The remake is loads better!
-
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.
-
arittner — 19 years ago(September 23, 2006 06:44 PM)
Although Meryl Streep did a good job in the remake, it was a terrible movie while the original was excellent, perhaps a great movie. And as good as Streep was, she was certainly not superior to Angela Lansbury who created one of the greatest characters in screen history.
There are many things wrong with the remake, one of which is it complicates the story unnecessarily and focuses on Marco's illness rather than on the actual story. Note that in the original, we get Marco's nightmare and his crackup on the train, but after that, the entire focus is where it should be, on Raymond Shaw and the plot.
Oh yes, and by the way, the original is genuinely funny. The remake is a ponderous mess. -
scorpio19th — 19 years ago(September 23, 2006 07:40 PM)
Just saw the original on TV, for maybe the tenth time. Each time I manage to pick up on some slight thing that I've missed in my other viewings.
Lansbury should have won the award for her performance. In fact, I think it's her best ever.
A remake, in color, with such a different storyline, and more advanced film technology available nothing could possibly compare to the original.
Never do anything halfway !