Why Would Anyone Remake This Movie? "Logan's Run"

The reason for a "Pink Panther" remake can be summed up in one word franchise. If the film becomes popular then you can expect remakes of as many of the original films as possible until it runs out of steam. However test screenings for this film have been so bad that the studio has pulled the original release date & are reshooting.

As for Wanda Sykes, she is a terrific stand-up that hasn't found the right starring vehicle. She is hilarious on "Curb Your Enthusiasm". However she is not a physical comedian, and it was Martin's physical performance that made All of Me work.

It really is a shame that so many terrific films are being re-made these days. Its a lazy way or producing a film but as long as people keep watching these films studios will keep making them. Off the top of my head all the unnecessary remakes that have been made of good movies:

The Pink Panther
The Bad News Bears
The In-Laws
The Longest Yard
Psycho
Get Carter
Shaft
Planet of the Apes
The Manchurian Candidate
Willy Wonka & the Chocoalate Factory
The Italian Job

The film-makers got these films right the first time, what's the point of doing it again?

 

Good question. The remake of "The Pink Panther" starring Steve Martin (as Clouseau) and Kevin Kline (as the David Niven character, I guess) was scheduled for release in August. It previewed terribly and has been withdrawn.

The first "Pink Panther" is very, very funny. Great cast, including Peter Sellers before he deemed himself an artiste, David Niven, Robert Wagner, etc. The funniest movie in the series is held to be "A Shot in the Dark" which I haven't seen. But I can see no reason whatsoever to remake this film, especially if the remake is not funny, which I hear is not the case.

Didn't the suits learn anything from "Sgt. Bilko?"

 

Actually, Kline is playing Clouseau's boss.

When did Sellers deem himself an 'artiste'?

 

Sometime before "Being There," I'd guess.

The first two Panther films are both riotiously funny. The sequels get less and less funny. But the first two are so popular that the previous attempt to jump start this franchise again was a misfire as well (the Begnini Son of the Pink Panther).

I like to think that I'm not opposed to remakes in principle. There have been great remakes: Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet was far and away the best of the lot, Bogart's Maltese Falcon was the third filming of the novel, Ben-Hur was a remake of a silent film.

But it simply seems that most of the time, a remake is made with little to no real appreciation for what made the first film great. You've got to do more than a shot for shot remake, yes, (see Psycho), but don't just be idiotic about the changes, like adding shots of your main character swallowing bile (see Psycho).

It's very hard to do a remake well. But then, it's also hard to make an original film well. A lot of the times the problems with remakes are simple: the remake is utterly unnecessary. If you've got a real reason (like Branagh did, like Wyler did, like some people do) then okay. And I mean a real reason, like presenting Hamlet uncut for the first time, not some half assed theory like "The Honeymooners! Only black!" That's not a reason, that's a marketing decision.

And, just like most original movies, most remakes are made for strictly marketing decisions. Well, it disgusts me, but no skin off my nose. I just won't watch them.

 

I'm waiting for Hollywood to do The 300 Spartans again... now there's a remake we need.

 

We do?

Next movie: "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels" (1988)

This movie is a remake of a David Niven/Marlon Brando comedy called "Bedtime Story."

The plot: a young grifter named Freddie Benson (Steve Martin) approaches an older classier grifter, Lawrence Jamieson (Michael Caine) to teach him how to make more money on high end scams. Lawrence agrees if after the lessons, Freddie stops trying to grift is his place of residence, a small Riveria town. There's not enough room for two. Freddie reneges, and the men agree on a bet: whichever of them first extorts $50,000.00 from a visiting soap queen named Janet Colgate will stay.

The original movie was quite funny, but comedy brings out something smug and smirky in Brando. Granted Martin hardly does better with the part, but at least he gets his laughs. The ending is predictable and dull.

In the remake, they change the ending and the Jamieson character becomes much more interesting because of it. Though Niven is good in the role in the original, Caine is positively great in the remake. This is a comic performance to rival Jack Lemmon's in "Some Like It Hot."

