onto the posts:

 

I'm not gonna see the Hobbit and it's partly to Del Toro. The man has such a great imagination but I fear he's gonna become a cookie-cutter for his next few movies...Just saying.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And that would be the script Darabont wrote for Mary Shelly's Frankenstein from 1994.

It's BRILLIANT. Seriously. The Hollywood community on masse was ga-ga over Darabont's script.

Then it got offered to Kenneth Branagh to star in and direct. That was the kiss of death where Darabont's script was concerned.

 

Over the last few years Del Toro and Darabont have become good pals.

It makes sense that Del Toro would want to do it.

I hadn't heard either of them ever mention it, but there is a LOT I do not know ;)

 

That would be absolutely wonderful though.

Frank's script deserves an honest film adaptation.

 

- TB

 

Here's the link where he talks about wanting to do Darabont's script.

 

Also, a Frankenstein script illustrated by Bernie Wrightson? How the fuck can get my hands on that thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's the link where he talks about wanting to do Darabont's script.

 

Also, a Frankenstein script illustrated by Bernie Wrightson? How the fuck can get my hands on that thing.

 

 

Cool read, thanks for that Mike.

 

- tb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And that would be the script Darabont wrote for Mary Shelly's Frankenstein from 1994.

It's BRILLIANT. Seriously. The Hollywood community on masse was ga-ga over Darabont's script.

Then it got offered to Kenneth Branagh to star in and direct. That was the kiss of death where Darabont's script was concerned.

 

Over the last few years Del Toro and Darabont have become good pals.

It makes sense that Del Toro would want to do it.

I hadn't heard either of them ever mention it, but there is a LOT I do not know ;)

 

That would be absolutely wonderful though.

Frank's script deserves an honest film adaptation.

 

- TB

 

So, how much of Frank's script is still in-tack?

 

As for Creature From the Black Lagoon, the original is no where near my top 50, but I love monsters, and Gill-Man is in my top 10. For 1954, the costume is out of this world. Is not Frank a huge Creature fan? He should've gotten this.

blacklagoon.gif

 

blacklagoon.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok Street, so you didn't like the fact that Manchurian Candidate got remade, but you still haven't explained what it is you didn't like about Demme's remake.

 

Tiara, I dissagree with everything you said.

 

Meryl Streep is a much better actress than Angela Lansbury. I don't care if Lansbury was from the so called "Golden Age" of cinema. Streep is superior.

 

Who cares if it's not in black and white??? Disliking a movie because it's not shot the same way as the original goes completely against the idea of remaking it. Demme didn't intend to replicate the original. And I for one am really tired of the idea that B&W cinema is regarded as superior to current color films. I have great respect for my elders, but I gotta remind them that the reason B&W died is because color is better. Common sense if ya ask me.

 

"Schreiber was better as Orson Welles"? "Washington attached himself so the film could get made"? I don't even consider those valid criticisms of the film.

 

Basically your reason to hate on this film is the sole fact that it's a remake of another film you enjoyed alot. That's it.

 

I have suffered from this similar problem with Abre Los Ojos. Eduardo Noriega's best picture got remade into that piece of shit Tom Cruise movie Vanilla Sky. The difference between that comparison and the Manchurian comparison, is that Demme was remaking a very old movie that this generation could give 3 shits about. Vanilla Sky was released 4 years after Abre Los Ojos. That is bullshit.

 

-TL

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok Street, so you didn't like the fact that Manchurian Candidate got remade, but you still haven't explained what it is you didn't like about Demme's remake.

 

TL, If I had to explain what I didn't like about the 2004 remake I'd be sitting here typing for the next several hours. Were I to explain my exact thoughts it would just butt up against your experience and we would go round and round on the topic until we're blue in the fingers. You'd get pissed, I'd get pissed, and we'd neither one win the other one over. I'm sure we could debate it forever. And we both have more important things to do with our time.

Suffice it to say that The Manchurian Candidate (1962) ranks in the American Film Institute's top 100 films of all time. The remake will NEVER crack that list.

