Zoe ,'Heart Of Gold'
A place to talk about movies--old and new, good and bad, high art and high cheese. It's the place to place your kittens on the award winners, gossip about upcoming fims and discuss DVD releases and extras. Spoiler policy: White font all plot-related discussion until a movie's been in wide release two weeks, and keep the major HSQ in white font until two weeks after the video/DVD release.
Oh, I'd love that Fiona if it's readily available.
I don't know about readily available, but I have a text file which I can email you. Same email address as in 2006...?
At least it's exclusive new information, as I'd be surprised if anyone other than me ever has used it yet.
I don't know about readily available, but I have a text file which I can email you. Same email address as in 2006...?
Yes, thank you!
To answer my own question, original Casino Royale was a mess.
But is it fair to call the Daniel Craig movie a remake? They're completely different movies.
But is it fair to call the Daniel Craig movie a remake? They're completely different movies.
Arguably they are both also literary adapations from the same source and so not really remakes.
Hec, insent.
I'm looking for instances where a movie remake is superior than the original. I know the classic examples are The Maltese Falcon and His Girl Friday, but I'm especially wondering if any films during the present Hollywood Remake Glut have been worthwhile.
I'm assuming the ones I'm thinking of were the "remakes". i didn't realize there were other versions.
Ocean's 11. The original was pretty awful, really.
Ghastly. Although the ending was pretty good.
I fell asleep during both iterations of Solaris, but the only thing I could say was definitively better about the Soderbergh version was that it was significantly shorter.
Yes.
I preferred The Birdcage to La Cage Aux Folles.
Heresy!
Hitchcock's remake of The Man Who Knew Too Much is supposed to be better than his original, right? I've only seen the remake.
I don't know. Production values are better, but the whole "Que sera sera" aspect might blow this theory.
JZ will make the case that the Julia Ormond/Harrison Ford Sabrina is better written and cast than the original with Audrey.
She can make the case, but my Audrey love is too great to admit she is right.
Actually, to be perfectly accurate, the remake is way, way better written, but the original is probably more or less better cast (more WRT Hepburn and Holden, less WRT Bogart, who didn't much like Hepburn or the entire project and it showed). My absolutely ideal film production would have Audrey Hepburn, William Holden and Harrison Ford using the remake's script.
And, since I am language's bitch, if I have to choose one version, I'll go for the remake. Reluctantly and regretfully, but still. Better words, and all three lead actors thoroughly invested and committed (I love Bogie beyond words, but he really didn't like doing Sabrina, and an actor who doesn't give a shit and is walking through a role, even one like Bogie who oozes charisma even when he isn't trying, just gets my back up).
Production values are better, but the whole "Que sera sera" aspect might blow this theory.
Not a fan?
I preferred The Birdcage to La Cage Aux Folles.
::boggles::
I'm pretty sure The Birdcage is the original source of my abiding Robin Williams hatred. Even more than his hideous string of "sickly sad clown/robot/divorced dad/miscellaneous manboychild with a song in his heart and a wound in his soul" abominations. Nathan Lane was wonderful, and Calista Flockhart was surprisingly good in a tiny and mostly thankless role, but the entire rest of the movie was, to me, a bucket of meh. Except Williams, who was a bucket of STABKILLRAGE.
Although the ending was pretty good.
It's definitely the best part, but it doesn't quite make the rest of the movie worthwhile, alas.