Saturday, July 26, 2008
MTV is ruining a classic
MTV is remaking the Rocky Horror Picture Show. It's scheduled to be released Halloween of 2009. Is the generation of MTV watchers ready to embrace Rocky Horror? Supposedly they are using the original screenplay but are adding some more songs (ouch.) WHY DID YOU HAVE TO SELL THE RIGHTS???
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Most Overrated Films of the 90's
Here they are (in order of course)
1. Braveheart (1995)
I think that by now you should know from my last review that I hate old war epics. This is a prime example. It's stupid, almost as if it's just trying to prove to us that Mel Gibson is manly. If you want proof, see this. It's in the same genre as 300 and I think it's safe to assume that if you're going to see 300, you want to see blood and violence. There aren't many great fight scenes in Braveheart. In fact, there aren't any great scenes in Braveheart at all. This puts it just a notch below 300 in the scale of incredibility. Need I say any more than saying that this won Best Picture over The Usual Suspects, Casino, Babe and Sense and Sensibility?
2. Dances With Wolves (1990)
Kevin Costner's "western" managed to steal 7 Oscars from Goodfellas and (the technical ones) from the Hunt for Red October. The reason I put "western" in quotes is because a film about a man who fails at killing himself and accidentally leads his army to win a battle and then breaking a language barrier is not a western. The only reason you could call it a western is because of where it takes place. It is personally insulting to me that this waste of nearly 4 hours of my life beat out Goodfellas for Best Picture. Costner proves, once again, that he can't act but he also proves that he can't direct any bit better than any film student. Find me someone who has seen Citizen Kane and I'll show you that he can direct better than Costner. Oh yeah, forgot to tell you, he managed to win best director over Scorsese. Please don't ask me how he did because I am just as baffled about the fact that this long, sprawling, boring, stupid, cliched film won so many awards, or did it? It managed to get 7 at the Oscars but 0 at the BAFTA awards, 0 at the Cesar awards and 0 at the Cannes.
3. Scent of a Woman (1992)
Al Pacino Hoo-ha's his way to a Best Actor Oscar. An obvious compensation for not winning for the Godfather or Serpico or Dog Day Afternoon or anything he's ever done. This is much different from the two previous ones. I don't have a burning dislike for this film the way I dislike Dances With Wolves and Braveheart. I would never tell you not to see this film. It's just not as great as everyone says it is. A lot of people tell me that this is a 4 star film. I would give it around 2½ or maybe even 3. It tells the story of a high school student named Charles who is hired to babysit a blind veteran (Pacino.) Pacino lives his life and is a male version of Maude from the fantastic Harold and Maude. I think that maybe critics like this film so much because when Harold and Maude taught you to get high off of life, it was too risky for them to like it. Since Pacino is in this, its okay to like it....
Well, the 90's were a great time for film. You could argue that 1999 was a better year than the highly celebrated 1939. I personally think that 1999 was great because of the numbers. you can't beat having Magnolia, American Beauty, Being John Malkovich, The Cider House Rules, The Sixth Sense, The Green Mile, Boys Don't Cry, Election, Topsy-Turvy and the Matrix all in one year (and that's just American cinema.) On that note, I will finish this with only 3 films because I truly love the 90's films and can't figure out any "great films" that I don't like. See ya.
1. Braveheart (1995)
I think that by now you should know from my last review that I hate old war epics. This is a prime example. It's stupid, almost as if it's just trying to prove to us that Mel Gibson is manly. If you want proof, see this. It's in the same genre as 300 and I think it's safe to assume that if you're going to see 300, you want to see blood and violence. There aren't many great fight scenes in Braveheart. In fact, there aren't any great scenes in Braveheart at all. This puts it just a notch below 300 in the scale of incredibility. Need I say any more than saying that this won Best Picture over The Usual Suspects, Casino, Babe and Sense and Sensibility?
