Remake needed?
-
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.
-
uushtupsiik — 19 years ago(June 02, 2006 12:50 PM)
ohmigod no no no no no no.
There are ,obviously, few enough actual real ideas in Hollywood now. The remakes, and the screen versions are killing movie enjoyment because they never (repeat and underline) never live up to the original ideas / actors / plot, etc.
Remakes being made two or three years after the original came out (Japanese horror flicks, Insomnia, etc), and old tv shows are mostly terrible and can never live up to the original.
To remake a classic. Please. It just taints the original. What are we gonna dostart colourizing old black and white films that should remain in their film noir state?
Oh yeah. They already did that one. And I won't own one.
Remakes. Phooey. Lets get a brain and start to have an original idea or two come out in theatres.
Sorry gotta go. Time to check out that new film out called the Omen. Wow! I can hardly wait. We never get enough new ideas out in the theatres. (And if you can;t tell the sarcasm from the tone of the comments.wellllllll) -
PathofdestructionWE — 19 years ago(June 11, 2006 01:42 PM)
As for the idea of the American Public being accepting,
I came away from this movie hating the Chinese Nationalist movement (on top of already hating the PRC). Watch closely during the scene where Pohan is sliced up by those little pirates.
It depends on your mindset, you know? My favorite character of the movie was the Captain, he had the toughest job in the world. -
Memories-Of-Murder — 17 years ago(April 03, 2009 10:10 AM)
Then you misunderstood the movie, because in truth, the movie doesn't judge them. It doesn't judge anybody. The movie is far mora fatalsit then that. What the movie says is that there's movements in history to which people are too small and meaningless to face them and win out. Hell, the movie even shows that good intentions can have far worst results.
"This are Nice shoes! Couldn't you afford some real Nike?" -
tigersbb — 19 years ago(June 12, 2006 12:52 AM)
Sure you can remake any movie but the question is why?Our current relations with China have no bearing on this movie and would change everything about it.It's an absolutely beautiful and in my opinion flawless movie that needs no discussion of remake just admiration.