| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Airbolt |
Posted - 05/04/2007 : 23:55:44
If a film becomes highly associated with the zeitgeist of a particular time and/or place should it be left well alone?
As Michael Caine happens to be on TV , i am reminded of the remakes of " The Italian Job" and " Get Carter ". Both these films have a strong cult following both as quality examples of their genres and as catching different views of England in the 1960's
The Italian Job is almost a parody of " cheeky cockney criminals " ( tm Guy Ritchie )let loose in a stereotype-version of Italy ( all waving hands and grossly incompetent ). Even the prison is a comic-opera version of reality being run by the camp figure of Noel Coward. Everyone remembers the Minis . Theres a rather nasty line about Italians living in England but overall it all takes place in a 1960's that only really existed on screen.
Get Carteris a completely different vision of England . Set in 1971 it reflects the death of the 1960's in a gritty revenger based in the grim backstreets of Newcastle. At that time , the main industries of that area were feeling the chilly winds of recession and closure. The optimism of the 1960's was dead. Carter moves in and out of a run-down landscape like a force of nature bringing misery to friend and foe alike.
They are icons of their time in the same way as " Wall Street " caught hold of the business ethics of the 1990s.
The remake of the Italian Job was a competent action film with a rather uninvolved Mark Wahlberg failing to outshine Michael Caine for charisma. As for the Sly remake of Get Carter , i haven't seen nor do i feel tempted.
I haven't even mentioned " Alfie "!
Anyway , i ramble on . Please feel free to muse on remaking iconic films and why it will never stop if theres a Buck to be made! |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 05:45:49
quote:
Originally posted by ragingfluff
I read this morning that they're doing a remake of BULLITT...yes, that's right, Bullitt....and wait for it, guess who's taking the lead role... Mr Angelina Jolie himself...
That high pitched whirring sound you just heard was Steve McQueen spinning in his grave.
I have no idea who's playing the baddie, but if I was Robert Vaughan I'd dial 1 800 CALL SAM and tell them you mean business
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Bullitt-To-Get-Remade-5678.html
I don't see what's so bad about this. Brad Pitt has matured into a fairly decent rugged action hero, and quite frankly, Bullitt's not so great in the first place. |
| RockGolf |
Posted - 07/05/2007 : 20:37:40
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
(I had SUCH a crush on Illya Kuryakin back then! When I found out that David McCallum was Scotish I was a bit disappointed - I was so sure he was Russian. I was also VERY young.)
Bizzarre trivia: David McCallum's father, also named David McCallum, was the orchestra conductor on Sgt Pepper. In particular, the swirling orchestal sections of "A Day In The Life". |
| ragingfluff |
Posted - 07/05/2007 : 20:17:18
I read this morning that they're doing a remake of BULLITT...yes, that's right, Bullitt....and wait for it, guess who's taking the lead role... Mr Angelina Jolie himself...
That high pitched whirring sound you just heard was Steve McQueen spinning in his grave.
I have no idea who's playing the baddie, but if I was Robert Vaughan I'd dial 1 800 CALL SAM and tell them you mean business
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Bullitt-To-Get-Remade-5678.html |
| Airbolt |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 23:04:15
I was in the DVD rental to get " Ninth Company " only to be told " whats that?"
In the end i settled for " Assault on Precinct 13 " . It was an efficient time killer and therefore made an acceptable friday night pizza and beer DVD.
However , viewed as a remake it really doesnt hold water. Why do films on giving the central character a " path of redemption " . Was it to give Ethan Hawke a chance to channel Nic Cage in full twitcherama. I suppose Laurence Fishburne was ok but never really convincing as a multiple killer , although he appears to have finished off the contents of an all-you-can-eat buffet. To see Dennehy reduced to the Gabby Hayes role was really quite a climb down.
Somehow the original ratcheted up the tension despite costing $37 . It really used the " silencer " to full effect. It overcame the solid teak performances on offer. It used the " faceless " enemy surrounding and melting away *. It was a much more crafted film. Plus the music was way cool.
* The French with their love of American films used this motif rather well in " The Nest " . In fact it was such an " homage" they included the oak like acting |
| randall |
Posted - 05/19/2007 : 22:53:47
quote:
Originally posted by Joe Blevins
Well, remaking The Warriors with a big budget will definitely "break the spell." But that's true of just about every slick studio remake of a low-budget cult classic. I can't think of too many decent big-budget remakes of low-budget pictures. Now, of course, my fellow FWFRers will be able to name dozens, but I'm hard-perssed to think of any picture that was significantly improved by throwing a lot of money at it -- especially horror or comedy -- with the arguable exception of Little Shop of Horrors, in which Frank Oz's Audrey II puppet was capable of things that Roger Corman's humble but charming Audrey Jr. could only dream of (and had some catchy songs to boot).