2. Dances With Wolves (1990)
Kevin Costner's "western" managed to steal 7 Oscars from Goodfellas and (the technical ones) from the Hunt for Red October. The reason I put "western" in quotes is because a film about a man who fails at killing himself and accidentally leads his army to win a battle and then breaking a language barrier is not a western. The only reason you could call it a western is because of where it takes place. It is personally insulting to me that this waste of nearly 4 hours of my life beat out Goodfellas for Best Picture. Costner proves, once again, that he can't act but he also proves that he can't direct any bit better than any film student. Find me someone who has seen Citizen Kane and I'll show you that he can direct better than Costner. Oh yeah, forgot to tell you, he managed to win best director over Scorsese. Please don't ask me how he did because I am just as baffled about the fact that this long, sprawling, boring, stupid, cliched film won so many awards, or did it? It managed to get 7 at the Oscars but 0 at the BAFTA awards, 0 at the Cesar awards and 0 at the Cannes.
3. Scent of a Woman (1992)
Al Pacino Hoo-ha's his way to a Best Actor Oscar. An obvious compensation for not winning for the Godfather or Serpico or Dog Day Afternoon or anything he's ever done. This is much different from the two previous ones. I don't have a burning dislike for this film the way I dislike Dances With Wolves and Braveheart. I would never tell you not to see this film. It's just not as great as everyone says it is. A lot of people tell me that this is a 4 star film. I would give it around 2½ or maybe even 3. It tells the story of a high school student named Charles who is hired to babysit a blind veteran (Pacino.) Pacino lives his life and is a male version of Maude from the fantastic Harold and Maude. I think that maybe critics like this film so much because when Harold and Maude taught you to get high off of life, it was too risky for them to like it. Since Pacino is in this, its okay to like it....
Well, the 90's were a great time for film. You could argue that 1999 was a better year than the highly celebrated 1939. I personally think that 1999 was great because of the numbers. you can't beat having Magnolia, American Beauty, Being John Malkovich, The Cider House Rules, The Sixth Sense, The Green Mile, Boys Don't Cry, Election, Topsy-Turvy and the Matrix all in one year (and that's just American cinema.) On that note, I will finish this with only 3 films because I truly love the 90's films and can't figure out any "great films" that I don't like. See ya.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Most Overrated Films of the 2000's
Ok. Since we already established the most underrated of the 90's 80's and 70's, I'm going to do the most overrated of the 2000's 90's 80's 70's 60's 50's 40's 30's and perhaps 1900-1920.
1. Gladiator (2000)
Quite possibly the worst film to win the Oscar for Best Picture, this over-the-top, ultra-long, ultra-cliche and horribly written film stars Russel Crowe as the angriest man in the world. He wants to unite the gladiators and rise above gladiator status. Isn't that such an original idea? All the same time there's the angry king, the love interest and the younger person he takes under his wing. This creation reminds me a lot of a scene in Barton Fink. In Barton Fink the titular character tries to write a B-movie about wrestling but puts too much of the cliches into it. When he does, everyone says that he should only put in one of them (i.e. just a love interest not a love interest and a kid.) Ridley Scott, apparently, never got the memo. Another thing I despise about this film was pointed out to me in Roger Ebert's review of this. He points out that it just looks horrible. We know that this is intentional but does that make it good? In my opinion, absolutely not. If a film tries to be horrible, and is horrible, does it succeed? I don't think I need to answer that...
2. Michael Clayton (2007)
I quote critic Keith Uhlich, "Dude, there's a bomb in your car." That basically describes Michael Clayton. One laughably bad scene is when he's driving and sees some horses. He decides to get out and pet them because he's George Clooney. He does and his car blows up. That seems like one of the many similar scenes from Airplane! that are very similar to that. Another laughably horrendous scene is when Michael Clayton is talking to a potential client about how Michael will find him a trial attorney. Instead of the potential client saying, "Thanks! You saved my ass." like I imagine someone would say, he says, "I DON'T NEED A REFERRAL! I NEED A F---ING MIRACLE WORKER!!!" It's hilarious because the only good acting in this attempt at a thriller are the leading roles.
