Alright movie fans. Time to return again to your list of remakes, but this time:
Movies that were better than the original. Better can imply anything you would like; made more money, more artistic integrity, funnier, more 'ploding goodness, whatever. Having not seen Transformers, I can't comment on it, but I'm sure that others can and will.
Ocean's Eleven. The remake is a smooth, visually appealing heist movie with great star power and dialogue. So was the original, both had good cameos, and memorable endings. I'd say it was a toss up, until you recall the opening sequence of the remake where Brad Pitt's character is teaching the Hollywood kids how to play poker. Slight advantage to the remake.
Scarface. The original was pre-code Hollywood (1932) but never really managed the staying power of 1931s Little Caesar. The remake stars Pacino and the worst Cuban accent you will ever hear. But it still has a huge following, memorable quotes, spawned a video game.
The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe was far and away cooler than anything done previously.
Roxanne, with Steve Martin is the best version of Cyrano de Bergerac put to film.
OK, I'm not saying that this list is exhaustive, that is in fact what I am hoping that you will do: add more. There are a lot of movie remakes out there. which ones need to be seen?
5 comments:
Maybe this one isn't as high art as others but I really enjoyed the last Batman film (Batman Begins) more than the first (Batman) even though it had Michael Keaton, Jack Nicholson, and Burton Directing. It was much darker than Burton's film.
I think I smell a war. Care to comment Mark. ... Jeff?
Oh wow. Wow wow wow. I was checking to comment on the "Roxanne" thing (my personal opinion, though I love Martin's film, is that the one featuring Gérard Depardieu in 1990 is the best film adaptation) and now a whole can has been opened up!
My personal opinion--and Mark, I realize we may be in trouble here--is that "Batman Begins" is a great franchise relaunch...but not a great movie. Whereas "Batman" (1989) is truly great. It may be an irreconsilible difference of taste, I admit. "Batman" created a comic book on the screen, replete with iconic heroes and villains, and when you consider the psychological workings is actually the darker movie. "Batman Begins" can, at best, claim the most credible explanation of Batman's potential existence in reality. Beyond that, and some top-notch actors and budget, what can it claim? Consider it this way: The movie made fear one of its central themes, but did it ever frighten you?
That having been said--can't wait to see the sequel.
Oh, where to begin...
First off, I don't think of 'Batman Begins' as a remake of a movie, so much as a retelling of a mythology. The two movies have very little to do with each other, save the central character and (nominally) the same period in his life.
Also, you can't take the period in the viewer's life, or the state of cinema as a whole out of the equation, either. Batman came out at a time when Comic movies weren't being tossed at audiences at a rate of 3 or 4 a summer. And for me, and especially Jeff, we were at a tender, impressionable age where the fantasy world of Gotham really spoke to us in a way that, as jaded adults, the new Gotham can't.
So it's a little apples-oranges to me. But lets set that aside and tackle Jeff's comment -- words like 'iconic' aptly describe the characters of that movie. They became the gold standard, and not just for the Batman franchise, but for the comic genre both on-screen and off. I don't agree that the original was darker than 'Begins' -- more psychotic, perhaps, but in a light-hearted way.
Blow-by-blow, the original gave us memorable lines (to me, that's a critical benchmark of the 'quality' of a movie). Not to mention it gave us Jack in, I think, the best super-villain portrayal of all-time, ever. Oddly enough, Keaton made me believe the playboy-swagger better than the beefier and better-looking Bale, but that may have had a lot to do with the direction rather than the acting (the Wayne side of life was almost ignored in 'Begins').
I was delighted by the new film - it may well stand up over time and prove through repeated viewings to have all the strength of the original. I just don't feel it had the right chemistry. I think taking the darker approach with it was an excellent decision in making it stand on its own, and gave it a really nice edge artistically, but probably not enough to eclipse the original.
I suppose, with my friends, it should have been obvious. Every remake in the world to talk about, and I get three guys arguing Batman.
;-)
Post a Comment