tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post3889393649325495154..comments2023-11-03T06:02:02.128-07:00Comments on By Ken Levine: More Bad RemakesBy Ken Levinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17305293821975250420noreply@blogger.comBlogger77125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-26876441798328126032013-03-04T04:15:54.557-08:002013-03-04T04:15:54.557-08:00Don't forget the awful 2000 TV remake of the c...Don't forget the awful 2000 TV remake of the classic film version of Nevil Shute's novel "On The Beach." Armande Assante is no Gregory Peck, nor are any of the other leads worthy of Fred Astaire, Anthony Perkins, and the other male leads. And none of the actresses are worthy of Eva Gardner and the other female leads.<br /><br />The TV version was long, boring, boasted horrific special effects, was downright weird at times, and, in the end, you don't care when the radiation from a nuclear war finally snuffs life out in Australia. In fact, the tragedy is that it does not happen sooner; none of the characters win sympathy as the cast chomps, chomps that scenery while their characters plod towards their doom.Tony Heldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17325401259031173523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-60676677599561346342011-02-18T13:15:36.968-08:002011-02-18T13:15:36.968-08:00The Spielberg War of the Worlds, deeply flawed as ...The Spielberg <i>War of the Worlds</i>, deeply flawed as it is (Flaw #1? Tom Cruise.), is still considerably closer to the novel than George Pal's film, and of course, the improvements in special effects over 50 years was more than sufficient justification for a remake.D. McEwannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-72946170341129637722011-02-17T20:02:55.761-08:002011-02-17T20:02:55.761-08:0074 comments and no one's mentioned THE WAR OF ...74 comments and no one's mentioned THE WAR OF THE WORLDS? Is Spielberg off limits here? Just wonderin'.Christiannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-37950018097721116692011-02-16T01:13:06.185-08:002011-02-16T01:13:06.185-08:00"WizarDru said...
'Are you going to tell ...<i>"WizarDru said...</i><br />'Are you going to tell me Olivier wasn't spining in his grave When Mel Gibson played Hamlet? I think he was - from laughter. Shakespeare's bones may have been somewhat more annoyed.'<br /><br /><i>No, I really don't. It's not like hundreds of other actors hadn't already portrayed Hamlet before and after Olivier...arguably the greatest Shakespearean actor of the 20th century."</i><br /><br />Congratulations,WizarDru, on 100% <i>completely missing my joke!</i> I was using hopefully-comic irony to completely agree with you, and I find it hard to believe one of Ken's readers needs this <i><b>OBVIOUS</b></i> fact explained to them. Your entire reply is stating to me, as a correction, that which I so utterly agree with, it didn't occur to me someone would be so dense as to miss the irony in y take on it. <i>Dozens</i> of actors have played <i>Hamlet</i> on film, and millions onstage. I've played him myself. <br /><br />So, did you think<i>Frasier</i> was a searing drama about a love-challenged radio psychiatrist? Because irony seems to have flown right over your head.D. McEwannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-35288455426120455612011-02-15T09:10:08.711-08:002011-02-15T09:10:08.711-08:00Where is 'Yours, Mine, and Ours'? Travest...Where is 'Yours, Mine, and Ours'? Travesty of a remake. I was crushed that Dennis Quaid took part in it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-60460228388343007912011-02-15T04:45:22.770-08:002011-02-15T04:45:22.770-08:00"Are you going to tell me Olivier wasn't ..."<i>Are you going to tell me Olivier wasn't spining in his grave When Mel Gibson played Hamlet? I think he was - from laughter. Shakespeare's bones may have been somewhat more annoyed.</i>"<br /><br />No, I really don't. It's not like hundreds of other actors hadn't already portrayed Hamlet before and after Olivier...arguably the greatest Shakespearean actor of the 20th century. If the movie had come out a year earlier, I'm sure he would have said that he didn't think that much of it. But I have a hard time believing he'd really care that much.<br /><br />Let's not forget, even an actor as great as Olivier did his share of crap, including some of the remakes on this list. He was in the remake of The Jazz Singer, remember? I doubt he was terribly proud of Wild Geese II (or of being in ANY film with a 'II' in the title). I doubt he thought so highly of his participation in the original "Clash of the Titans"*, either. For every "Marathon Man", there is a "The Betsy".