RSS

Monthly Archives: May 2010

20 Films Remade by the Original Directors Pt.6

31 May

On this Memorial Day, I bring you another article in the continuing series sparked by the news of the remakes of “The Fly” and “13 Tzameti”.  Be sure to catch up on last weeks entries along with today’s.  Feel free to leave comments about the choices in films, as well as the reviews themselves.

And have a very safe and enjoyable Memorial Day.

“Remaking the Tinsel in Tinseltown”

Or

“20 Films Remade by the Original Directors”

Part VI

Remake #11

~Director: Jean-Marie Poire~

Original Film: Les Visiteurs
Year: 1993
Cast: Christian Clavier, Jean Reno, Valérie Lemercier, Christian Bujeau
Language: French
Country: France
Specs: 107 mins / Color / OAR 2.35:1

It’s not everyday that a film comes along featuring such a different take on an old formula that it simply stands apart from all the rest.  “Les Visiteurs” is just that film.  A very funny, crazy, goofball of a film in the style of Terry Gilliam starts the ball rolling right from the start and doesn’t stop until the very last frame (they even included a little note for people who stay to watch the credits!).  This out-of-time time travel film is so heavily influenced by the French language and its unique attraction, as well as the nuances of similar sounding words in French that translate to two entirely different meanings as the core of many jokes, that any person who enjoys foreign films is bound to enjoy this tale.

The humor is not over the top “Jim Carrey” style, yet it is a subdued slapstick, where none of the characters are “in on” the jokes, they just happen as in real life situations.  No contorted faces, no double entendres, and no sex jokes.

In its place we have humor relying on situations, humor relying on prosthetic make-up gags, and, as mentioned previously, nuance with the translation of the French language.

Not at all what I was expecting.  A pleasant surprise indeed.

My Rating: ***** / A-

Remake Film: Just Visiting
Year: 2001
Cast: Jean Reno, Christina Applegate, Christian Clavier, Malcolm McDowell, Tara Reid, Bridgette Wilson
Language: English
Country: United States
Specs: 88 mins / Color / OAR 2.35:1

A remake of the 1993 French Film “Les Visiteurs” that begins to fail with the change in the title. Wow!  What a tired, boring, unfunny typical Hollywood film.  This remake of the much superior earlier version is the perfect example of a great film destroyed by the hands of Hollywood.  For starters, why they let John Hughes rewrite the script originally penned by the director and costar of this film as well as the original is beyond me.  The original story by Jean-Marie Poiré and Christian Clavier was filled with so much dry humor, that replacing it with stereotypical fare did nothing but destroy the idea.

For starters, the entire plot of the film has been rewritten.  The quirky Terry Gilliam-ish comedy has been erased, and elements such as “everyone in the town starts acting like the ‘crazy’ visitors, cause they are cool!” have been added.

That’s not all.

The heir to the throne and the “by the books” husband have been replaced by a museum curator and her (seen in any number of films) smarmy live-in boyfriend who is only with her for her potential money; the character that was a descendant of the servant has been completely erased; the wizard, who in the original left his plans to save them to his descendant, has been transported with them and becomes a Willie Nelson looking character; in an offensive “racist” change the characters constantly blame the zaniness on the travelers being “French”; an unnecessary women’s empowerment storyline has been introduced (I can see how it was needed in this version, however, as they added the idiotic boyfriend).  That and a hip-hop soundtrack, club scenes, and relocation from the European countryside in the original to Chicago (hmm, wonder if Hughes had anything to do with that one?) in this version are all travesties.

An unfunny film, unfunny script, and unfunny acting.

That, to me, isn’t even fun.

My Rating: ** / D

Remake #12

~Director: John Farrow~

Original Film: Five Came Back
Year: 1939
Cast: Chester Morris, Lucille Ball, John Carradine, Allen Jenkins, Patric Knowles, Casey Johnson
Language: English
Country: United States
Specs: 75 mins / Black and White / OAR 1.37:1

An entertaining film that does a great job at building suspense.  The script develops the 12 characters very well, giving them each their own interesting qualities.  The acting is very well done, and the direction/editing only enhances the film.  Truly one of the first in what would later become known as a disaster film, especially in similar films such as the successful “Airport” series from the 70’s.  The fact that the title tells us how many will survive is suspenseful enough.  However, the suspense kind of dies down near the end of the film, and becomes a little predictable.

The look of the film is dated, however.  The locations are obviously sets, yet that never truly matters as the story is engrossing enough to overshadow that minor point.  Overall, an enjoyable thrill ride.

My Rating: **** / B-

Remake Film: Back from Eternity
Year: 1956
Cast: Robert Ryan, Anita Ekberg, Rod Steiger, Phyllis Kirk, Keith Andes, Gene Barry
Language: English
Country: United States
Specs: 100 mins / Black and White / OAR 1.37:1

This remake of the better 1939 version, “Five Came Back” is still entertaining, just not as full of thrills as the original.  Basically a flushed out script, with more character exposition, and actual beautiful locations in place of backdrop sets for most of the traveling shots is hurt by fan service segments (two women wrestle in the river, one in a thin white top even!), stagey dialogue (“Let’s go over there” “Yes let’s”. “Let’s go find out” “OK, let’s move now”.), and the odd casting of Rod Steiger as the South American immigrant Vasquez.

In addition, having Vasquez become an attempted assassin of an evil South American dictator instead of his being a cold hearted killer (as the character is in the original) has far less of an impact on his sacrifice he makes at the end of the film, and makes him more into just one of the passengers with a past.

Unfortunate.

My Rating: *** / C

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 31, 2010 in Movies

 

Tags: , , , , ,

20 Films Remade by the Original Directors Pt.5

28 May

This past week I’ve reviewed 8 films that were remade by the director who directed the original version (that comment may be a misnomer, as some of the “original” films were actually remakes themselves!).  Today we will close out the week by taking a look at 2 more films, which will bring us to the halfway point.  It is to be hoped that if nothing else, this series of articles will give you all some films to add to your queues, and give others a list of films to watch over this three day weekend.