When the grifters learn at the end that they have been grifted, and by a woman, too, Freddie is depressed. The effect on Lawrence, however, is where the remake really steps out of the predictable. He's both astonished and energized. "Isn't she wonderful!" he exclaims, and it's a cry of joy and admiration. He's finally, at long last, met an equal. There is romantic feeling in this movie, but it's not between Freddie and Janet, as in the original. It's between Lawrence and Janet (granted, it's only inferred.)

Janet was played by Shirley Jones in the original; Gleanne Headley, a much, much underrated actress, wipes the floor with her in the remake. Granted, the role is far better.

In this case, have to say, the remake rules.

 

The remake does rule; makes me want to see the Broadway play a lot (with Lithgow in the Caine role).

 

Next movie: "The Man Who Knew Too Much"

First made in England in 1934, in black and white.
Remade in the USA in 1956 in colour.

Directed both times by Alfred Hitchcock.

The Plot: A couple are on vacation with their child (a daughter in 1934; a son in 1956) and the father inadvertently learns about a conspiracy of spies. The child is kidnapped to prevent him from saying anything until a politician is assassinated. The parents unite to rescue the child and save the politician.

Hitchcock's view: "The first movie was the work of a talented amateur and the second the work of a professional."

I disagree. Both movies are highly professional, and have good casts. The first is a little short, the second too long. I can't say one is better than the other; they are just different, despite having exactly the same plot. Hitchcock's preoccupations are different 22 years later, and though he wants to express that there are tensions between the parents, he does it different ways. In the second one, Brenda de Banzie, as one of the spies, is very good; she becomes very fond of the little boy and is conflicted about the situation. She knows releasing him will mean disaster for her; her indecision is suspenseful.

A draw.

 

I absolutely love, love, love the second one which is also the movie which introduces Que Sera Sera, n'est ce pas?

 

I'm not overly fond of either, actually.

Need to watch them both again.

 

Being a fan of Stewart, I prefer the remake, although the original had its merits too. If Hitch wanted to remake his own movie, I won't criticize.

 

Next: "Planet of the Apes"

First one, starring Charlton Heston and Roddy McDowall, in 1968, directed by Franklin J. Schaffner; second one, starring Mark Wahlberg and Tim Roth, and directed by Tim Burton.

The first movie has cheesy production values and a fairly low-rent cast, but is highly entertaining on its own cheddary level.

The second movie has excellent production values, a medium cast, an excellent director, and is completely misguided.

 

Somebody is remaking "The Poseidon Adventure" (1972) with Kurt Russell, Richard Dreyfus and Emmy Rossum. This is a cheesy disaster flick about an ocean liner that turns upside down, trapping the passengers. They must fight their way up to the top of the boat. (Note: Physics makes the premise of this movie impossible. The boat would break in half in these circumstances, as the Titanic did.) Gene Hackman had the lead in the original and hammed it up furiously in an effort to keep himself warm.

Just wondering, Zaz, have you actually seen The Posiedon Adventure? The premise is that a rouge wave hits an ocean liner broadside and causes it to roll over in the water. Not only does this not counterdict the laws of physics, but its a geniune concern for sea captians, particularly in the North Atlantic. Its rare but not uncommon to hear stories about the Quenn Elizabeth 2 being hit with 100 foot high waves during a storm.

As for Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes, I liked how it portrayed the Apes in a more realistic manner. Too bad the script and the acting weren't quite up to snuff.

 

You misunderstand: a ship this size could not turn turtle in this manner for long enough for the plot to play out.

There were numerous people who assured the public that the Titanic was intact at the bottom of the sea. There was a book and movie based on that premise. Several eyewitness accounts said it went down in one piece. A very few eyewitnesses said it broke in half. Dispute ettled when the wreck was found in two pieces, in a manner that indicated it broke in half before it sank.

