I recently viewed the remake of Phoenix starring Dennis Quade as the Pilot and it was even more dissapointing than the r
-
Vampenguin — 18 years ago(June 02, 2007 11:31 AM)
I've also yet to see the original (sorry), but the 2004 version is easily one of the worst movies that I've ever seen. I obviously cant compare it to the original, but it was just flat out awful in every aspect beyond the plot (which I liked). It even made Hugh Laurie look bad!
Death is but a door, time is but a windowI will be back.
-
steve-taylor17 — 13 years ago(June 04, 2012 03:15 AM)
Speaking of crappy ones, perhaps one day they will do a remake of "Waterworld" - that would surely break the mould of remakes always being inferior to the original - there is nothing anyone could do to make "Waterworld" a worse picture.
-
JurorNr13 — 16 years ago(April 25, 2009 05:23 PM)
I agree that the remake is horrible, but including a woman and a couple of african americans has nothing to do with it. This could have been used to the remake's advantage, but wasn't, which doesn't mean that it works against it. It just turned out to be unnecessary.
The remake suffers from a bad screenplay, bad acting, bad dialogue, horrible directing and editing, cheap CGI and a terrible soundtrack. -
gjampol — 16 years ago(June 12, 2009 09:46 PM)
The visceral responses to this film are overwrought. It is far the worst remake. I saw it before watching the original. Both films have their virtues, and the hysterically bad reviews don't carry any sway with me.
The remake is technically more interesting, but the original stars James Stewart, who is better in the role than Dennis Quaid.
If I was tempted to burn anything, it would't be the film but the negative reviews. -
Homestead2 — 15 years ago(September 14, 2010 12:18 PM)
The 1965 film is 10 times better - no, 100 times better - than the remake (it wasn't nominated for 2 Oscars for nothing - and that in a year that included films such as The Sound of Music and Doctor Zhivago), with the dumbest line in the remake (and perhaps of that entire year in film) being when they are about to take off:
"We make our own luck!"
Yuck -
texasbillyaustin — 15 years ago(September 14, 2010 12:28 PM)
I just posted on another topic on this movie. As remakes go, I only watched it as it came on cable one morning, nothing else was on, and I wanted to be able to tell people how much the remake would suffer greatly to the original. And after watching it, I couldn't be more right. Some good actors in the remake, but not even close to the original on just about every level. He's a good actor, but Dennis Quaid is no Jimmy Stewart. However, another actor in that role still wouldn't have helped the movie that much.
I can only say the one thing you'll get out of watching the remake is a renewed, affirmed appreciation of the masterpiece original. And with remakes these days, no big surprise. -
mcgmcgmcg — 13 years ago(January 04, 2013 06:51 PM)
Disagree.
How can anyone possibly believe the 2004 remake is the worst remake ever?
How many remakes of movies have you actually seen? There are countless worse efforts.
Aside from perceived opinions on a movie, why post a question on a board that relates to a different movie? It makes no sense whatsoever.
I cannot fathom the amount of posters on this site that claim 'x' movie is the worst movie ever or other posts just being totally negative. One can only presume some members of this site create negative posts on message boards due to immature childlike behavioral patterns.
Time to grow up. -
vestdennis — 13 years ago(February 10, 2013 11:34 PM)
It seems Hollywood is so inept at times, and so lacking in creativity that they resort to remaking classics or doing sequel after sequel.
Trying to remake this classic just reveals how Hollywood has lost their creative juices and figure what the hell, let's just remake, say Casablanca or Gone With The Wind. Leave these great movies alone and come up with something new. If today's younger audiences can't relate to an old movie like this then tough! It's their loss and their own stupidity in refusing to give these a chance.
As for adding "new" characters (a black or woman) this too is typical. It seems in most movies today few characters are over 50 years old and none are under 16. Of course, every girl/woman has to be a cover girl and the guys are hunks. I have nothing against looking at hot girls but we do live in the real world (I hope) and not everyone is gorgeous.
Today I guess the producers figured all male character movie might limit their audience so they add various groups to broaden the appeal. That's fine if the movie is about present events. But when a movie is set back in time you have to examine what the population make-up was. You don't have to add blacks or whoever to be PC. Just do so b/c it accurately reflects the make-up of the area/region you are setting the movie in. -
Rex9 — 12 years ago(October 19, 2013 05:07 AM)
"and what about the plane being covered in sand after a storm".
That scene, the most insulting scene in a movie I've seen, destroyed this flick. One is not to believe that what's left of the crew, fatigued, lacking water, is digging out the plane covered in sand "by hand", subsequently to carve out a cleared path to taxi, a path that appeared to have been neatly bulldozed, while fending off an armed band of desert rabble, looking to avenge the deaths of their comrades within a day. There is absolutely no way one could believe those scenes, given the physically depleted, fatigued and thirsty crew in the hot desert sun can possibly do what they did in that short of time, while dealing with an armed band of desert rabble ready to pounce them at a moment's notice. Insulting nonsense.. Today's films are just laughable at how easily they insult the intelligence of viewers nowadays.