Yesterday, I took a look at two films whose remakes paled in comparison to the original versions.  Thankfully, that is not always the case, as we will see in today’s post titled:

“Remaking the Tinsel in Tinseltown”

Or

“20 Films Remade by the Original Directors”

Part V

Remake #9

~Director: Michael Mann~

Original Film: L.A. Takedown
Year: 1989
Cast: Scott Plank, Alex McArthur, Michael Rooker, Daniel Baldwin, Xander Berkeley
Language: English
Country: United States
Specs: 97 mins / Color / OAR 1.33:1

I really wanted to like this made-for-television film.  On the surface, it is an entertaining crime/thriller with an intriguing premise.  However, it feels rushed and miscast, unfortunate though it may be.  Story revolves around a rag tag group of professional hold up men and their desire to make their final “hit” before “retiring”.  Meanwhile, a no-holds-bared detective is hot on their trail, mostly just moments behind each step they take.

Most of the acting in this film is mediocre at best, with dialogue bordering on hokey in many of the scenes.  It felt as though the script was written to make the villains/heroes look cool, but it came across as amateur filmmaking.  The music is nicely chosen, and fits the mood of the film very well, as is usually the case with a Michael Mann film.  However, it wasn’t utilized nearly as much as it ought to have been.  Many of the scenes could have used some background music to set a mood, instead of the (what sounded like) the raw audio track.  A couple of times the character that was off screen says their line, and it sounds like the mic on the “on camera” character was used to record it.

In addition, the story felt completely rushed.  It felt as though a number of scenes had been excised, to fit it into a 90 minute window.  The storyline of Vincent, the cop, and his girlfriend isn’t very deep.  I was completely removed from the film (similar to my reactions to the current season of “24”) by the girlfriends actions suddenly halfway through the film, as they were completely unbelievable.  She gets upset with him because he fought off some harassments in a bar, in which she tells him “You don’t care about me, you care about the job”.  Never were we led to feel that way.  Also, Pat and his girlfriend all of a one-night stand are deeply in love with each other, and she is upset that he lied to her and is a bank-robber?  Again, too much happens to fast.
I got lost in the sudden mentioning of character names, without showing faces, in the convoluted “who turned on who?” finale.  And the ending was very anticlimactic.  SPOILER ALERT:  I never felt tension between the police and Pat, who dies in a hotel hallway after Waingro shoots him through the wall, then jumps to his death.  Could have certainly used an additional 30 minutes or more of exposition/story.

To his credit, I understand Mann was forced to make changes to his much longer and detailed screenplay when he learned that his script “Heat” would not be a theatrical feature after all, but a watered down made for TV film.

Still, too much was missing in the way of story for it to make much difference.

My Rating: *** / C

Remake Film: Heat
Year: 1995
Cast: Al Pacino, Robert De Niro, Val Kilmer, Tom Sizemore and Jon Voight
Language: English
Country: United States
Specs: 188 mins / Color / OAR 2.35:1

Excellence in filmmaking sums up “Heat”.  Right from the start, we are introduced to a thought out intricate plot.  At moment 1 we are launched into a scene full of intense suspense, fast paced action, and superb acting to bring it all together.  Mann has taken his first incarnation of this, “L.A. Takedown”, and flushed it out immensely, given the characters wonderful exposition, obtained a wonderful cast, and brought his budget up tenfold.

For starters, the intensity level has been ramped up to 11 in the multifaceted character piece.  The bank shootout itself is one of the best action sequences ever captured on celluloid.  The scene where De Niro’s and Pacino’s characters meet in the coffee shop, while subdued and dialogue driven, is as brilliantly written and filmed as could be.  The anticipation when De Niro’s character eventually has to make a pivotal life choice is as charged as they come.

Giving the characters lives outside of the “crew” gives every one of them a personality beyond the typical bad guy.  Getting rid of most of the “clever” dialogue found in the original only brought perfection to an already interesting premise.  Tweaking the ending to actually be an intense standoff between the protagonist (Pacino) and the antagonist (DeNiro) was what the first version was lacking.  The film is about the two men against each other, and how similar they are.  Giving us a peak into what makes them tick was brilliant, and most other filmmakers ought to wish they had the chance to do what Mann did here.

Perfect.

My Rating: ***** / A

Remake #10

~Director: The Pang Brothers~

Original Film: Bangkok Dangerous
Year: 1999
Cast: Pawalit Mongkolpisit, Premsinee Ratanasopha, Patharawarin Timkul, Pisek Intrakanchit, Korkiate Limpapat
Language: Thai
Country: Thailand
Specs: 105 mins / Color / OAR 1.85:1

Wow.  I owe an apology to every film that I’ve ever given a 1 star rating to.  Can I give negative stars?  This overlong (at 1:45 even), boring, incoherent, jumbled mess of a film needed a new writer, a new editor, a new actor (am I supposed to really believe the trannie is a sexy stripper?), and a new editor (did I already say that?).  There is ZERO rhythm to the editing style of this film.  It feels like the worst student film ever made (is that even possible?) has been expanded into a feature length “film”.  How they got the money to do an American remake is beyond me.

Some of the positive aspects of this film are….they are….um…..man this is hard.  OK, the opening title sequence is a very clever and cool sequence.  On the other hand, the fact that I never know why he is a contract killer, I don’t know who the people are that he is killing, I don’t understand why the girl falls in love with him when they cannot communicate AT ALL (he doesn’t read lips, doesn’t speak any sounds (until at the end of the film after the “twist”), doesn’t know sign language, and apparently doesn’t know how to write), pains me to even spend the time to write this review.  Sadly, no, depressingly, there is no story beyond a forced attempt at a love story amidst the random ruthless killings.

This film has so little sound, so much random nonsense editing, and techno music beating throughout, it literally felt like a very very very long music video.  I’ve never been as bored with a major motion picture as I was with this.  Ugh.

HORRIBLE.

My Rating: * / F

Remake Film: Bangkok Dangerous
Year: 2008
Cast: Nicolas Cage, Charlie Yeung, Chakrit Yamnam, Nirattisai Kaljaruek, Panward Hemmanee
Language: English
Country: United States
Specs: 99 mins / Color / OAR 1.85:1

OK, I was surprised by this “by the book” action film from the directing team that also brought us “The Eye”.  I think that they completely screwed up the marketing of this film.  The trailer alone had me yawing in my seat.  Surprisingly, this remake of the 1999 film is a completely different film. Not in story, but in style.