3. Children of Men (2006)
Let me throw this out there before I start this review; I do not hate this film. I just think that its just OK, 2½ stars tops. Almost every single review I have seen for this film gave it 4 stars. It is not by any means 4 stars. Unless, all of a sudden, we decide to give out 4 star reviews for incredible stunts. If so, Live Free or Die Hard should be the most acclaimed film of the decade! Children of Men features the incredible script about how in the near future, the world will be infertile and all of a sudden, a woman is pregnant. Now, all the major powers (and a few not so major) are trying to protect her. There isn't a single thing wrong with that script. Let's focus on what is wrong with it. Let's start in saying that Clive Owen was absolutely not made to do two or three minute long takes. It really shows that he is a film actor, not a stage actor. The director (Alfonso Cuaron) almost single-handedly ruins this film. He tries to make it a documentary only he overdoes the whole shakey-cam thing. He lets blood splatter on the camera at the most random times. He lets his actors seem like cardboard without telling them what they should sound like. He puts in extremely obnoxious high-pitched whines to make us feel like we just had a bomb explode in our ears. Bottom line for this film, do not be turned off by my review. I know a lot of people who love this film. I know a lot who don't like it. See it and be the judge for yourself. Even though I didn't love it, I wouldn't dream of calling it unwatchable.
4. Iron Man (2008)
I can hear everyone saying how I shouldn't blog if I don't have good taste and blah blah blah. But in my opinion, this is the only film that I can never understand why so many people like it! It's absolutely predictable. Paltrow proves that they give out Oscars in Happy Meals. Terrence Howard proves that he can't even buy a Happy Meal. Jeff Daniels and Robert Downey Jr prove that they can buy a Happy Meal even in bad movies. I don't like to use this term, but this is a "cookie-cutter-superhero-movie." It is idential to X-Men only since this is Iron Man, he's so unstoppable that the fight scenes are extremely boring. Every ten seconds they mention his Iron Man's father because every single person knew him and everyone says he was a great person and that he's just like him and how they are so sorry that he died. They really didn't give much thought to this film even thought a lot of people found it exceptional. It even tried to be an ultra-tight drama about Iraq even though it just repeats philosophies expressed in the brilliant war films of the 70's and 80's (Hair, Apocalypse Now, Platoon, Full Metal Jacket.) This isn't fresh, it isn't entertaining, and it certainly isn't great art.
5. A Beautiful Mind (2001)
Once again, I do not hate this film either. But there's either something I'm missing about this film or there's something the Academy and a whole lot of critics are missing about Memento. A Beautiful Mind tells the extraordinary story of a man whit a mental disorder. I don't want to say too much but it has it's twists and turns. Russel Crowe, in my opinion, ruins the film. Memento should have swept the Oscars this year in winning best picture, best actor and best adapted screenplay (it was adapted by Nolan from his brother's short stories.)
1. Gladiator (2000)
Quite possibly the worst film to win the Oscar for Best Picture, this over-the-top, ultra-long, ultra-cliche and horribly written film stars Russel Crowe as the angriest man in the world. He wants to unite the gladiators and rise above gladiator status. Isn't that such an original idea? All the same time there's the angry king, the love interest and the younger person he takes under his wing. This creation reminds me a lot of a scene in Barton Fink. In Barton Fink the titular character tries to write a B-movie about wrestling but puts too much of the cliches into it. When he does, everyone says that he should only put in one of them (i.e. just a love interest not a love interest and a kid.) Ridley Scott, apparently, never got the memo. Another thing I despise about this film was pointed out to me in Roger Ebert's review of this. He points out that it just looks horrible. We know that this is intentional but does that make it good? In my opinion, absolutely not. If a film tries to be horrible, and is horrible, does it succeed? I don't think I need to answer that...