<br /><br />My point is that these supposed sainted actors would not suddenly be filled with angst over some inferior remake of their original performance. Because they were involved in them too and since acting was their job, they often had a hand in some occasionally terrible movies themselves.<br /><br />(side note: the new Clash of the Titans is an example of where more money does not equal a better movie. The newer effects are impressive, I suppose (though the original's are Harryhausen's masterwork)...but the main character is so agressively STUPID that it spoils the exercise and misunderstands what made the original myths so powerful to last 2 millenia).WizarDruhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00251397305365764287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-90620748621805269012011-02-14T18:25:52.020-08:002011-02-14T18:25:52.020-08:00Don't take my word for it, D. McEwan - check 2...Don't take my word for it, D. McEwan - check 2010 True Grit's credits: You'll see nary a mention of Marguerite Roberts, who wrote the 1969 film. But check the credits of the new Arthur and you'll sure-as-heck-fire see Steve Gordon's name.<br /><br />That's the issue for me. Arthur was born a film and was brought to life successfully. There's nowhere else to take the property. A "remake" isn't exploring new ideas; its just lazily selling a pre-sold idea because no one in Hollywood has any creativity.<br /><br />The 1969 True Grit, however, left plenty of room for another filmmaker to make a truer adaptation of the source novel. Had Wayne made a definitive adaption, I doubt the Cohens would have found anything interesting about the property.HPFRicnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-38314561534869329722011-02-14T17:31:40.419-08:002011-02-14T17:31:40.419-08:00Just watched the trailer for the Arthur remake.
N...Just watched the trailer for the Arthur remake.<br /><br />Nope. Not buying it. Liza is just... gone? There's no Liza? Look, I liked Russell Brand in "Sarah Marshall" and "the Greek," but I'm drawing the line here, especially after that crappy SNL.danrydellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-89778835493109354142011-02-14T16:34:14.408-08:002011-02-14T16:34:14.408-08:00The remake of Desk Set - two former jeopardy winne...The remake of Desk Set - two former jeopardy winners vs Watson.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-58628013312317372742011-02-14T15:36:49.286-08:002011-02-14T15:36:49.286-08:00So WizarDru, are you saying Michael Caine is not s...So WizarDru, are you saying Michael Caine is not spinning in his grave? Because, if someone has prematurely buried him, he's probably very agitated about it. (Frankly, I rather enjoyed the <i>Alfie</i> remake. The same can not be said about the <i>Sleuth</i> remake, with Caine now playing the Olivier role. Since the story was powered by the snooty upperclass writer's insane jealousy of a cockney, class warfare was at the heart of it. Thus Caine was utterly miscast when moved up to that role. He's still a Cockney. But there was so much else wrong with that terrible movie, the miscasting hardly matters.)<br /><br />Are you going to tell me Olivier wasn't spining in his grave When Mel Gibson played <i>Hamlet</i>? I think he was - from laughter. Shakespeare's bones may have been somewhat more annoyed. I was very amused when Dame Edna said to Mel on one of her TV specials: "No one can touch your Hamlet."<br /><br />The most-insane thing about Steve Martin's <i>Pink Panther</i> was that he was playing the character <i>BEFORE</i> he became an inspector, which means he was playing him in his 20s. Martin was just turning 60 at the time (six years older than Sellers was when he died), and has had so many facelifts, he looks like an old Chinese Man. What kind of ego makes an actor of 60 think he can play a man in his 20s? (This question could also be applied to Kevin Spacey playing Bobby Darin though decades too old for the role.)