Had no idea this was a remake
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Sweet November
dirtbunny199 — 17 years ago(March 19, 2009 10:09 PM)
I saw this in the theaters in February 2001 & loved it!!! I have the video & soundtrack & if the DVD had an alternate ending with Sarah staying with Nelson, I'd get that, too. Anyway, I was cruising this site & found the original movie that was made in 1968. I'd love to see the original & see what sort of twists & spins the directors of the 2001 version added. Has anyone seen the 1968 version? How is it?
-
the sphynx — 15 years ago(August 11, 2010 08:56 PM)
The 1968 version is a charming, sometimes funny tearjerker, one of those harmless guilty-pleasures movies for normally unsentimental women like me. If you liked the new version and haven't seen the original, you definitely should.
-
the sphynx — 15 years ago(November 16, 2010 05:19 AM)
Can't tell you. However, casting glamour girl Charlize and typically blank and unintelligent Keanu in the lead roles bodes ill. The girl is supposed to be kinda mousy but cute, not so drop-dead gorgeous that any guy would gladly move in immediately and wonder why she was single. And you're supposed to actually believe in and care about the man's transformation. Keanu can be fun if carefully set in the right roles (Neo was supposed to be kind of a blank, and he's better in action flicks or supporting roles) but he doesn't have a whole lot of personality or acting chops to carry a quieter film.
And yes, Theron can deglamourize herself as she did in "Monster." But judging by the movie posters, they didn't ask her to do that here.
I could be wrong, of course. Some remakes seem to me so misguided, I can't even want to borrow the movie from the library to find out (e.g., William Hurt cast as Mr Rochester in Jane Eyre). If anyone ever sees this remake AFTER loving the original, I'd love to hear how it compares. -
sweetandpretty20 — 13 years ago(April 26, 2012 10:35 PM)
I've seem both and I absolutly love the original. I feel the original had character. The remake felt forced and just cold. I definitaly, definitaly recommend the original hands down.
& so the lion fell in love with the lamb. What a stupid lamb. What a sick, masochistic lion. -
Ed in MO — 12 years ago(April 15, 2013 07:42 PM)
The acting was much better in the original. And the original had far fewer of the Hollywood cliches that the filmmakers stuffed into the remake (gay best friend; cute kid; scenes of the girl dying of cancer; etc.)
-
crimson811 — 10 years ago(September 20, 2015 07:59 PM)
I saw this in the theaters in February 2001 & loved it!!! I have the video & soundtrack & if the DVD had an alternate ending with Sarah staying with Nelson, I'd get that, too. Anyway, I was cruising this site & found the original movie that was made in 1968. I'd love to see the original & see what sort of twists & spins the directors of the 2001 version added. Has anyone seen the 1968 version? How is it?
This was back when hollywood was still creative and not obsessed with making remake after remake, and when they did it wasn't half assed.