2. Michael Clayton (2007)
I quote critic Keith Uhlich, "Dude, there's a bomb in your car." That basically describes Michael Clayton. One laughably bad scene is when he's driving and sees some horses. He decides to get out and pet them because he's George Clooney. He does and his car blows up. That seems like one of the many similar scenes from Airplane! that are very similar to that. Another laughably horrendous scene is when Michael Clayton is talking to a potential client about how Michael will find him a trial attorney. Instead of the potential client saying, "Thanks! You saved my ass." like I imagine someone would say, he says, "I DON'T NEED A REFERRAL! I NEED A F---ING MIRACLE WORKER!!!" It's hilarious because the only good acting in this attempt at a thriller are the leading roles.
3. Children of Men (2006)
Let me throw this out there before I start this review; I do not hate this film. I just think that its just OK, 2½ stars tops. Almost every single review I have seen for this film gave it 4 stars. It is not by any means 4 stars. Unless, all of a sudden, we decide to give out 4 star reviews for incredible stunts. If so, Live Free or Die Hard should be the most acclaimed film of the decade! Children of Men features the incredible script about how in the near future, the world will be infertile and all of a sudden, a woman is pregnant. Now, all the major powers (and a few not so major) are trying to protect her. There isn't a single thing wrong with that script. Let's focus on what is wrong with it. Let's start in saying that Clive Owen was absolutely not made to do two or three minute long takes. It really shows that he is a film actor, not a stage actor. The director (Alfonso Cuaron) almost single-handedly ruins this film. He tries to make it a documentary only he overdoes the whole shakey-cam thing. He lets blood splatter on the camera at the most random times. He lets his actors seem like cardboard without telling them what they should sound like. He puts in extremely obnoxious high-pitched whines to make us feel like we just had a bomb explode in our ears. Bottom line for this film, do not be turned off by my review. I know a lot of people who love this film. I know a lot who don't like it. See it and be the judge for yourself. Even though I didn't love it, I wouldn't dream of calling it unwatchable.
4. Iron Man (2008)
I can hear everyone saying how I shouldn't blog if I don't have good taste and blah blah blah. But in my opinion, this is the only film that I can never understand why so many people like it! It's absolutely predictable. Paltrow proves that they give out Oscars in Happy Meals. Terrence Howard proves that he can't even buy a Happy Meal. Jeff Daniels and Robert Downey Jr prove that they can buy a Happy Meal even in bad movies. I don't like to use this term, but this is a "cookie-cutter-superhero-movie." It is idential to X-Men only since this is Iron Man, he's so unstoppable that the fight scenes are extremely boring. Every ten seconds they mention his Iron Man's father because every single person knew him and everyone says he was a great person and that he's just like him and how they are so sorry that he died. They really didn't give much thought to this film even thought a lot of people found it exceptional. It even tried to be an ultra-tight drama about Iraq even though it just repeats philosophies expressed in the brilliant war films of the 70's and 80's (Hair, Apocalypse Now, Platoon, Full Metal Jacket.) This isn't fresh, it isn't entertaining, and it certainly isn't great art.
5. A Beautiful Mind (2001)
Once again, I do not hate this film either. But there's either something I'm missing about this film or there's something the Academy and a whole lot of critics are missing about Memento. A Beautiful Mind tells the extraordinary story of a man whit a mental disorder. I don't want to say too much but it has it's twists and turns. Russel Crowe, in my opinion, ruins the film. Memento should have swept the Oscars this year in winning best picture, best actor and best adapted screenplay (it was adapted by Nolan from his brother's short stories.)
