This message has been deleted.
-
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.
-
TheLittleSongbird — 15 years ago(December 31, 2010 05:25 AM)
Sorry I don't agree. This movie was extraordinary and one of the best movies of the movies. While far from the worst remake out there, the 2004 remake was stylishly shot and decently acted but dull and convoluted.
"Life after death is as improbable as sex after marriage"- Madeline Kahn(CLUE, 1985) -
Pearl_Jade — 14 years ago(November 19, 2011 01:22 AM)
The remake was pedestrian; it merely did its job as a movie.
The original was distinctive and inventive; it was a cinematic achievement.
The remake had its moments of tension and suspense.
The original had a sinister and frightening tone throughout.
The remake was plot-driven.
The original was multi-faceted: it had themes, symbolism, creative visuals, irony, paranoia.
The remake had superficial characters: we saw their ambition and blindness, but we never got under their skin.
The original had fleshed-out characters: we saw the evil in their hearts and the roots of their psychological damage.
The remake didn't linger in one's memory.
The original was a classic: a mirror of the times yet universal; scenes and imagery stay memorable years after seeing it. -
MrEdnablackadder — 13 years ago(November 07, 2012 07:23 AM)
Is this a joke ? The 2004 version blows .
I think that the main problem is Liev Schreiber's one-dimensional performance as Raymond . Just because you've become an automaton in someone else's hands , that doesn't mean that you should never show any signs of humanity , conflict or rage or resignation . Larry's performance was incredibly subtle : the way he could portray everything that was happening inside his character by simply using his eyes , his ability to show his rage growing , to give you the impression that his blood was boling like hot water in a teapot .. it was a truly masterful work . Today , there are people who seem to believe that Shaw is an easy role to play . I think that all you have to do is to take a look at Schreiber and you'll understand that it isn't quite the case .
Streep may be Streep , but nobody will ever get close to Lansbury's interpretation of Mrs.Iselin . Far more menacing , towering and monstrous . The kiss scene was just pure genius . Although in the remake it is much more explicit , it is
way
more disturbing and creepy in the original . Angela's choice of partially hiding the kiss from the viewers is much more in tone with the underlying themes of the movie/novel where all the passions are buried , dark and often sordid . The entire relationship between Eleanor and Raymond is much more effective and better portrayed in the classic . In the remake , all the final scenes lose most of their power since , at the end of the day , Eleanor is using Marco and not her own son to commit the murder .
I suppose I could go either way when it comes to choose between Sinatra and Washington though .
Oh , Paulene Stone (Harvey's third wife) recently stated that she was disgusted by the remake and that Richard Condon must be rolling over in his grave . She basically said the same thing about the latest tv version of "Room at the Top" starring abysmal Matthew McNulty as Joe .