For starters, The Pang Brothers did the wise decision and allowed the main assassin (Cage’s character) to speak.  They also added narration to the film that helped with the character exposition.  And lastly, they allowed someone else to rewrite their script, and edit their movie.

This new version is most certainly a better film in every way (compared to the original, it’s a masterpiece).  It has loads of action and suspense, feeling an awful lot like a Tony Scott film in a number of places.  It has a visual color palette that is also fitting (with the exception of the confusing choice to film the closing scene in red?).  Sequences such as the boat chase (and the camera angle showing the bullets piercing the bottom of the boat) are pleasantly exciting, and keep the interest level high.  There was nary a dull moment in this film.

While a typical action film that hits all the marks of “how to make an action film 101” (I did say, after all, that if feels like a Tony Scott film) is what The Pang Brothers delivered, it is never boring, and surprised as though I was, Cage did an OK job in the role.  I would expect that the reasons it got a mess of negative reviews are because many did not see the original.  Had they, I’m sure they would rescind most of the negativity directed at this entertaining thrill ride.

My Rating: **** / B

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 28, 2010 in Movies

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

20 Films Remade by the Original Directors Pt.4

27 May

I love film.  I have studied film, worked in the film business, and created films for both a hobby and a living.  Watching movies is a wonderful experience.  Watching movies that are simply wonderful is an experience I’d deem delightful.  Watching lovely films that were remade as substandard is simply atrocious.  It is because of this reason that many filmgoers like myself sit to watch a remake of a previously produced film with extremely dubious assumptions.

It is why I, after hearing of David Cronenberg and Géla Babluani’s plans to remake “The Fly” and “13 Tazameti”, respectively, I decided to take a look at 20 other films that were remade by the original 20 directors.

Thankfully,  there are many times when the remakes far exceed the original film in tone, story, and execution.  Many times, it is clear that the director revisited his earlier film with years of maturity, experience, and reflection to expand on a story dear to his heart.

Unfortunately, today’s films are not in that category.

“Remaking the Tinsel in Tinseltown”

Or

“20 Films Remade by the Original Directors”

Part IV

Remake #7

~Director: George Marshall~

Original Film: Destry Rides Again
Year: 1939
Cast: James Stewart, Marlene Dietrich, Mischa Auer, “Charlie” Winninger
Language: English
Country: United States
Specs: 94 mins / Black and White / OAR 1.37:1

Excellent western sets the bar high for many years to follow.  The superbly written banter, clever dialogue, funny quips all add to this very well written script.  After losing a bet over his pants with Dietrich, one cowboy says, “I can’t.  It’s undignified.  Think of my position!  I’ve met every king in Europe”  Dietrich retorts in perfect comedic timing “Now you’ve met two Aces in Bottleneck.  Off with those pants”.  Another perfectly executed scene involves every patron in the bar teasing Stewart for his gentlemanly ways.  The bartender asks “Whattaya have?  Milk?” Steward answers “Yeah, I think I will!”  The look of sudden surprise on the bartenders face is excellently timed.

The opening scene with Dietrich pulling a fast one on the local ranch hands poker game is classic.  Her titillating character as the tavern owner / cabaret performer is very memorable and superbly portrayed by the consummate actress.  The wonderful direction by Marshall has Dietrich’s character hiding gold down her bra, displaying a very simple act that so cleverly defines her character.  Her cat fight with Mrs. Callahan and Stewart is so exceptionally staged and dramatic that it stands head and shoulders above most other fight scenes.  In fact, the whole scene is played with the actual actors, instead of stuntmen, and it adds to the realism of this scene, as well as the film.

The acting chops on display in this film are so spectacular, the plot so well written, the direction so amazing, this is simply one of the best.

My Rating: ***** / A

Remake Film: Destry
Year: 1954
Cast: Audie Murphy, Mari Blanchard, Lyle Bettger, Thomas Mitchell, Edgar Buchanan, Wallace Ford
Language: English
Country: United States
Specs: 95 mins / Color – Technicolor / OAR 1.85:1

What happened?  For starters, there isn’t much different from Marshall’s spectacular 1939 version of this film apart from the cast.  Other than the upgrade to widescreen and 3-Strip Technicolor, this a far less superior version in every way.  The cast, and the direction for that matter, is so flawed, I cringed at the fact that the same director was behind this film.

For starters, the mayor has been re-envisioned as a bumbling idiot.  Attempting to replace the iconic Marlene Dietrich proved futile at best.  Frenchie is uncomfortably generic and uninspiring, lacking even the smallest iota of villainess qualities.  The scene involving the bet for pants, a running gag throughout the original, is a quick bet for a woman’s hat.

Audie Murphy as Destry, played by the charismatic James Stewart in the original, now has ZERO charisma.  Much of the dialogue from the first film is retained, word for word, Sadly, this time however, either the actors were given horrible direction for the comedic timing or they lacked the acting abilities to pull it off.

There is no mystery as to the location of the old sheriff, and none of the clever manipulating Destry performs to defeat the town villains.  This time he simply “stumbles” into almost every situation.  Little character traits that added depth and insight into the character, such as Destry whittling away at wood to create napkin holders, has been rewritten as fiddling with a piece of rope, tying knots the most basic of knots.

All in all, I was never completely convinced Marshall knew what he was thinking, nor the reason behind the soulless direction.  Simply put, a terrible film with a sissy for a lead in Audie Murphy.

My Rating: ** / D+

Remake #8

~Director: George Sluizer~

Original Film: Spoorloos (“The Vanishing”)
Year: 1988
Cast: Johanna ter Steege, Gene Bervoets, Bernard-Pierre Donnadieu
Language: Dutch / French
Country: Netherlands / France
Specs: 107 mins / Color / OAR 1.66:1

This Dutch film is a hauntingly tense suspenseful thriller.  If you have not seen this film, I highly suggest you do so today.  It is simply riveting with its portrayal not only of the inner turmoil the victims boyfriend goes under, but also the very believable actions of the perpetrator and his preparations.  The film takes place in both the Netherlands and France, which adds tension in the form of being in a strange land, having a crime take place, and not completely being familiar with the language.  Surprisingly, the film is strictly a character driven story with a very nontraditional (in Hollywood terms) ending.  Even more surprising, the film contains very little coarse language, zero nudity and zero violence.  A true testament to the filmmaking prowess of Sluizer.