<br /><br />Sorry HPFRic, but your split-hair is meaningless. By that argument <i>Lolita</i> is not a remake (It is.) <i>The Maltese Falcon</i> was not a remake (it is), <i>Horror of Dracula</i> is not a remake (among dozens of <i>Dracula</i> remakes), etc. When a novel is filmed again it is a remake, period. Just because the new <i>True Grit</i> is considerably better than the first version, in large part by replacing non-actors like John Wayne and Glen Campbell with real actors, and also due to a more-faithful adaptation, doesn't make it not-a-remake. It's a remake. A good remake.D. McEwannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-1989346685182973502011-02-14T14:30:10.597-08:002011-02-14T14:30:10.597-08:00TRUE GRIT IS NOT A REMAKE! The Cohens adapted thei...TRUE GRIT IS NOT A REMAKE! The Cohens adapted their movie from the original source material: Charles Portis’ *novel*; they did not remake John Wayne’s version, which marginalized Mattie’s role considerably and turned it into a big ol’ JOHN WAYNE vehicle.<br /><br />That’s a vitally important distinction. By returning to the source, the Cohens were able to find their own, original approach to the material and I think that’s a BIG reason why it’s playing so well. Hailee Steinfeld’s character and performance give that film a lot of warmth and heart, and it simply and effectively differentiates it from the Wayne version.HPFRicnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-62025812632624296752011-02-14T13:35:51.607-08:002011-02-14T13:35:51.607-08:00The Bogart version of Thye Maltese Falcon was the ...The Bogart version of Thye Maltese Falcon was the third. It was filmed once as Satan Met a Lady, with Bette Davis, and another as The Maltese Falcon, with Ricardo Cortez. The third time was a charm.Cap'n Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11783977137812876489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-49562324483127161342011-02-14T07:57:55.041-08:002011-02-14T07:57:55.041-08:00I thought the remake of 12 Angry Men wasn't of...I thought the remake of 12 Angry Men wasn't offensive, at least. Not as good as the original, but not abysmal. <br /><br />Steve Martin's Pink Panther is simply inexcusable. It's so bad. <br /><br />Heartbreak Kid, I don't know how you make a movie knowing all along you're going to make the audience hate the main star at the end.danrydellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-42302335596171211492011-02-14T05:03:20.591-08:002011-02-14T05:03:20.591-08:00What I find amusing is the 'fill-in-the-blank ...What I find amusing is the 'fill-in-the-blank is spinning in his/her grave' statements. As if actors are so protective of their past works that they would fly into rages if they heard a film was being remade that they had already done. I mean, Sir John Gielgud took roles both high and low...and as a Shakespearean actor would have seen plenty of actors taking on roles he'd done. I find it hard to believe that he'd care one way or other. <br /><br />Michael Caine's recent (and second) auto-biography discusses several movies that have been remade, including Alfie and the Italian Job...and he certainly has no problem with them having been remade. In fact, he comments positively on Jude Law's portrayal of Alfie and comments on the ending of the original Italian Job.<br /><br />For many actors and directors, particularly in older Hollywood, making a movie was a JOB. And while they did the best they could, that doesn't mean they had an emotional attachment so deep that they couldn't abide another version. In fact, the very existence of a remake usually indicates the quality of the original.<br /><br />What's most amusing to me is how many of these remakes I forgot exist...because they're so FORGETTABLE.WizarDruhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00251397305365764287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-78592574646093584282011-02-13T20:13:29.297-08:002011-02-13T20:13:29.297-08:00The Lolita remake defense league is cracking me up...The Lolita remake defense league is cracking me up here.<br /><br />The remake of Lolita was okay if you think the girl in the story should have no charm and that narrative tension is a bad idea. The remake is marginally closer to the book in some literal ways, but in exchange it jettisons any claim to being an exciting movie. The remake is the answer to all those folks who predicted that Lolita would one day change from taboo to yawns-ville. Kubrick did not make a masterpiece, but he made a hell of a movie. The best I can say of Lyne's film, lathered up with voice over and dull cul-de-sacs, is that it makes you want to read the book again.Marknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-50522838468232875952011-02-13T17:29:49.182-08:002011-02-13T17:29:49.182-08:00The twee and money-sotted YOU'VE GOT MAIL bett...The twee and money-sotted YOU'VE GOT