Saturday, July 19, 2008
The Dark Knight
The Cast/Crew:
Directed by Christopher Nolan (Memento)
Written by Christopher Nolan (Memento) and Jonathan Nolan (source writer of Mement0)
The Basic Synopsis:
OK. I'll give this a shot. The Joker (the late Heath Ledger of Brokeback Mountain) wants to kill Batman (Christian Bale) or at least make him give up his identity. The Joker enjoys torturing people and putting them in crazy positions (imagine Saw only about 1000 times better) such as forcing someone to blow up a boat of prisoners instead of getting their boat blown up. At the same time, Batman's childhood friend Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gylenhall) is dating the D.A. Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart.) Batman feels that gotham needs a hero with a face (Harvey Dent) and not an unnamed hero like Batman. The Joker decides that either Batman gives up his identity, or he kills at least one person until Batman reveals himself.
How it Turned Out:
I usually don't like to say things like this, but this is probably the best superhero film I have ever seen in my life. I don't believe any performance (superhero or not) of the past decade and come close to the magnitude of Ledger. He eclipses his mindblowing performance in Brokeback Mountain by reading his lines in a very strange way. I can't explain what he's doing, but he manages to pull off a very strange voice that you would never expect any sane man to pull off.
What's so great about it?
Calling it a superhero film would make you incorrect. It's more like a very dark comedy mixed with neo-noir with strange costumes. It breaks the boundaries of formula that most superhero based films are chained to. This is not only one of the best films of the 21st century, but will probably be one of the most groundbreaking. The weekend hasn't even reached Sunday, but it's probably going to be the most money a film has made on opening weekend.
The Bottom Line:
4/4 Stars. Enough said...
Directed by Christopher Nolan (Memento)
Written by Christopher Nolan (Memento) and Jonathan Nolan (source writer of Mement0)
The Basic Synopsis:
OK. I'll give this a shot. The Joker (the late Heath Ledger of Brokeback Mountain) wants to kill Batman (Christian Bale) or at least make him give up his identity. The Joker enjoys torturing people and putting them in crazy positions (imagine Saw only about 1000 times better) such as forcing someone to blow up a boat of prisoners instead of getting their boat blown up. At the same time, Batman's childhood friend Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gylenhall) is dating the D.A. Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart.) Batman feels that gotham needs a hero with a face (Harvey Dent) and not an unnamed hero like Batman. The Joker decides that either Batman gives up his identity, or he kills at least one person until Batman reveals himself.
How it Turned Out:
I usually don't like to say things like this, but this is probably the best superhero film I have ever seen in my life. I don't believe any performance (superhero or not) of the past decade and come close to the magnitude of Ledger. He eclipses his mindblowing performance in Brokeback Mountain by reading his lines in a very strange way. I can't explain what he's doing, but he manages to pull off a very strange voice that you would never expect any sane man to pull off.
What's so great about it?
Calling it a superhero film would make you incorrect. It's more like a very dark comedy mixed with neo-noir with strange costumes. It breaks the boundaries of formula that most superhero based films are chained to. This is not only one of the best films of the 21st century, but will probably be one of the most groundbreaking. The weekend hasn't even reached Sunday, but it's probably going to be the most money a film has made on opening weekend.
The Bottom Line:
4/4 Stars. Enough said...
Hellboy II: the Golden Army
The Cast/Crew:
Directed by Guillermo del Toro (Pan's Labyrinth)
Writted by Guillermo del Toro (Pan's Labyrinth)
The Basic Synopsis:
Hellboy (Ron Perlman) is on a team to fight paranormal stuff. He possesses super strength and thats he is extremely tough. Also on his team is Liz Scherman (Selma Blair.) She manipulates fire and gets lit on fire when she gets angry. They are dating and Liz is pregnant but Hellboy doesn't know yet. Also on the team is Abe Sapien (Doug Jones.) Think of C3PO as a fish and you get Abe. A new guy is joining the team because they are made public. At the same time, Hellboy has to stop an evil prince from summoning the indestructable army known as The Golden Army. We also encounter crazy beasts such as Tooth Fairies, and Trolls that live under the Brooklyn Bridge.