If it doesn’t appear obvious, this is certainly, without question, an excellently produced foreign film.

My Rating: **** / B

Remake Film: The Vanishing
Year: 1993
Cast: Jeff Bridges, Kiefer Sutherland, Nancy Travis, Sandra Bullock
Language: English
Country: United States
Specs: 109 mins / Color / OAR 1.85:1

As with the previous remake, I ask “What went wrong?”  A typical vanilla plain thriller with very predictable ending is a bland remake of the far superior Dutch film.  This version, for reasons I cannot fathom, was directed in a style completely different from Sluizer’s first effort.  It appears he was under a deadline, as the film feels completely rushed, with any sense of character development gone.  Bridges character, whom in the original was brilliantly portrayed as having a relationship with a family, is nearly nonexistent.  The dichotomy between good and evil, so cleverly evident in the original, has been completely erased, simply making the character of Barney nothing more than a sadistic evil creep.

Additions such as having Sutherland’s character being a novel writer contracted to write about his experience, and turning the new girlfriend into a super sleuth is silly and absurd.  How she knows that he’s been buried alive, and how she has the strength to easily fight off the twice her size attacker is Hollywood nonsense.  In fact, it seems at times that Sluizer intended to film an updated version of Sherlock Holmes, as her detective skills in finding him at a hotel, and finding the daughter to get directions to the house is more far fetched than an episode of Batman: Detective.

Lastly, the complete rewrite of the ending to a more traditional, and predictable, ending is tantamount to having a graphic on the screen read “For the easily pleased audience”.

Such wasted talent, both for the director and the usually entertaining cast.  A witless remake, through and through.

My Rating: *** / C-

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 27, 2010 in Movies

 

Tags: , , , , ,

20 Films Remade by the Original Directors Pt.3

26 May

Day 3 of this multipart blog is upon us, and already you have 12 films to seek out and enjoy for your own!  If there is one thing that I’ve thought of throughout this experience, it’s that there is many a time that a director can improve upon a film by simply directing a newer version.  In fact, on this 30th anniversary of a wonderful little film, my thoughts drift to a dream that I have.  My dream is thus, I would rather have George Lucas direct three entirely new versions of “Star Wars (or A New Hope)”, “Empire Strikes Back”, and “Return of the Jedi”, and restore the current versions back to their original theatrical cuts.  This would ensure that the effects of all 6 films more closely resemble one another, the actors could all be the same throughout, and there would be no more attempting to do the preceding by inserting new scenes, reediting others, and completely changing music and actors performances all with modern computer effects for what eventually will likely be the only versions available on Blu-ray Hi-Definition video.

But I digress.  For now, let’s return to the article I like to call:

“Remaking the Tinsel in Tinseltown”

Or

“20 Films Remade by the Original Directors”

Part III

Remake #5

~Director: Francis Veber~

Original Film: Les Fugitifs
Year: 1986
Cast: Gerard Depardieu, Pierre Richard, Anaïs Bret
Language: French
Country: France
Specs: 95 mins / Color / OAR 1.66:1

It can be very hard to get me to laugh at a comedy.  Many times, the jokes are either rehashed from film to film, or are laughs aimed at the lowest common denominator.  It was a pleasant surprise, then, with this French comedy, in how funny it actually was.  The film starts off with a very good opening and set-up, when suddenly the humor kicks in.  Mind you, this isn’t the every moment there needs to be a laugh comedy, but the drama/action/comedy type of film.  Veber did a wonderful job of personalizing the characters right from the start, and peppering loads of dry humor throughout this tale of a man in the right place at the wrong time.  The little girl that Veber cast is just adorable, and worth the price of admission alone to see those doe eyes staring back at you.
An aspect of the film that I’ll never understand, and for most films that are guilty of the following as well, is the addition of a few instances of vulgar language when not needed.  I’m no prude, however, a film that is so obviously aimed at the family audience needn’t contain such impertinent remarks.  Otherwise, there isn’t much objectionable regarding this film.  It was a film that I would heartily recommend to any.

My Rating: **** / B

Remake Film: Three Fugitives
Year: 1989
Cast: Nick Nolte, Martin Short, Sarah Rowland Doroff, James Earl Jones
Language: English
Country: United States
Specs: 96 mins / Color / OAR 1.85:1

This comedy is basically a shot for shot remake of the original French language version, “Les Fugitifs”.  The difference is that Veber has done a rewrite, making minor changes here and there to fill in some gaps from the original version, and, unfortunately, ramping up the foul language tenfold.  Were this a film about a prison break, or a heist film, I’d pay none the wiser.  However, as I mentioned in the originals review, it is rather obnoxious to have it here in an otherwise very family oriented film.

No doubt due to pressure from the studio behind the remake, Veber has also tweaked the ending to have a twist.  The problem with the twist is that it is seen from a mile away, taking the film down a notch from its predecessor.
All in all, to be quite honest, I’m not quite sure how this didn’t get an R rating (its rated PG-13 by the MPAA)?  In spite of the aforementioned additions, the film overall is equally as funny as the original, just not for the family to enjoy.

My Rating: **** / B-

Remake #6

~Director: Frank Capra~

Original Film: Lady for a Day
Year: 1933
Cast: May Robson, Warren William, Guy Kibbee
Language: English
Country: United States
Specs: 96 mins / Black and White / OAR 1.37:1

This nice little story, while quite improbable and far-fetched, has very memorable performances by both May Robson and the gangsters around her.  While the film itself has many “moments”, it was sad to see that the “gig” is never up, and the moral lesson (it doesn’t matter what you have, but who you are) that is so prevalent in many of Capra’s other films is absent here.  The finale sees Annie’s daughter board the ship, unawares, and leave as the End Title card appears.  The fact that there isn’t much tension in the film keeps it from being a true classic to revisit, in my humble opinion.
Not one of Capra’s greatest, but still a pleasant treat.