It won't happen. I don't know if that matters a damn to you and that's fine. As I alluded to before, if you like the remake that's all that really matters in the end.

You dug it, that's cool. I didn't, and I think the original is a masterpiece that cannot be duplicated, revamped, or otherwise re-imagined to the degree that it could top it's progenitor.

 

Tiara, I dissagree with everything you said.

 

Meryl Streep is a much better actress than Angela Lansbury. I don't care if Lansbury was from the so called "Golden Age" of cinema. Streep is superior.

 

If you'll allow me to jump in ;) Both sides to this argument are extreme. My opinion is that they are both great given the work they have excelled in. Manchurian Candidate is arguably Lansbury's greatest performance, and as such I believe it could stand against any similar Streep performance (A sentiment I'm sure Streep would agree with). I thought she was great in the remake given what she had to work with.

 

Who cares if it's not in black and white??? Disliking a movie because it's not shot the same way as the original goes completely against the idea of remaking it. Demme didn't intend to replicate the original.

 

I have to agree with what TL is saying here. Black and white or not, has little to do with either film. I'm sure if Frankenheimer had the budget or option to shoot the 1962 production in color, he likely would have. Imagine how color could have accented the story, the queen of diamonds and the suit of red symbolizes Raymond's mother on many levels, and that's just scratching the surface.

 

And I for one am really tired of the idea that B&W cinema is regarded as superior to current color films. I have great respect for my elders, but I gotta remind them that the reason B&W died is because color is better. Common sense if ya ask me.

 

So are you saying that black and white films are inferior because they are not shot in color? Or am I misunderstanding your intent?

Films are like fine wine, the longer they sit there the more they are appreciated, and after a certain amount of time they can take on mythic identities.

Not so easy for newer films to reach that level of cinematic status. I think the real measuring stick is the quality of the film and it's relevance; does it stand the test of time? - not whether it was shot in color or black and white. Again go to the list of AFI's top 100. 3 of the top 5 films are color. Surely the members of the American Film Institute play no favorites on that subject.

 

 

"Schreiber was better as Orson Welles"? "Washington attached himself so the film could get made"? I don't even consider those valid criticisms of the film.

 

Basically your reason to hate on this film is the sole fact that it's a remake of another film you enjoyed alot. That's it.

 

I have suffered from this similar problem with Abre Los Ojos. Eduardo Noriega's best picture got remade into that piece of shit Tom Cruise movie Vanilla Sky. The difference between that comparison and the Manchurian comparison, is that Demme was remaking a very old movie that this generation could give 3 shits about.

 

And if that is truly so then I ask again, why remake it? Why remake a film that people of this generation aren't going to give 3 shits about?

So you can borrow the name, keep the same basic plot, and reinvent or update the other essential layers into something our futuristic, sped-up, sound-bite-ridden current society can easily digest? Why not just toss the title, borrow liberally, and credit the source writer? Manchurian Global? The evil mother corporation takes the name of one of the poorest regions on the planet? Interesting. Yet that is the only thing connecting the title of the former to the remake. Updating the original film's seminal brainwash location out of the Korean war (necessary to update the material for today's crowd) and into Kuwait practically renders the remake's use of the title pointless. But I guess that "The Kuwaiti Candidate" just doesn't really roll off the tongue as well. I'd say that minus the basic plot of the 1962 version, the remake was more a spin on the brilliant 1974 paranoia-conspiracy thriller, "The Parallax View."

 

Vanilla Sky was released 4 years after Abre Los Ojos. That is bullshit.

 

So what did you think of Insomnia? Does Nolan's remake not cut the mustard because it came out so closely on the heels of Erik Skjoldbjærg's 1997 Norwegian language original?

Am I misunderstanding your intent?

I loved both films because I thought they both told a riveting story. Both casts were wonderful, Pacino in the remake, and Stellan Skarsgård in the original were both outstanding. It's so rare that remakes can do that. I think you gotta judge these things based on other criteria, not necessarily on the time-frame between the two releases. I'll admit that it offends me too. But ultimately it comes down to whether the remake is a good film or not. And as we've so far proven, that is completely subjective.

 

- TB

 

-TL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...