How it Turned Out:
Plot-wise, it's a B+ movie. Visually, it's a perfect A+. I haven't seen a film since Pan's Labyrinth that gives such an incredible, gothic and beautiful universe. Guillermo del Toro clearly did not hold back on that aspect of directing. Now, the other aspect of directing is telling your actors how to say their lines. He does not do very well here. There are some moments between Perlman and Jones that are horrendously bad. They go off the charts in corniness and are Razzie material. Back to the directing, his art direction is Oscar material. So far, he's beating out Wall-E and Speed Racer which are the 2 competitors so far. I know we're in the summer which is No Man's Land for film, but I think it has a good chance at getting a nod.
The Bottom Line:
3½/4 Stars. The most visually beautiful film in years. See it because it is much more than a lame superhero movie.
Directed by Guillermo del Toro (Pan's Labyrinth)
Writted by Guillermo del Toro (Pan's Labyrinth)
The Basic Synopsis:
Hellboy (Ron Perlman) is on a team to fight paranormal stuff. He possesses super strength and thats he is extremely tough. Also on his team is Liz Scherman (Selma Blair.) She manipulates fire and gets lit on fire when she gets angry. They are dating and Liz is pregnant but Hellboy doesn't know yet. Also on the team is Abe Sapien (Doug Jones.) Think of C3PO as a fish and you get Abe. A new guy is joining the team because they are made public. At the same time, Hellboy has to stop an evil prince from summoning the indestructable army known as The Golden Army. We also encounter crazy beasts such as Tooth Fairies, and Trolls that live under the Brooklyn Bridge.
How it Turned Out:
Plot-wise, it's a B+ movie. Visually, it's a perfect A+. I haven't seen a film since Pan's Labyrinth that gives such an incredible, gothic and beautiful universe. Guillermo del Toro clearly did not hold back on that aspect of directing. Now, the other aspect of directing is telling your actors how to say their lines. He does not do very well here. There are some moments between Perlman and Jones that are horrendously bad. They go off the charts in corniness and are Razzie material. Back to the directing, his art direction is Oscar material. So far, he's beating out Wall-E and Speed Racer which are the 2 competitors so far. I know we're in the summer which is No Man's Land for film, but I think it has a good chance at getting a nod.
The Bottom Line:
3½/4 Stars. The most visually beautiful film in years. See it because it is much more than a lame superhero movie.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
The Best and Worst Remakes (Part 2)
Here's the worst remakes I can think of:
1. Psycho (1998)
"We all go a little mad sometimes"
Is that a quote from psycho or is it Gus Van Sant's excuse for making this? I am nearly speechless because I am thinking of this excuse for a movie (it doesn't deserve to be considered a film.) The best part of the original Psycho (1960) wasn't the script or the directing, but the acting. The whole point of Psycho is how tense the scenes between Norman and the Crane Sisters. It's acted so brilliantly that you feel like you're one of the characters. Not so much which the remake. The whole point of the Gus Van Sant remake is that they wanted to modernize it. In the first, Norman takes a peek and Marion Crane undressing. In the remake, he masturbates. Find that a slightly repulsive change? I know that I do.
2. Planet of the Apes (2001)
"Get your hands off me you damned dirty ape"
Rumor has it that's what the screenplay yelled at Tim Burton when he decided to direct it. The only good thing about this movie is that they at least tried to change it. They didn't just do a boring, horrible, shot-for-shot remake of the original. That's the only good thing I have to say about the remake. Now onto the bad. Mark Wahlberg (aka Marky-Mark of Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch) is not by any means Charlton Heston. I don't think he ever will. He clearly possesses little to no acting talent. After you see this, you will agree. Remember how I said it was good that they changed it a bit. They changed it a lot (including the infamous twist ending.)
3. The Omen (2006)
"Why'd you have to do it?"