My Rating: *** / C

Remake Film: Pocketful of Miracles
Year: 1961
Cast: Bette Davis, Glenn Ford, Hope Lange, Arthur O’Connell, Peter Falk, Ann-Margret
Language: English
Country: United States
Specs: 136 mins / Color / OAR 2.35:1

This remake of “Lady for a Day” is a wonderful film that takes everything that worked about the original, and expands on it in a way that flushes out the characters, adds some very funny dialogue (having such a wonderful cast of character actors doesn’t hurt!), and films it in glorious widescreen color.  The casting of Peter Falk, Glenn Ford, and Bette Davis was a brilliant move.  Falk steals the show a number of times, much to my surprise.  The story is much more plausible this time around, with a number of the problems with the original having been addressed.  A few different lines here and there help to make this the superior version by far.

In addition, having such wonderful music accompany many scenes is pleasantly welcome, and made this reviewer miss the days when classy jazz was in vogue.

A great film from a great director.

My Rating: ***** / A

Back tomorrow for part 4

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 26, 2010 in Movies

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

20 Films Remade by the Original Directors Pt.2

25 May

If you read yesterday’s post, you are obviously anxiously waiting to see what the remaining 18 films are that I chose to watch and write about.  In my search I found that there were many more films that have been remade by the original director than the 20 (40 actually) I have chosen to write about.  You’ll have to do your own query if you are interested in those!  The article I am writing (or articles, as you would) came about after it was announced that director David Cronenberg was going to remake his own film “The Fly”, and director Géla Babluani was going to be doing the same for his very well made film “13 Tzameti”.  In a sense, this news from Hollywood was welcome, as opposed to the current trend of directors to simply “revisit” the film and “fix” it with today’s computer graphics.

It was this reason that I decided to write the article for you today.  I welcome your comments, and any feedback you have regarding the films.  Now, without further ado, I present to you:

“Remaking the Tinsel in Tinseltown”

Or

“20 Films Remade by the Original Directors”

Part II

Remake #3

~Director:  Boaz Davidson~

Original Film:   Eskimo Limon
Year:  1978
Cast:  Yftach Katzur, Anat Atzmon, Jonathan Sagall, Zachi Noy, Ophelia Shtruhl
Language:  English Dub
Country:  Israel
Specs:  95 mins. / Color / OAR 1.85:1

Really?  A Golden Globe nomination for this film?  The film is an Israeli teen sex-comedy set in the 50′s, dubbed into English.  Typical to most other teen sex comedies, story revolves around a group of young men in their quest to get laid.  The film opens up with a group of boys all measuring each others “units” to see who is the smallest.  Big scene involves a local woman who “beds” a group of boys, one after the other, as the others watch through the keyhole on the bedroom door.  We see it all, from their POV, mind you.

An annoying aspect of this film is that it’s nearly wall-to-wall 50’s music underneath, with little room for ambience sound.  A little overbearing to the senses.

How this film differs from others of the genre, however, is the consequences that come from their “conquests”.  They all contract a VD, one of the teen girls who loses her virginity to one of the boys gets pregnant, and he abandons her.  The other friend, who truly loves her, comes to her side and supports her through an abortion.  Sadly, the repercussions from that act never surface.

Moreover, different from most other of these pointless films, is the ending.  It is not a happy “all the boys are lucky” ending.  The ending was a sad, yes, but also added a believable touch that gave this film a little higher than mind-numbingly dumb status.  Barely.

My Rating:  ** / D

Remake Film:  The Last American Virgin
Year:  1982
Cast:  Lawrence Monoson, Joe Rubbo, Diane Franklin, Louisa Moritz
Language: English
Country:  United States
Specs:  92 mins. / Color / OAR 1.85:1

An updated remake of Eskimo Limon.  Boaz Davidson changed the location from 1950‘s Israel to modern-day Los Angeles, and changed some minor elements to the script.  In doing so, he made a much funnier, better timed film about the same silly subject.  Why Boaz decided to add cocaine use, marijuana use, and DUI as normal and accepted, however, is sad.  I can only surmise that at the time the film was made, these were the “chic” elements of a party in the LA scene.

For the sake of protecting any families (although if you haven’t figured it out by now, you’re….never mind) from sitting down and watching these films that I’m reviewing together on “Family Film Night”, let me notify you that there is loads of nudity and sexual situations, with a hefty portion of adult language thrown in.  Just like its earlier version, the film has some positive elements to it, doesn’t end on a positive note, and displays some repercussions for the decisions people make.  Unfortunately, Davidson only chooses to handpick some of those consequences, leaving others standing at the closed door.  Too bad.  That, and the (as was the case with the previous version) wall-to-wall music (this time the 80′s are featured) just detract too much from the overall enjoyment of this film.

My Rating: *** / C

Remake #4

~Director:  Cecil B. DeMille~

Original Film:  The Ten Commandments
Year:  1923
Cast: Theodore Roberts, Charles De Roche, Estelle Taylor, Richard Dix, Julia Faye, Rod La Rocque
Language: English
Country:  United States
Specs:  146 mins. / Black and White & Technicolor / OAR 1.33:1 (4×3)

This early silent picture is a wonderful spectacle of a film that suddenly shifts halfway through and becomes a modern morality tale.  The sets for the biblical story of Moses are phenomenal, complete with thousands of extras all dressed in meticulously designed costumes.  The way DeMille tells the story of how Moses received the commandments is very clever for a silent film, and other special effects such as the burning bush, the parting of the Red Sea, and the fire that separated the Hebrews from the Egyptians are all very well done, rivaling some of the effects seen in films decades later!

The bible story, while not entirely biblically accurate, also is very tense and intriguing, keeping the interest throughout.  Granted the shift from the story of the Hebrews worshipping the golden calf to the modern story was a bit alarming, leaving the desire to see more of the biblical tale burning inside.

Unfortunately, the morality tale second half doesn’t hold up well, complete with what is now a very clichéd storyline, and overacting hamminess at it’s “finest”.  In perspective, I’m sure it was a very gripping tale of vices and how they can have a devastating effect on not only ourselves, but on others around us.

Overall an enjoyable film.  If only Hollywood movies today were made with the tangible sets and grandiose splendor on display here…

Oh well, I guess that’s another blog.