MAIL better than THE SHOP AROUND THE CORNER? well, it's a free country. In defense of the original (besides the fact that everyone in the film is as good as Stewart, and he's wonderful), I would note that this is a rarity, a smart, sophisticated romantic comedy built around people without much money (except for their boss, Mr. Matuscheck, and even he's modest as movie rich people go). <br /><br />I'm not really fond of <i>either</i> version of LOLITA -- Kubrick's version is in many ways a cleaned-up betrayal of the novel, although James Mason and Shelley Winters are wonderful casting as Humbert and Charlotte (Sue Lyon was whip-smart and funny, but she seemed too old--even though she wasn't--and the script makes her the aggressor with Humbert, when the novel makes it clear that he manipulates her pseduo-sophistication to make her more vulnerable and willing. Speaking of the script, it was mostly re-written by Kubrick, who threw out about 75% of the screenplay that Vladimir Nabokov presented to him, a script that would have been much tougher and more unsettling without getting in too trouble with the censors). The first film's fatal flaw, though, was the casting of Peter Sellers as Quilty. In the novel, Quilty is (a)barely seen until the end of the book and (b) is a loud vulgarian. Seller mostly did the accent schtick he perfected during his music-hall and nightclub days and did clever little cameos. And he was never <i>mean</i> enough. I keep seeing Lenny Bruce in the role. He was one of the meanest and dirtiest (and funniest) comedians about. The second film of LOLITA is closer to the book, but too pretty and remote and picturesque. And the girl (I don't even remember her name) felt like a pretty ex-model floating through a vaguely-pervy fashion shoot.<br /><br />As for GET CARTER, the first re-make of the film came a lot earlier than 2000, it was HIT MAN, which starred Bernie Casey, who's good (heck, Bernie Casey is almost always good) and Pam Grier, who manages to be striking even if she has a nothing role (the same was really true of Brit Ekland in the original). It was a lot better than the Stallone version, but then the folks behind HIT MAN, at least the actors, were really working at it, while Stallone has mostly been coasting for years.Matt Pattonhttp://notsomuch1962.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-3174234711677430702011-02-13T16:04:19.260-08:002011-02-13T16:04:19.260-08:00Well, it can't be worse than the Wicker Man re...<b>Well, it can't be worse than the Wicker Man remake ... can it?</b><br />Hey, the Wicker Man remake rocks!<br /><br />"Killing me won't bring back your god damn honey!"<br /><br />One remake that is definitely superior to the original is the Werner Herzog version of BAD LIEUTENANT. Now that's a movie!Jeremy Dylanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04502292100104765209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-926096105822939712011-02-13T12:56:45.061-08:002011-02-13T12:56:45.061-08:00"Brian Phillips said...
Citizen Kane (YES, I ...<i>"Brian Phillips said...<br />Citizen Kane (YES, I know it starred George W. Bush)"</i><br /><br />You know, for a joke to work, it needs some sort of relation to reality. Charles Foster Kane was an <i>unsuccessful</i> political candidate who never held public office. George W. Bush has never even read, much less published, a newspaper. Also, to some degree, Kane was motivated by a desire to help the poorer classes, albeit as his gift rather than their right, but Bush has no such concerns - <i>ever!</i> "Screw the poor" has always been his motto.<br /><br />I actually liked the Peter Jackson remake of <i>King Kong</i>, though it's certainly a hour too long. The Jeff Birdges version is an abomination.<br /><br />I will never argue that Tim Burton's remake of <i>Planet of the Apes</i> was any good, but has everyone forgotten what a camp mess the original is? The Burton film is a bad remake of a bad original. For Heaven's sake, the original stars Heston, a dreadful block of wood who never was any good as an actor.<br /><br />I had forgotten that TV remake of <i>Night of the Hunter</i>, probably because, like "anonymous", I didn't last even 15 minutes into it. What possesed Chamberlin to think he could play that role? Well, at least we know why Harry Powell wouldn't sleep with his new bride this time. He's gay.D. McEwannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-63939328082417404902011-02-13T12:43:33.519-08:002011-02-13T12:43:33.519-08:00" Big Clyde said...