 

You misunderstand: a ship this size could not turn turtle in this manner for long enough for the plot to play out.

Oh, ok I see whay you mean, although I don't agree with you. I don't know of any ships that have actually sank in this manner, so I can't make a reasonable guess as to how long it would take but I still think that the premise is sound when you consider the fact that the Andria Doria sank over period of something like 9 or 10 hours.

There were numerous people who assured the public that the Titanic was intact at the bottom of the sea. There was a book and movie based on that premise. Several eyewitness accounts said it went down in one piece. A very few eyewitnesses said it broke in half. Dispute ettled when the wreck was found in two pieces, in a manner that indicated it broke in half before it sank.

And I don't think comparing to the ship in the movie to the Titanic is really fair because the Titanic sank in calm water in a totally differnt manner.

But anyway, I'm sidetracking the discussion and that not my intention.

 

I liked the re-rendering of " Planet of the Apes " and thought it was grossly underappreciated.

 

I agree. Though far from the greatest film I've ever seen, Tim Burton's remake is enjoyable popcorn entertainment. Furthermore, the set design and make-up are fantastic. Its shameful the Academy didn't recognize the film for Make-Up Effects.

 

Why do they have to re-make anything?
Why the heck can't they make new movies, with new ideas?

 

I wrote an entire review about why the remake of Planet of the Apes was a disaster. The name of my review was, get this: Damn them! God Damn them to Hell, they screwed it up! I was overweeningly proud of that.

Regardless, this is just a disaster: the people can talk, the pacing is totally screwed up, the action sequences are confusing, the villian is dumbed down and the ending . . . good God, by any reasonable standards, it fails, but when compared to the brilliant social statement of the first film's ending, this one just looks worse and worse.

Ironically, Charlton Heston steals the show, lying on his death bed. Tim Roth muttering and shrieking in the foreground aside, Heston still has the chops and his scene is the one that makes the entire film almost worth watching.

 

I`m not found of the apes remake.The humans are equal to the apes,the apes don`t have guns,and they are too much like well apes.And the ending is horrible,it leaves too many questions unlike the Heston ending which was actually scary.A waste of Burton and Rick Baker`s time

 

I have to agree. While it held my interest, it's far from a classic. Does anyone know for sure what that ending was supposed to be?

P.S. - Have to give major kudos to the ape make-up though. Was that Rick Baker? Really good job (Though the lead female ape in her Jennifer Aniston wig looked ridiculous!)

 

...it would have been interesting to see the Wahlberg-Ape sexscene that got cut..


Incidentally, backing up a bit, it's nice to see "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels" get some love.. My family and i have felt this was a terrific film since it's release, but most reviews that you see of it are pretty mediocre..

Michael Caine is truly one of the greats..

 

I've always liked that movie. Caine's delivery of lines like: "Ruprecht! Do I have to get the genital cuff?" is matchless. A very rare example of doing a remake because they had a Better Idea on how to use the material. And Caine's performance gives it some soul.

 

I don't really see the point to the remake other than better looking apes. Rod Serling's original idea was of apes in a technologically advanced civilization but it proved too costly to film. Perhaps it would have been better in that vein and we could have seen a more warped society with the typical Tim Burton visuals. Unfortunately we didn't get that & I don't think this film offers anything we haven't seen before. I prefer the original films and I think they do a better job addressing real life issues in the guise of science fiction. The remake never tries to do address anything important but yet it takes itself far too seriously, with the exception of Charlton Heston. I feel the same thing will happen with Burton's take on Willy Wonka.

 

With the Apes remake, I just couldn't get out of the idea that every scene was done in a studio with studio lighting. It looked terrible. Burton's done some similar films, Sleepy Hollow was entirely made inside a studio, but it had mist and fog making the film close anyway. The sets in Apes were so fake I gave up on it.

Not to mention the other stupid changes, the talking humans etc.