My Rating: *** / C

Remake Film:  The Ten Commandments
Year:  1956
Cast: Charlton Heston, Yul Brynner, Anne Baxter, Edward G. Robinson, Yvonne De Carlo, Debra Paget, John Derek
Language: English
Country:  United States
Specs:  220 mins. / Color: Technicolor / OAR 1.85:1 VistaVision

This remake of the 1923 version is more grandiose, more vibrant, more extravagant, and much longer.  DeMille took his black and white 4×3 film, and turned it into a Technicolor VistaVision marvel.  Right from the start, we are witness to perhaps the longest opening credit sequence at that time, and made aware that having many different writers on the script is not new to today’s movies.  Scenes such as the introduction of the Ethiopian ambassador’s, to the celebration of the Golden Calf worship show that DeMille spared no expense when deciding to display the vibrant colors of 3-Strip Technicolor.  The sets are simply lavish and beautiful, with the Special Effects equally as impressive.  The acting, however, is ham-fisted, and hokey throughout.

Deciding to focus on the story of Moses entirely, instead of including the modern day morality tale was welcome, and the attention to detail is something many filmmakers today ought to pay heed to.  Without question, this version of the film is THE version to see.  It’s witnessing films such as this that makes the notion that DeMille was a visionary believable.

An entertaining film, to be sure.  Easy to see how it’s regarded as one of the biggest events in motion picture history!

My Rating: **** / B

Back tomorrow for part 3…

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 25, 2010 in Movies

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

20 Films Remade by the Original Directors Pt.1

24 May

Movies.  People enjoy seeing them.  People enjoy creating them.  Sometimes, directors enjoy remaking them.  It should come as no surprise when I write that Hollywood has a current fixation with remaking previously produced films (“Clash of the Titans”), rebooting franchises that have gotten long in the tooth (unless you are a current “franchise” like Spider-man, Hulk, or Fantastic Four) (“Nightmare on Elm Street”), and re-imagining properties (while television, not films: “Rockford Files”, “Bionic Woman”).

Recently, it was announced that David Cronenberg (“Scanners”, “Videodrome”, “A History of Violence”) was moving forward with an earlier announcement that he was remaking his 1986 Sci-fi/Horror flick “The Fly”.  In addition, it was announced that director Géla Babluani was going to be remaking his dark “Fight Club”-ish 2005 French film “13 Tzameti” as a big budget Hollywood picture.  The news was interesting to read.  For starters, initial thoughts amongst the blogosphere were “Why would a director revisit an earlier picture and remake it?  Especially if the original were such a success?”,  “Can this be good news?  Is there a chance that the remakes will be better?”, and “Oh brother.  Another remake, yet again.  When does it stop?”.

I then decided that I would undertake a large task in my quest for knowledge.  I decided to view a number of films throughout film history that had been remade by the originals directors, as well as the aforementioned remakes.  I also realized that I would have a duty to review each film, in order that I could get a gauge on the likelihood of these recently announced remakes being as entertaining as the originals.

In my multipart article, I focus mainly on films that are true remakes, not films that are dubbed remakes, but in actuality are feature versions of a previously produced short film (“Memento Mori” remade as “Memento”), or are actually “sequel-remakes” (“Evil Dead”/”Evil Dead 2”, “El Mariachi”/”Desperado”), or are actually director’s making English version “sequels to remakes” (Hideo Nakata with the Japanese “Ringu” and the American “The Ring 2”).  I will focus on films that went from being silents to talkies, black and white to color, 4×3 to 16×9, foreign to American, television movie to feature film, and any combination thereof!  In doing so, I’ve found some real gems that I’m sure you’ll enjoy.

So sit right back and enjoy this series of articles which I’ve titled…

“Remaking the Tinsel in Tinseltown”

Or

“20 Films Remade by the Original Directors”

Remake #1

~Director:  A. R. Murugadoss~

Original Film:  Ghajini
Year:  2005
Cast:  Surya Sivakumar, Asin Thottumkal, Nayantara, Pradeep Rawat, Riyaz Khan
Language:  Tamil
Country:  India
Specs:  180 mins. / Color / OAR 2.7:1

Tamil language “Memento” rip-off meets “Old Boy” in this so over the top bad it’s good action/love-story/comedy film.  It starts off as a blatant rip-off of Christopher Nolan’s masterpiece, then abruptly turns into a Bollywood musical, then suddenly takes a left turn into a romantic screwball comedy, and continues to bounce between the multi-genres for the entire 3 hour film.

The music and editing surely help in the entertainment value of this film, which also jumps into pure “chop-sock-y/wire-fu” in a number of scenes.  The complete sound effects from the kung-fu movies of the 70’s is present, as is the obviously bad acting action/stunt-men.  This film felt very much like a “USA Up All Night with Rhonda Shear or Gilbert Gottfried” film with some of the “posing” the muscle head stars did for each line of dialogue.  The special effects were comical, with the blood being obvious red paint, the bodies being outlined in chalk in comical poses, and the fighters holding each other suspended in air while swirling them around all with one hand!

The movie is entertaining in it’s own right, and did hold interest throughout.  The “musical” interludes and the Intermission were the highlights of this B-grade movie.

My Rating:  *** / C+

Remake Film:  Ghajini
Year:  2008
Cast:  Aamir Khan, Asin Thottumkal, Jiah Khan, Pradeep Rawat, Riyaz Khan
Language:  Hindi
Country:  India
Specs:  183 mins. / Color / OAR 2.35:1

A much better cast, a flushed out story, minor tweaks to the script, a new more believable ending, more appropriate contemporary music, better integrated “Bollywood Musical Interludes”, better editing, and a much bigger budget all are behind this nearly shot-for-shot Hindi remake of the 2005 Tamil version.  While the action sequences are still a bit over-the-top, the sound effects accompanying said sequences are much more contemporary, adding a dullness to the body blows, etc.  The entire reworking of the end of the film was a much better choice, getting rid of the superhuman twin battle, and losing the twin storyline altogether.  This truly is a unique revenge film now (while still resembling “Memento” a little too closely), with the comedic, romance story interweaved into the revenge picture very nicely.  It’s still a relatively violent picture, and still a tad too long at 3 hours, but my interest never waned.

This is another instance of a director learning from his previous mistakes, improving on them, and outputting a higher caliber film, that is leaps and bounds above the prior incarnation.  Definitely a fun film.