I don't think I have to explain this quote at all. This movie is an absolute piece of crap. The only reason it isn't number one is because the Omen (1976) < Planet of the Apes (1968) < Psycho (1960.) I'm not sure there was acting in this movie. Or if there was a screenplay. Or a director. I think they just said "Hey, lets remake the omen!" And here it is. I can't elaborate anymore than that because I already stretched a bit to get this far...
1. Psycho (1998)
"We all go a little mad sometimes"
Is that a quote from psycho or is it Gus Van Sant's excuse for making this? I am nearly speechless because I am thinking of this excuse for a movie (it doesn't deserve to be considered a film.) The best part of the original Psycho (1960) wasn't the script or the directing, but the acting. The whole point of Psycho is how tense the scenes between Norman and the Crane Sisters. It's acted so brilliantly that you feel like you're one of the characters. Not so much which the remake. The whole point of the Gus Van Sant remake is that they wanted to modernize it. In the first, Norman takes a peek and Marion Crane undressing. In the remake, he masturbates. Find that a slightly repulsive change? I know that I do.
2. Planet of the Apes (2001)
"Get your hands off me you damned dirty ape"
Rumor has it that's what the screenplay yelled at Tim Burton when he decided to direct it. The only good thing about this movie is that they at least tried to change it. They didn't just do a boring, horrible, shot-for-shot remake of the original. That's the only good thing I have to say about the remake. Now onto the bad. Mark Wahlberg (aka Marky-Mark of Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch) is not by any means Charlton Heston. I don't think he ever will. He clearly possesses little to no acting talent. After you see this, you will agree. Remember how I said it was good that they changed it a bit. They changed it a lot (including the infamous twist ending.)
3. The Omen (2006)
"Why'd you have to do it?"
I don't think I have to explain this quote at all. This movie is an absolute piece of crap. The only reason it isn't number one is because the Omen (1976) < Planet of the Apes (1968) < Psycho (1960.) I'm not sure there was acting in this movie. Or if there was a screenplay. Or a director. I think they just said "Hey, lets remake the omen!" And here it is. I can't elaborate anymore than that because I already stretched a bit to get this far...
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
The Best and Worst Remakes (part 1)
With Journey To the Center Of the Earth coming out very soon, I thought now would be a great time to put up a list of the best and worst remakes in cinematic history. This post will be dedicated to the three best remakes. The next will be dedicated to the three worst.
1. The Departed (2006)
Did you guys know this was a remake? Well it was. It was a remake of Internal Affairs (1990.) The Departed is a story that spins on a dime. The basic plot-line is that Matt Damon is taken under the wing of Jack Nicholson; Jack Nicholson is the leader of the Irish Mob in that area. Matt Damon then becomes a cop to give the Mob an edge over the cops; giving them an inside man. At the same time, Leonardo DiCaprio changes his accent to change his origin and becomes an undercover cop inside the Irish Mob. He is taken under the wing of Martin Sheen. At the same time, Mark Wahlberg is a cop who is suspicious of Matt Damon. They all try to find the rats and (strangely enough) Leo is in charge of looking for the undercover cop and Matt Damon is looking for the inside man in the police. Add all these actors, a brilliant script, and Martin Scorsese together and you get a great film. What I really like about this film is that the song "Comfortably Numb" plays twice in it. Why do I like that fact so much? Because in the video for that song, the character plays with a rat and gets a fever. Coincidence that The Departed is entirely about the fact that rats are dangerous?
2. A Bug's Life (1998)
Now, two things come with me putting this here. 1. What's this a remake of? 2. Where's The Magnificent Seven? Seven Samurai, and not on here. I didn't put The Magnificent Seven on here because (a) I haven't seen it (b) it's kind of bizzare to Americanize a foreign film (c) everyone puts it on their list. So, back to A Bug's Life I bet you didn't know that it was a remake of Seven Samurai. Now think about the plot; a bunch of ants find out that they are about to get attacked by grasshoppers. A brave one decides to hire warriors to protect themselves. They end up being circus performers. O.K. so that part isn't in Seven Samurai but it can't be a coincidence that there are seven bugs and that the basic plot is very similar. A Bug's Life was so great because it was one of the few films that was equally entertaining for children and adults. Most films go one way or another, but A Bug's Life managed to stay neutral.
