This message has been deleted.
-
-
Gloede_The_Saint — 17 years ago(December 29, 2008 03:17 AM)
There's been a while since I saw the remake but the acting is at least much better in the original and the whole 2004 version felt rather silly to me.
Somebody here has been drinking and I'm sad to say it ain't me - Allan Francis Doyle -
shandy8 — 16 years ago(April 18, 2009 06:03 PM)
I can't believe that a remake of this great movie slipped past me without notice! What was I doing in 2004?
I am interested in seeing what a modern director would do with this intriguing (if flawed) story. I can't imagine anyone matching Angela Lansbury as mum. I wonder who plays her.
"I love corn!" -
solex10 — 16 years ago(May 16, 2009 07:01 PM)
I can't believe that a remake of this great movie slipped past me without notice! What was I doing in 2004?
I am interested in seeing what a modern director would do with this intriguing (if flawed) story. I can't imagine anyone matching Angela Lansbury as mum. I wonder who plays her.
Meryl Streep plays the mom, now a senator, who is still the trigger for her son Raymond. -
moviewizguy — 16 years ago(May 19, 2009 04:42 PM)
I can't believe a lot of you people are bashing the remake. For an up-to-date remake, it's a fantastic film. Yes, I've seen the remake before the original, but that still doesn't change the fact that critics liked the film, with an 80% in RT. It's a well made film with some fantastic performances. At least is doesn't have a laughable fight scene.
-
acr267 — 16 years ago(October 15, 2009 11:25 PM)
Yes, the remake was more 'Hollywood' with a better staged fight scene, quicker dialog, more scene editing, punched up sound and dramatic background music, while the original looks pretty low budget, low hype and missing a transitional scene here &there.
Maybe seeing the original in a theater at 13 and waiting in anticipation for over 30 years to be able to see it again is prejudicial, but the remake was a low brow high dollar tarted up film that shows exactly why EVERY remake, bar none, has been nearly unwatchable. The $$ people have so much more control then the creative people in these thing and their lack of talent just strangles any chance of quality. -
rooprect — 16 years ago(October 19, 2009 07:11 AM)
I think they're both exceptional.
I saw the original firstactually the 2nd half of it and thought it was great. Then I saw the remake and thought overall it was better (except for the ending which was weak).
Last night I saw the original all the way through for the first time, and I realizeartistically speakingthe original is superior. Gawd, the 'garden party' dream sequence alone is possibly the best moment in cinema history.
I admit that the original lacks some of the raw realism & adrenaline that the remake packs. Frank Sinatra was da man, but Denzel Washington really puts me on the edge of my seat, and as a political thriller, the remake gets my blood pumping more. But as a work of art, the original is my favourite.
But like I said, they are both exceptional. Of all the classic films I've seen, only three remakes stick in my mind as being worthy:
-Solaris (2002 remake of the 1972 Russian classic)
-Nosferatu (Herzog's 1979 remake of the 1922 silent film)
-and the Manchurian Candidate -
netshopper-2 — 16 years ago(October 22, 2009 02:33 PM)
What I like about the remake is the changes to the original plot which made sense for 2004 politics. The scenes with the military were loads better than the original. Both are about the same to me as far as enjoyment goes. Liev Schreiber looked a lot like Laurence's Raymond. Lansbury and Streep were both great but not really comparable since their storylines were quite different.
-
DaveHedgehog — 16 years ago(January 10, 2010 10:11 PM)
I preferred the remake too. I pretty much despise all remakes (and most new movies), but I thought it was paced better and more enjoyable. I should note that I did see the remake about 3-4 years before I saw the original. I find that if I watch a remake before the original, I prefer the remake (probably because to me, that is the original).
Mr Flibble's very cross. -
jake-ryan1968 — 15 years ago(June 25, 2010 10:19 PM)
This remake is a minus 10. It stinks. Demme the director should be banned in Hollywood. Hollywood sucks when doing remakes (except for Godfather II). Day the Earth Stood Still remake with Keannu? A minus 20. Andromeda Strain with Ben Bratt? A minus 50. Stay away from original movies from the 30s/40s/50s/60s. Stick with remakes of Van Wilder, Adventureland and SuperBad. Hollywood is geared nowadays to juveniles. Morons producing and directing for morons.
-
franzkabuki — 13 years ago(June 19, 2012 06:24 PM)
"Demme should be banned from Hollywood".
More like he should be banned from huge budget Hollywood outings - his films were considerably better before he got into the completely mainstream territory with films like Silence Of The Lambs or Philadelphia.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan -
LightningLad — 15 years ago(July 08, 2010 10:05 AM)
Any "improvements" that a remake allegedly has are because the remakers have the benefit of looking at the original and deciding what to change. The original makers don't have that option, they create something entirely new. Original rocks over the soulless, manipulative remake. The acting was not better in the new one. Acting is always a transmuted analog to how people behave in a given time. 1962 did that with its time. See how well movies you think are real stand up in forty years. All the little forced idiosyncracies that you tune out now because of being mentally mired in one time will stand out in bold relief.