My Rating: **** / B+

Remake #2

~Director:  Alfred Hitchcock~

Original Film:  The Man Who Knew Too Much
Year:  1934
Cast: Peter Lorre, Edna Best, Leslie Banks
Language: English
Country:  United Kingdom
Specs:  75 mins. / Black and White / OAR 1.37:1

Intrigue, suspense, and mystery is what Hitchcock gives the viewer right out of the gate in this classic thriller.  The film opens with a bullet piercing through a window pane, after which a man notices under his dinner jacket that he has been shot.  He slips a note to a man and his wife, and dies in their arms.  Thus begins a tale of spies, murder, and kidnapping that features excellent editing (most scenes are hard cuts to the next, creating a cliffhanger chapter break similar to the Saturday Serials of that time), clever use of sound (the pocket-watch chime to announce the presence of Peter Lorre is always startling (similar in effect as hearing Darth Vader breathing from off screen would be in “Star Wars”)).

It comes as no surprise to fans of Hitchcock and screenwriter Charles Bennett’s other films (“39 Steps”, “Sabotage”, “Foreign Correspondent” that this film features simply excellent writing as well.  There are many memorable lines of very clever dialogue (Peter Lorre’s line “They will be leaving us.  They will be leaving us for a long long journey.  How is it that Shakespeare says?  From which no traveler returns…”) and the suspense level is high.  Sets are basic and small, with no real grand scale to things.  Many of the sets are obvious backdrops, which is something the remake has up on this version.

Nice unpredictable set-up at the beginning of the film with the mother shooting clay pigeons at a Swiss Alps resort.  And using the chiming of the pocket-watch to resolve the end is very clever, similar to the sneeze at the end of “Taking of Pelham 123”.  A wonderful piece of film history from the master filmmaker himself.

My Rating: ***** / A

Remake Film:  The Man Who Knew Too Much
Year:  1956
Cast: James Stewart, Doris Day, Brenda De Banzie, Bernard Miles, Daniel Gélin
Language: English
Country:  United States
Specs:  120 mins. / Color: Technicolor / OAR 1.85:1 VistaVision

A remake of the spectacular 1934 version, this film is equally as thrilling and entertaining.  There were some changes that the director made from the original picture, and yet the film didn’t suffer from those decisions.  No doubt to capitalize on the vibrant colors of Technicolor, and to showcase the wider aspect ratio of VistaVision, Hitchcock changed the locale to a more exotic land, ensuring a sense of being “out of place” for the characters, thus lending a bit more reality.  For reasons unknown, he changed the child from a girl to a boy.  Of course, music was also added this time around, from frequent collaborator Bernard Herrmann.  Herrmann delivers a very compelling and eerie score which certainly lends to the suspense of this film.

Wisely, the foundation of the script was reworked as well, adding more intrigue and character development to most of the characters, fleshing out any unanswered questions viewers may have had with the first film.

However, the death sequence of Louis Bernard isn’t as clever this time around, nor is the way that Stewart’s character gets the information about the assassination.  A simple whisper in his ear is far less entertaining and suspenseful than the hidden message in the hotel room.  Finding the note in the shaving brush and his attempts to conceal the letter were wonderful moments that were missed in this remake!

The acting this time around is, surprisingly, a step above the previous incarnations, and the addition of “Que Sera, Sera” is a nice touch (apparently the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences thought so also, as the film won the Oscar for Best Song that year!).  It’s easy to understand why they added the musical performances, as musicals were all the rage in Hollywood at that time, and it fits just perfectly here.

While the lengthy Royal Albert Hall sequence is more enjoyable, the ending is worse and anti-climactic compared to the original.  I was left wondering why Hitchcock chose to do away with guns in this version.  There are no guns in the film, which deters from the “murderous” intents of the characters, and felt a little uneven.

While many reviewers felt the original were a far better film, I would hesitate to make such claim.  The costumes, locale, and vivid colors of the amazing technicolor process are simply wonderful to look at, the story is still a well done story, the acting is excellent all around, and the music by Herrmann is always a pleasure to listen to.  The film is still a wonderful film, and was worth the experience.

My Rating: ***** / A

Back tomorrow for part 2…

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 24, 2010 in Movies

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

The _evil Came Down to Elm Street

06 May

This is a review my pal Jason Grasl  sent to me. I’m reporting here for your viewing pleasure.  Enjoy!

What Works In the New Elm Street and Why Fans Won’t Like It

by Jason Grasl

I was eight when the original “A Nightmare On Elm Street” came out in 1984.  As any good parent should do, mine tried to keep me from watching it, and any other horror movies, of that ilk.  In fact, I didn’t actually see the film until years later during Detroit-based WXON-TV20’s “Saturday Shocker” matinees, so what I saw was watered down and interrupted by commercials.  In the meantime, I recall hearing about the movie, its sequels and about Freddy from friends at school.  As a preteen-boy, the gory special-effects and imaginative deaths sounded absolutely titillating to me…I thought “if only I could somehow catch one of these movies at a friend’s house during a sleepover (I couldn’t rent any of them because my dad put a restriction on what I could rent at Blockbuster)”.  “Freddy’s Dead: The Final Nightmare” came out in 1991, and I saw it at the theater (as I recall, it was one of the first R-rated films I snuck into before I was 17, preceded only by “The Last Boy Scout”…but I digress). My initial thought was that it was odd that Freddy had become comical, with puny-one-liners to go along with the over-the-top deaths.  Deaths that kept getting more outrageous as the series went along (Freddy as a motorcycle, Freddy in a video game, etc).

While that was both funny and campy, it wasn’t what Wes Craven created in the original.  We saw evidence of that when he returned to the series ten years and six movies later, in 1994, by writing and directing “Wes Craven’s New Nightmare”.  Using “art imitating life” imitating “art imitating life”, Craven cast the actors from the original Nightmare as themselves, in his New Nightmare.  In the film, they are terrorized by a Freddy that is distinctly NOT the one portrayed by actor Robert Englund in “A Nightmare on Elm Street’s” previous 5 sequels.  Craven, playing himself in the “New Nightmare”, admits as much, saying “Fred Krueger (not the much more chummy “Freddy”) is the manifestation of an age-old evil, not to be trifled with.”  As the series went on, that evil was lost in the translation.  Craven came back to reset the franchise to what he intended  it to be when he wrote and directed the original film that started it all.