Is it just too easy to sa...<i>" Big Clyde said...<br />Is it just too easy to say any original is awesome and all remakes are crap?</i><br /><br />Yes, and it's also wrong. Again, as has been pointed out earlier, <i>The Maltese Falcon</i> with Bogart was a <b><i>second</i></b> remake! <i>The Wizard of Oz</i> was a remake. Hitchcock himself remade his <i>The Man Who Knew Too Much</i>, making it better the second time. Nothing like making a sweeping generalization to insure you are wrong.<br /><br /><i>"Buttermilk Sky said...<br />Hitchcock remade his own 'The Man Who Knew Too Much,' and improved on it. Nobody has improved on 'The 39 Steps.'</i><br /><br />Were you the author of the novel <i>The 39 Steps</i> you might well disagree with that assesment. I imagine Buchanon beoing deeply puzzled as to whether Hitch too anything form his book besde the title and some character names. The actually-pretty-good version that ran on PBS a year ago was at least a recognizable adaptation of the novel Hitchcock threw out.<br /><br /><i>"Pete Sutcliffe said...<br />Kubrick turned </i>[Lolita]<i> into a comedy.</i><br /><br />In her review of Kubrick's <i>Lolita</i>, Pauline Kael mocked people saying this, since they have missed what a dark, dark comedy the novel is. (Even Lynne's remake is funny from time-to-time.)D. McEwannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-40740366720307646212011-02-13T12:25:43.791-08:002011-02-13T12:25:43.791-08:00You left out Hamlet.
te,
Sgt. Bilko, terrible as...You left out <i>Hamlet</i>.<br /><br />te,<br /><br /><i>Sgt. Bilko</i>, terrible as it was, was not a "Remake". There is no other Sgt. BILKO movie.<br /><br /><i>"'Lolita' was a remake?"</i><br /><br />Well, the remake of <i>Lolita</i> was a remake. (Actually, I just watched the remake of <i>Lolita</i> last week, and while it isn't as stylish or funny as the Kubrick film, it is able to be franker about the film's topic, and it is truer to the novel. (Yes, I know Nabakov is credited with the Kubrick screenplay, but if you compare Nabakov's screenplay, which has been published, with Kubrick's film, you'll see a lot of rewriting was done, along with the improvisations of Peter Sellers.) But whoever had the idea to cast Melanie Griffiths in the Shelley Winters role, as Charlotte HAze, needs to find a different line of work than casting.<br /><br /><i>"jason said...<br />Recently: Clash of the Titans<br />Yeah, the first one wasn't a classic film"</i><br /><br />It wasn't? News to me, who saw it the day it opened, and many times since. Arguably, Harryhausen's best film. The remake did suck.<br /><br /><i>"evie said...<br />Who remade Rear Window?????"</i><br /><br />Christopher Reeve, so the disability was real. It was a TV movie, and Reeve directed as well as starred in it. Given he was paralyzed from the head down, and couldn't even breathe on his own, directing and starring in a TV movie was one hell of an achievement. It was not a "sacrilige". It was actually pretty darn good.<br /><br /><i>"Kirk Jusko said...<br />Little Shop of Horrors-The remake had better special effects and certainly better lighting, but the original was funnier."</i><br /><br />You mean the movie version of the stage musical based on the original film? Like <i>Hairspray</i>? It had better songs also, given the original had no songs, and mostly better performances, and come to think of it, I find the remake funnier also.D. McEwannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-51392654551039862612011-02-13T12:15:01.944-08:002011-02-13T12:15:01.944-08:00I'll add another vote for The Blob remake. It&...I'll add another vote for The Blob remake. It's no classic, but if you like monster movies, you'll enjoy it. Along with what Bobo said, having modern special effects to work with helped it as well.Geoduckhttp://cook.web.eschelon.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-69930980905318337792011-02-13T11:34:44.054-08:002011-02-13T11:34:44.054-08:00Gottacook: The Kubrick version of Lolita is the on...Gottacook: The Kubrick version of Lolita is the one I was thinking of. Ken mentioned a remake; I was asking if there's been one since then (could look it up on IMDB, of course, but what's fun in that?tenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-63034863792511849192011-02-13T11:27:47.011-08:002011-02-13T11:27:47.011-08:00Did anyone mention 3:10 to Yuma?