What Hollywood forgets when remaking cult movies is that the charm of the origial movie often lies in its relative crudity or technical naivete.
Quite so. Slicking up THE WARRIORS will only muck it up.
But in the case of LITTLE SHOP, you're comparing apples to oranges. The latter flick is a movie version of the wildly successful off-Broadway musical, which was of course based on the earlier flick. [It's MUCH better on stage.] That's like saying THE PRODUCERS with Broderick/Lane is a remake of Mel Brooks's original*. [It's MUCH better on stage.]
*Brooks did of course co-write the stage musical himself, but still: t0tally different deal. If you don't believe me, just rent the movie. You'll find that the dialogue which comes directly from THE PRODUCERS is superior in the 1968 version. The stuff you didn't see back then [songs, new gags] work much better. The medium is the message: I saw it in previews on Broadway, and even the quotes from the 1968 film made us howl -- because it was transformed into a different medium. Retro it back to a movie, and the old material can't hold a candle to the original. |
| Airbolt |
Posted - 05/19/2007 : 22:16:40
The Gerry Anderson output of the 1960's really caught the imagination - from Stingray through Captain Scarlet via Thunderbirds.
Leaving the Thunderbirds remake by Jonathon Frakes in a bin marked " Ford spare parts " theres a whole mine of 60's retro-future to be mined.
I know there was a CGI Captain Scarlet remake which was competently done but ( for me ) missing something.
My main wished would be
* A proper Thunderbirds or
* A project wherein the various Anderson universes unite . This will never get made as there isn't the US fanbase and its just a fanboys wish! |
| Airbolt |
Posted - 05/19/2007 : 22:08:28
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
quote:
Originally posted by AIRBOLT
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
The only reason is money. People pay to see remakes. The end. 
Actually I think Burton's Planet of the Apes was actually reasonably good. I suspect it would have been more liked if it had been named something like The Ape Planet, or Time Travel in Apeland etc. Calling it POTA simply annoyed people who were actually expecting a remake, when in fact they got a whole new movie with a few essential similarities; time travel and ape dominion over humans. Not much else was the same. But how much money would Burton have made if he'd named it something else? 
"Monkeying around with time" ? or howsabout " Banana Republic" ?
Did you say Banana Republic?
I found that i had already voted for it , so it must have got lodged somewhere in that swiss cheese thingy that i call a memory! |
| Beanmimo |
Posted - 05/19/2007 : 16:50:09
quote:
Originally posted by AIRBOLT
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
The only reason is money. People pay to see remakes. The end.
Actually I think Burton's Planet of the Apes was actually reasonably good. I suspect it would have been more liked if it had been named something like The Ape Planet, or Time Travel in Apeland etc. Calling it POTA simply annoyed people who were actually expecting a remake, when in fact they got a whole new movie with a few essential similarities; time travel and ape dominion over humans. Not much else was the same. But how much money would Burton have made if he'd named it something else?
"Monkeying around with time" ? or howsabout " Banana Republic" ?
Did you say Banana Republic? |
| Joe Blevins |
Posted - 05/19/2007 : 16:35:07
Well, remaking The Warriors with a big budget will definitely "break the spell." But that's true of just about every slick studio remake of a low-budget cult classic. I can't think of too many decent big-budget remakes of low-budget pictures. Now, of course, my fellow FWFRers will be able to name dozens, but I'm hard-perssed to think of any picture that was significantly improved by throwing a lot of money at it -- especially horror or comedy -- with the arguable exception of Little Shop of Horrors, in which Frank Oz's Audrey II puppet was capable of things that Roger Corman's humble but charming Audrey Jr. could only dream of (and had some catchy songs to boot).
What Hollywood forgets when remaking cult movies is that the charm of the origial movie often lies in its relative crudity or technical naivete. After a steady diet of bland Hollywood movies, we find the cult movie's lack of technical expertise refreshing and we are occasionally impressed by what the filmmakers have achieved on a small budget. There's a wildness to those movies, an audacity -- and sometimes even a sense of authenticity -- missing from typical Hollywood movies. All of that is lost in the remake.
COINCIDENTAL POSTSCRIPT: Speaking of Barbarella star Jane Fonda, she recently gave an interview to Rolling Stone on the occasion of that magazine's 40th anniversary in which she said that her career, for whatever reason, had followed the "zeitgeist." So maybe she's been reading the Fourum. |
| randall |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 13:12:35
quote:
Originally posted by Joe Blevins
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
There is absolutely no reason to remake THE WARRIORS, but I believe it's Tony Scott who's doin' it right now.