But reset it to what?  What is it about the original “Nightmare” that rings true to the fans?  There was inventive death with fire hose-amounts of blood, but that only happened four times.  That’s right.  The body count in the original was only four.  And as far as Freddy’s outrageous personality goes…re-watch it again.  The rimshot one-liners aren’t there.  That happens later on in the sequels when other directors and writers took the helm.  Craven brought a new angle to the teen-horror genre with the element of dreams but he didn’t create the comedy element of Freddy that the sequels did. (John Carpenter’s Halloween and the original Friday the 13th were precursors, but they took place in reality).  What exactly did he create that makes this story so good?  I think it comes down to a very simple tale of good versus evil, through the eye of someone who had studied it and was a by-product of the early 20th century’s drift away from the supernatural.

Wait a second though…before you think I’ve gone and deconstructed and psycho-analyzed your favorite childhood horror movie let me explain…

Wes Craven grew up in 1940s/50s Cleveland, the product of a Baptist family.  He did his undergrad work at Wheaton College; a bastion of conservative Christian thought, where he has copped to issues abiding by the “rules” Wheaton enforced upon the student body.  He went on to get a master’s degree in philosophy from Johns Hopkins, but his worldview was already heavily influenced by his religious upbringing in a time when rational thinking ignored the supernatural for the proof and security of science.  Craven never felt comfortable with that rationality of modernity.  His films often explore the line between what is reality and what is not.  The original “A Nightmare On Elm Street” is a perfect example; bringing the life of our dreams into reality and vice versa.  Part of his inspiration for writing the film was reading an article about Cambodian refugees who died in their sleep after having nightmares.  Had the atrocities, stress, and evil they had experienced caused this?  Craven was exposed to the ultimate battle of good versus evil in his Christian upbringing.  It doesn’t get any larger in scope than God and Satan fighting over the souls of humanity.  Enter the embodiment of evil as envisioned by Wes Craven….Fred Krueger.

The poster for the original…and no signs of a one-liner spewing villain, just the evil out to get us.

In Craven’s conception, the teenagers of Springwood, Ohio are terrorized by the embodied evil of Fred Krueger in their dreams.  This evil, presumed eliminated by the parents (who in a sense have just tried to ignore Fred’s affect on the town) is instead very much alive within the dreams of the children.   The parents might have put Fred out of sight, but certainly not out of mind; evil is not a rational thing.

JUST AS AN ASIDE…this storyline is ripe with (1) parallels to modernity’s ignoring the supernatural…and thus falling prey to it and (2) the successive generations born into post-modernity exploring and embracing the supernatural in whatever real forms they tan it.

Okay, back to my point…The battle between Fred and the parents for the lives of the children does not end with the death of Fred Krueger because Fred Krueger represents something much bigger than the man himself.  He is the devil in your dreams, unrelenting in his desire to take your soul.  Instinctually, we can all relate to that.  We may live in the real world, but are sensitive to the supernatural world all around us.  Evil is relentless and will never stop trying to get to us.  Our dreams are a conduit, giving us the opportunity to release our sensitivities to this realm.  We may not be open to this all the time, but we know when we feel like something is making the hairs on our neck stand on end.  This is an intriguing and mysterious concept and explains why it makes for a good film.

So there’s my theory as to why the story works and, even as a horror story, how there are some serious spiritual implications worth considering, beyond the gore and sadistic indulgence that the franchise became.  Better yet, does the recent reboot that opened last weekend deliver the same relatable story?

As an idea, yes.  At the time I type this, the estimated opening weekend  of 2010‘s “A Nightmare on Elm Street”, from director Samuel Bayer, is about $32 million.  However, reviews have been generally negative on rottentomatoes.com, and cinemascore.com gave it a C+.  One of the predominant gripes with the new film, other than the fact that it doesn’t add much as a remake, is that the exploration of Fred Krueger as a child molester is repelling to the audience.  Interestingly enough, this was Craven’s intent in the original, but the studio made him change it.  It certainly explains more of the motivation and nature of Fred Krueger, but for fans of the series that embrace Freddy as a pop-cultural icon more than as a villain and embodiment of evil, its kind of gross.  (Same theory I have about stories like 2004’s “Closer”.  It’s a brilliant play that makes great points, but it did horribly at the box office, because it makes people uncomfortable.)  So in concept, Freddy the molester works, but in reality, people aren’t ready for this popular villain to really be villainous.

I believe the current film succeeded in casting better actors.  The original has nostalgic value and an original concept, but believable performances…not so much.  At the same time, there’s not really a chance to get to know the teenagers in the remake. The most developed and likable character **SPOILER ALERT** ends up being the second death and from that point on, the story concentrates on Freddy’s background…which appears to be turning people off.

“All of this has happened before and some of it is happening again…only with better acting”

Jackie Earl Haley is grounded in the Freddy role, but that may just be because he played a similar version of this character in “Little Children”.  I personally like the change; Robert Englund’s version eventually became a clown with a burnt face, and even in the first film, Freddy comes off as a bit of an uncoordinated klutz.  That may be part of the camp of the first film, but it comes off lazy and as a break from the supernatural realm that Freddy belongs to.

Overall, I like that the remake didn’t “up the gore” and stayed faithful to the mythology of Craven’s original, but I don’t know that the film needed to be remade.  The memorable scenes were duplicated, but the scare factor was missing.  If it was made to relate to a new audience, I think it will do that…though as I mentioned before, initial reactions to the reality of evil (admitting that Freddy is a pedophile) incarnate have been less than favorable.  People got used to the idea of Freddy as a villain to cheer for…though, as I’ve stated, Craven did not intend for that (and tried to correct with “New Nightmare”).  The new film is subtler in its imagery (Nancy doesn’t cling to a crucifix in multiple scenes,  she’s just given a cross necklace to protect her) and, again, the acting is better.  Otherwise, it’s still creepy, but more thriller creepy than horror creepy.  And that might creep out the fans of the original…because no one likes their nostalgic-childhood memories screwed with.  So while the remake of “A Nightmare on Elm Street” still deals with good versus evil fighting for our souls in the realm of our dreams, I think it will fail to please original Nightmare fans and fans that got used to the wink-and-a-smile Freddy, titillating the blood-lusting 11 year old inside us all, trying to win our allegiance…rather than the “evil Freddy”, that just wants to take your soul.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 6, 2010 in Movies

 

Tags: , , ,

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.