Ha-ha. My WV is...Did anyone mention 3:10 to Yuma? <br /><br />Ha-ha. My WV is clonsi.Cap'n Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11783977137812876489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-18487775757455025662011-02-13T11:03:35.929-08:002011-02-13T11:03:35.929-08:00Allow me to lend my voice to the "what the he...Allow me to lend my voice to the "what the hell are you smoking, Ken?" chorus, with regards to LOLITA. I know that Kubrick is considered infallible, and that some people will reflexively dismiss, on principle, the very idea that the director of FLASHDANCE could have made a better Nabokov adaptation than Stanley Kubrick did. But I'm afraid he just did (and, for the record, I think that Adrian Lyne is one hell of an underrated director, besides).<br /><br />There is a tendency to lionize films on the basis of who made them, and an equal tendency to marginalize films on the basis of who made them. Kubrick's LOLITA, while a good enough picture in its own right, I suppose, is a classic example of a fair-to-middling work championed well above its station by myopic film bitches who see the names "Kubrick" and "Sellers", and effectively end their critical analysis right there. It might be a good(ish) picture, but it's a piss-poor adaptation. <br /><br />Lyne's version, on the other hand, nailed the book in a way that Kubrick not only did not, but that he was also seemingly uninterested in even trying to do. Adrian Lyne undoubtedly couldn't make a better DR. STRANGELOVE, or a better 2001, or a better A CLOCKWORK ORANGE (I'm fairly certain he could have at least equalled BARRY LYNDON, however). But credit where it's due: He *did* make a better LOLITA. Given that Lyne's career has largely concerned itself with the sexual politics of male-female relationships, I suppose it was kind of inevitable.<br /><br />Elsewhere, the remake of SHAFT is nowhere near as cool as the original, but the screenplay of the remake is vastly superior (Ernest Tidyman was good; Richard Price is better), namely because no one calls anyone else "shitty" in it, as far as I can recall. Oh, and Chuck Russell's remake of THE BLOB is ten miles better than the piece of shit original. It captures the goofy fun of the 1958 version, while adding something approaching technical competence to the mix. GET CARTER is one of the worst remakes I can think of off-hand, but Rob Zombie's HALLOWEEN desecration is in its own league.The Guvnanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19336675.post-77120117042593402132011-02-13T10:23:59.481-08:002011-02-13T10:23:59.481-08:00Chuck Russell's remake of "The Blob,"...Chuck Russell's remake of "The Blob," though it has some unforgivable cheese in it (Kevin Dillon's hair, Kevin Dillon's clothes, Kevin Dillon's motorcycle), is actually a really fun, scary movie, with some very effective--and very nasty--scares in it. Remaking (and amping up) a classic b-movie is no great sin, especially if the results are pretty good.Bobohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08231702481334763887noreply@blogger.com