Artistically? No reason at all. Financially? Uh, well... maybe.
I'm puzzled by the proposed remake of Barbarella, since the original is now more valued as a pop culture artifact than it is as a movie. After all, it's not just ANY actress wearing Barbarella's silly/sexy costumes and spouting ridiculous dialogue... it's late 1960s Jane Fonda! Talk about capturing the zeitgeist!
See, to me the original WARRIORS is in the same pop artifact group. Especially since a college buddy of mine had the lead. Slicking it up, ramping up the then-cartoonish violence, will only sully the original, which should be left the hell alone. |
| Joe Blevins |
Posted - 05/16/2007 : 02:49:55
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
There is absolutely no reason to remake THE WARRIORS, but I believe it's Tony Scott who's doin' it right now.
Artistically? No reason at all. Financially? Uh, well... maybe.
The Warriors is one of those slow-burning cult movies whose reputation increased through over time through home video rentals and frequent TV airings. I remember first seeing the movie on Monstervision With Joe Bob Briggs, but I'd read about it much earlier in one of Danny Peary's "Cult Movies" books. Its popularity has grown and grown over the years, culminating in a recent video game spinoff and DVD rerelease. So the movie has built up a lot of goodwill since its release (largely through the kind of priceless word-of-mouth no advertising campaign can create), and now Hollywood is going to try and cash in on that goodwill. It's part of a larger trend of "let's take the cool low-budget 1970s cult movie and do a more expensive, slicked-up remake." Seems like we get at least one of those a month. At best, what we'll get is a remake that doesn't shame the original. The competent Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake wasn't nearly the embarrassment it could have been, but it's still "just another movie" -- fodder for the multiplexes and little more.
I'm puzzled by the proposed remake of Barbarella, since the original is now more valued as a pop culture artifact than it is as a movie. After all, it's not just ANY actress wearing Barbarella's silly/sexy costumes and spouting ridiculous dialogue... it's late 1960s Jane Fonda! Talk about capturing the zeitgeist! |
| Airbolt |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 16:49:12
quote:
Originally posted by ragingfluff
I would love to see the Man from U.N.C.L.E done as a movie, but I agree that the precedent set by the Avengers and I Spy should be avoided at all cost. I deliberately didn't see Thunderbirds because the trailer put me off and the film seemed not to get the premise of the original series, and Lost in Space was just a mess. And I have heard rumous about the Prisoner, but that's another sacred cow that needs to be treated well in a big screen version. I'm excited about Get Smart with Steve Carrell because I think he'll do a great job with the oblivious nature of Maxwell Smart. I would also love to see The Sweeney and The Professionals get the big screen treatment
Oh, and the Time Tunnel, and Land of the Giants
Altho the Prisoner was a very sixties programme , it dealt with timeless themes . Unfortunately it is just as relevant today and could be made in any style ( I would use that creepy town from the Truman Show )
The Sweeney has ( sort of ) been remade for the small screen as " Life on Mars " ( BBC )I understand that the rights to make a US version have been taken up
|
| randall |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 14:40:26
There is absolutely no reason to remake THE WARRIORS, but I believe it's Tony Scott who's doin' it right now. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 13:13:30
quote:
Originally posted by AIRBOLT
Oh , as a postscript to my sisters crushes in the 1960's ( he he they don't read this forum. I hope! ) they had a major one on Peter McEnery in " The Fighting Prince of Donegal " ( No , i havent heard of it either! )They actually took a day off school to see it. Theses days they are both married with only occasional twinges over Orlando Bloom!
And in another aside, which might actually bring us back on topic, when I was a kid, aside from Ilya, I had a HUGE crush on Jonathan Frid. Ah... bet you don't know who he was. He was the actor that played the original Barnabas Collins in the daytime "soap" Dark Shadows. Don't ask, something about the evil vampire just, well... Anyway... that would make a really cool feature length movie!
(Especially since they failed at trying to reboot it on TV for nighttime audiences. They did get a good Barnabas, however - Ben Cross can be very evil and hot at the same time. But they should have taken Jeri Ryan to play Angelique.)
|
| Airbolt |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 12:50:30
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
(I had SUCH a crush on Illya Kuryakin back then! When I found out that David McCallum was Scotish I was a bit disappointed - I was so sure he was Russian. I was also VERY young.)
I was only to be convinced he wasn't Russian when he popped up in another series, Sapphire and Steel
Oh , now you're going to say that Mr Chekov wasn't Roosian, er sorry Russian |
|
|
