Remake needed?
-
Paul_Jay — 20 years ago(November 13, 2005 06:03 AM)
I've always held the opinion that if you can't improve a movie, leave it alone. I don't see how CGI and bigger explosions would match, let alone improve this one.
In addition, I'm not sure that, at the moment, the American public would accept a movie where the US is represented as a small impotent group of people overwhelmed by the convulsions of an emerging nation. -
Midshipman18 — 20 years ago(November 13, 2005 03:06 PM)
Why in the world would you remake this type of movie. There is nothing that you could possibly improve in it. The special effects of the time were up to the task, the acting was phenomenal, any other potential faults of the original would just carry over into a remake. The Sand Pebbles could definitely use a re-release, but absolutely not a remake.
-
hawks-bill — 20 years ago(January 12, 2006 07:39 AM)
Emphatically agree with all those opposing the idea of a "remake". The very thought of it makes me sick to my stomach. No one, absolutely no one else, can ever play Jake Holman again. EVER! (Believe it or not, I'm getting a lump in my throat as I write this). And I'm very nearly as protective of Maku's Pohan. Put the two of them together and you get one of the great screen couples of all time (albeit not of the romantic kind).
As for this comment: "I'm not sure that, at the moment, the American public would accept a movie where the US is represented as a small impotent group of people overwhelmed by the convulsions of an emerging nation."
mpofarrell is right: the film is both timeless AND timely. Personally, I'd make a few leaders I shall leave nameless watch the film with their eyes taped open.
Jake Holman is an American (anti)hero for all time. -
jastanga — 20 years ago(March 29, 2006 01:04 PM)
I agree.
Incidentally, he is the only 'actor' I EVER saw that looked like he owned and fired a BAR regularly.
If you are a Browning Automatic Rifle fan, the last 10 minutes of that movie is pricless, and is almost a hands-on 'How-To' training film on how to use that fine weapon for maximum effect.
Jim -
dddmi7-1 — 19 years ago(April 19, 2006 10:47 PM)
Can anyone possibly provide an example where the remake of a classic movie has ever bested its original version? I second the motion that a re-release would be deserved. I also submit that this original post is irrelevant and not worthy of debate in the realm of film.
-
-
rrclimber — 17 years ago(February 06, 2009 10:33 PM)
the maltese falcon 1941 is way better then the 1931 film.
the man who knew too much 1956 is better then the 1934 version
that's all I can think of on the spot. If you want a newer film I enjoyed the remake of 3:10 to Yuma although it being a better film then the original is definitley arguable.
"I am seriously beginning to doubt your commitment to sparkle motion." -
lvrepoman — 19 years ago(May 21, 2006 07:45 PM)
I've seen this movie several times over the years, but when I saw it a few weeks ago (I think on AMC) it really occurred to me that they got the BAR action right.
I'm not a huge fan of the BAR as a squad automatic (the British Bren was far superior in my opinion), but all the veterans I've ever talked to who used the BAR in action have a sort of reverance about it.
Whomever the technical advisor was for this movie, he made sure that they got it all right. You can even see that the bolt holds open between bursts, as this weapon fired from an open bolt.
Given that this movie was produced in an era where most guns fired from endless magazines and virtually no attempt was made to recreate the realities of shooting a weapon, these sorts of details are truly appreciated. -
-
fictionalman — 19 years ago(April 22, 2006 05:23 PM)
I don't agree that this film is another example of uncontrolled American imperialism and war mongering.
I come away from watching this film asking why the United Stated did not take a more active role supporting the pro democracy movement of Chiang Kai-Shek?
The reaction of the two American missionaries towards the end of the film, Jameson and Shirley Eckert (played by Candice Bergen, a devout lefty in real life) to the captain of this ship sent to rescue them is the most disturbing. They refused to be rescued and even denounced their citizenship. (Jameson is later shot by Chinese Militiamen. Serves him right for being so naive.)
What I found chilling was their reactions were eerily similar to those of the real life Canadian Christian missionaries recently rescued by American soldiers in Iraq. The actual Christian missionaries did not appreciate being rescued and even accused their American rescuers for their kidnapping. Talk about art imitating life. -
kenrock — 19 years ago(November 28, 2006 08:33 AM)
My take on this is that its an anti-war film in the finest tradition of that genre, e.g. Paths of Glory. Yes, the missionaries are naive, and Jameson is killed for it. But the captain, with his visions of glory, dies an equally futile death, as does almost ever character of note, including Holman. The point is, war is stupid and wasteful, and no one really benefits from it. This film makes that point par excellence.