This message has been deleted.
-
TheLittleSongbird — 15 years ago(December 31, 2010 05:25 AM)
Sorry I don't agree. This movie was extraordinary and one of the best movies of the movies. While far from the worst remake out there, the 2004 remake was stylishly shot and decently acted but dull and convoluted.
"Life after death is as improbable as sex after marriage"- Madeline Kahn(CLUE, 1985) -
Pearl_Jade — 14 years ago(November 19, 2011 01:22 AM)
The remake was pedestrian; it merely did its job as a movie.
The original was distinctive and inventive; it was a cinematic achievement.
The remake had its moments of tension and suspense.
The original had a sinister and frightening tone throughout.
The remake was plot-driven.
The original was multi-faceted: it had themes, symbolism, creative visuals, irony, paranoia.
The remake had superficial characters: we saw their ambition and blindness, but we never got under their skin.
The original had fleshed-out characters: we saw the evil in their hearts and the roots of their psychological damage.
The remake didn't linger in one's memory.
The original was a classic: a mirror of the times yet universal; scenes and imagery stay memorable years after seeing it. -
MrEdnablackadder — 13 years ago(November 07, 2012 07:23 AM)
Is this a joke ? The 2004 version blows .
I think that the main problem is Liev Schreiber's one-dimensional performance as Raymond . Just because you've become an automaton in someone else's hands , that doesn't mean that you should never show any signs of humanity , conflict or rage or resignation . Larry's performance was incredibly subtle : the way he could portray everything that was happening inside his character by simply using his eyes , his ability to show his rage growing , to give you the impression that his blood was boling like hot water in a teapot .. it was a truly masterful work . Today , there are people who seem to believe that Shaw is an easy role to play . I think that all you have to do is to take a look at Schreiber and you'll understand that it isn't quite the case .
Streep may be Streep , but nobody will ever get close to Lansbury's interpretation of Mrs.Iselin . Far more menacing , towering and monstrous . The kiss scene was just pure genius . Although in the remake it is much more explicit , it is
way
more disturbing and creepy in the original . Angela's choice of partially hiding the kiss from the viewers is much more in tone with the underlying themes of the movie/novel where all the passions are buried , dark and often sordid . The entire relationship between Eleanor and Raymond is much more effective and better portrayed in the classic . In the remake , all the final scenes lose most of their power since , at the end of the day , Eleanor is using Marco and not her own son to commit the murder .
I suppose I could go either way when it comes to choose between Sinatra and Washington though .
Oh , Paulene Stone (Harvey's third wife) recently stated that she was disgusted by the remake and that Richard Condon must be rolling over in his grave . She basically said the same thing about the latest tv version of "Room at the Top" starring abysmal Matthew McNulty as Joe . -
naples-884-346409 — 10 years ago(July 22, 2015 06:32 PM)
It's not as black and white
Some things in the remake are superior, others are weaker.
Much better:
-Combat at the beginning
-Janet Leigh's part has a purpose & she's not only a slut talking to strangers
-getting rid of the cards
-no badly staged kung fu scenes
-no awkward flashbacks
Better in Original:
-Harvey's love to the girl is better presented
-Friendship between Sinatra / Harvey is better presented
-Climax is better directed
-The bad guys are better. The motive of the enemy communists is stronger. They want to destroy America, not only a company that likes to make money like in Demme's version.
All in all the '62 version is still better, but very dated and flawed. -
MissMargoChanning — 9 years ago(July 09, 2016 05:01 PM)
All in all the '62 version is still better, but very dated and flawed.
Why would you say this was dated? The book came out in 1959. The original film was out in 1962.
By today's standards I agree that it's dated but we must look at the time in which this was written. I do not consider the book or the original film to be "dated" and certainly not flawed!
I found this film to be one of the best book adaptations EVER
The nightmares alone with the garden party are truly frightening.
Mother is horrifying! The kiss always seems to chill people but I find it even more horrifying when it is revealed that she was behind all of this. when she suggests that her son should play a game of solitaire.
I guess I find the original far more superior because I loved the book.
I only saw the remake once. While it was innovative I wasn't impressed.
The original was not "dated" The original was a sign of the times!
"Fasten your seatbelts. It's going to be a bumpy night" -
AndrewGS — 10 years ago(January 12, 2016 07:54 PM)
The original isn't a mess but I thought the remake was much better. The remake had more focus on Marco but also used both mother and Raymond Shaw better, it felt a lot more natural to just have the war hero son rather than a buffoonish stepfather as the candidate, more interesting and believable for most people to not believe Marco.