The remake is loads better!
-
Jerry-137 — 11 years ago(July 26, 2014 03:12 PM)
if they ever re-make Dr. Strangelove, im going to be so pi$$ed
You won't be the only one. I can't imagine anyone being able to duplicate Peter Sellers' three roles. Even if they used 3 different actors it wouldn't be comparable. Then there is the unforgettable role of Sterling Hayden as General Jack Ripperetc.
The remake of TMC is similar to most remakesIf you've seen the original the remake just doesn't make it. Only a few have tried and succeeded at remakes. The younger generation are too spoiled by CGI, color, changing times, and dialog usage.
But even viewed today, "TMC (1962)", is clearly the better movie IMO. Maybe because I first saw it in the theater many moons ago, then again when the DVD came out, and yesterday when I watched it again. Plus, I'm an old dude who likes many of the older films over the 'blockbusters' of today.
It would be interesting to see the ratings of the newer generation of folks of films from the last 10 years compared to old movie 'blockbusters' (and/or 'classics'). Not just remakes but all movies. Admittedly, the quality of the video is greater nowadays when seen on large screen LCD displays but the 'fuzziness' of some of the older films increases the aura of the overall movie.
My favorite:
-
ronin1138 — 20 years ago(August 03, 2005 08:09 AM)
I agree with err 'fishpoo', the remake is alot better. The concept behind the original story is so intregueing and sinister if you will and the original was quite a weak effort. What really struck me was the screenplay, in only a few scenes was it 'passable', it was quite stupid and laughable on occasion. I mean the scene on the train when Marco is clearly acting very weird and is quickly picked up by Janet's character is crazy as well as the scene where she says she's dumped her husband to be.
Sinatra was actually pretty good and was an inspired choice.
Apart from the better angle of the script of the new one, from a conglomerate trying to take full control of the White House, and Streep's power house performance was Tak Fujimoto's camera work. He often works with Jonathan Demme and he makes scenes very confrontastional and nightmareish by useing the 'through the wall' technique of a character talking directly to the camera.
I wish there were more films like this. -
richswope — 20 years ago(August 31, 2005 12:31 PM)
If you read the novel, you will find that the 1962 film is a GREAT adaptation, right down to the dialogue where Marco meets 'Rosie'. Many times it depends on what version you see first which determines our choices.
-
jeffoneonone — 20 years ago(September 12, 2005 08:22 AM)
"I mean the scene on the train when Marco is clearly acting very weird and is quickly picked up by Janet's character is crazy as well as the scene where she says she's dumped her husband to be."
It was a different world back in 1962 thank God. -
Arctic_Wizard — 20 years ago(August 28, 2005 01:10 PM)
I, like you, saw the remake before I saw this one but I bow to both of them. Having been made in 1962, this is a very good conspiracy thriller but Jonathan Demme exploited the modern technology that we now have in the 21st century.
Meryl Streep and Denzel Washington were both superb in their roles as was Angela Lansbury and Janet Leigh. I give this film great credit as I give the new one - making them both my favourite films.
'I like Meerkats, I've a tea towel with some on' - Eileen Derbyshire -
Merkin4pres64 — 20 years ago(December 11, 2005 01:57 PM)
how the hell did Streep get a Golden Globe nomination for the remake. That performance was absolute beep. Lansbury should have won the Oscar, (mumbling) stupid Patty Duke
We were going to have children, but that would have severely drained my power crystals -
solman_66 — 20 years ago(March 28, 2006 08:09 PM)
You are out of your mind. My god, the 2004 version was trash, like most remakes. It had no heart, no soul, no passion, no intensity, no genuine 'feeling' and poor writing, poor direction, and a chickensh*t ending. You have unbelievably bad taste.