3. Casino Royale (2006)
Have you seen the original? Do me a favor and try to forget that it exists. It was made by five directors and was an attempt at comedy. Let's put it this way; rumor has it that Peter Sellers quit early because he found out Orson Welles was going to be in it. They finished the film without him and changed the script so that he didn't appear in any other scenes. So now you know the star power the original had. Other than that, there was nothing (I mean absolutely nothing) good about this film. The remake was smart, action packed with a script co-written by Oscar Winner Paul Haggis (Best Original Screenplay for Crash in 2006.) He also wrote Million Dollar Baby and Letters From Iwo Jima. I almost feel bad calling this a remake because the resumé of this screenwriter makes it at a totally different level. The original was a trashy comedy. The second one was nominated for the Best British Film Award at the BAFTA's. Which one sounds better to you?
1. The Departed (2006)
Did you guys know this was a remake? Well it was. It was a remake of Internal Affairs (1990.) The Departed is a story that spins on a dime. The basic plot-line is that Matt Damon is taken under the wing of Jack Nicholson; Jack Nicholson is the leader of the Irish Mob in that area. Matt Damon then becomes a cop to give the Mob an edge over the cops; giving them an inside man. At the same time, Leonardo DiCaprio changes his accent to change his origin and becomes an undercover cop inside the Irish Mob. He is taken under the wing of Martin Sheen. At the same time, Mark Wahlberg is a cop who is suspicious of Matt Damon. They all try to find the rats and (strangely enough) Leo is in charge of looking for the undercover cop and Matt Damon is looking for the inside man in the police. Add all these actors, a brilliant script, and Martin Scorsese together and you get a great film. What I really like about this film is that the song "Comfortably Numb" plays twice in it. Why do I like that fact so much? Because in the video for that song, the character plays with a rat and gets a fever. Coincidence that The Departed is entirely about the fact that rats are dangerous?
2. A Bug's Life (1998)
Now, two things come with me putting this here. 1. What's this a remake of? 2. Where's The Magnificent Seven? Seven Samurai, and not on here. I didn't put The Magnificent Seven on here because (a) I haven't seen it (b) it's kind of bizzare to Americanize a foreign film (c) everyone puts it on their list. So, back to A Bug's Life I bet you didn't know that it was a remake of Seven Samurai. Now think about the plot; a bunch of ants find out that they are about to get attacked by grasshoppers. A brave one decides to hire warriors to protect themselves. They end up being circus performers. O.K. so that part isn't in Seven Samurai but it can't be a coincidence that there are seven bugs and that the basic plot is very similar. A Bug's Life was so great because it was one of the few films that was equally entertaining for children and adults. Most films go one way or another, but A Bug's Life managed to stay neutral.
3. Casino Royale (2006)
Have you seen the original? Do me a favor and try to forget that it exists. It was made by five directors and was an attempt at comedy. Let's put it this way; rumor has it that Peter Sellers quit early because he found out Orson Welles was going to be in it. They finished the film without him and changed the script so that he didn't appear in any other scenes. So now you know the star power the original had. Other than that, there was nothing (I mean absolutely nothing) good about this film. The remake was smart, action packed with a script co-written by Oscar Winner Paul Haggis (Best Original Screenplay for Crash in 2006.) He also wrote Million Dollar Baby and Letters From Iwo Jima. I almost feel bad calling this a remake because the resumé of this screenwriter makes it at a totally different level. The original was a trashy comedy. The second one was nominated for the Best British Film Award at the BAFTA's. Which one sounds better to you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)