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

I'll never understand the logic of the remake. Perhaps the ultimate fan-film? If I remember correctly this is DP Christopher Doyle's first Hollywood film. What a waste to have one of the best in the business get hamstrung by deciding to make everything a shot for shot remake. This might make an interesting film school activity but as a film it was a horrible idea.

I'm going to lay the blame directly at the man responsible, Ben Affleck. Before this film Gus Van Sant's worked with Affleck so he's gotta be responsible somehow

 

Van Sant is capable of good direction: see "Drugstore Cowboy" and "To Die For." He's also capable of "Even Cowgirls Get the Blues", too. (If you haven't seen it, count yourself very, very lucky.) So it's hard to say what he had in mind. Maybe he's just the type of director damaged by success. His only film of note since "Good Will Hunting" has been "Finding Forrester", which is a virtual remake...oops!

 

Again it was a very strange choice. Van Sant never had a financial hit until Good Will Hunting, what he had was indy cred. So he finally makes it big critically and financially which gives him the clout to make virtually anything he wants for his next film. For some reason he chooses Psycho. A head scratcher.

 

Psycho is a bit of a cult hit in its own right, and to remake it was blasphemy. There are countless iconic things about the original, and to think they could be improved upon is just idiotic. And really, the new one didn't really do anything except make a pretty good movie suck.

 

Payback wasn?t a bad movie. Gibson was fine in it and I liked the running gag of everyone thinking he was after more money than he really was. That said, be informed that I have yet to see the original. I know, I know.

I think everything has been said about Psycho that needs to be said. Van Sant makes the movie scene for scene, only putting in quick flashes of cows in the road and nked women. And, oh, yes, Master Bates lives up to his name. Yeah, that?s a good reason. It is nothing if not pointless. Or in fact it is nothing AND pointless.

There is one good scene: William H. Macy as Arbogast interrogates Norman. Macy seems the only person who is actually having a good time.

The original is fun, even knowing the ending. It?s that witty, atmospheric and beautifully acted. The remake is totally, utterly, completely, mind boggingly pointless. Maybe the most ill conceived remake ever.

 

The second film is a genuine remake in that it is almost the same movie, shot for shot, with the addition of colour and a masturbation scene (wow, I'm so thrilled) and a different cast.

Quite an innovation; Hitch would be overwhelmed that his work is considered to be masturbatory. In all seriousness, following his critical and financial success with Good Will Hunting, Universal gave director Gus Van Sant an opportunity to re-make any classic film from their archives, and of course he decided upon Hitchcock's 1960 picture, Psycho. I am not a great proponent of remaking classic films at the best of times, and indeed Van Sant's efforts have not forced my to reconsider my opinion. While remaking an esteemed work such as Psycho was an idea which likely contained a series of inherent flaws, one of Van Sant's critical errors was in his casting of Vince Vaughn, a talented actor, in the Norman Bates role; Vaughn is too self-conscious and ironic to cultivate any genuine creepiness within his character, and he seems to lack the level of insinuation, as well as understated conviction, that was displayed by Anthony Perkins in the original film. Additionally, Anne Heche, in the crucial role of Marion Crane, is unable to project the degree of sexuality and emotional desperation that Janet Leigh convincingly suggested in Hitchcock's picture, thus negating a component of psychological urgency which is central to giving this particular story a more dramatic and interpersonal resonance.

The first movie has its crudities; Hitchcock financed it himself, and he did it on the cheap, using a crew from his television show and some old sets.

The production cost approximately $800,000 dollars; that it went on to gross more than $15 million domestically is astonishing, not to mention lucrative.

The scene with the psychiatrist at the end is still awful.

The tacked-on psychoanalytical jargon at Psycho's end is possibly the most underwhelming and unnecessary conclusion to an otherwise great film in the history of cinema.

To a generation raised on violent zombie movies, "Psycho" must seem pretty tame, but it still has Hitchcock's undoubted ability as a director and his nasty sense of humour: Janet Leigh has a relevation, and decides to return the money she has stolen and is on the run with. Just after she decides to do the right thing, she is stabbed to death by a homicidal maniac. Take that!

Certainly, the level of its cruelty is less potent by contemporary standards, but the picture has retained its artistry and pungent wit, while Hitchcock's visual mastery dominates the film, guiding us towards the story's unsettling, and very effective denouement.

Even if you know what's coming, the original "Psycho" is fun to watch, if only to see Hitchcock playing his tricks and laughing while he does it. Gus Van Sant is the type of guy who doesn't get the joke. This literal transcription is dull and stodgy, yet it's almost entirely the same. I can't explain it, but the second movie must be one of the most misguided movies of all time.

If nothing else, Van Sant's remake is a valuable lesson in film theory: "The only way to criticize a film is to make another film," Godard famously observed, and his comments are more than relevant here. By assembling a "shot-by-shot" remake of a film, and yet attaining none of the original's power, Van Sant's picture demonstrates that Hitchcock's genius was intangible, existing outside the parameters of meagre technical issues, "between the shots," as it were.

 

Next: "The Stepford Wives" (1975) starring Katharine Ross and Paula Prentiss v. "The Stepford Wives" (2004) starring Nicole Kidman and Bette Midler

The first movie is a thriller; the second movie is a camp comedy. Neither of them work worth a damn, though there is all sorts of material here. Subtext of the first movie: being a wife and mother is a living death; subtext of the second movie: being straight is a living death. The cast of the second one is marginally better (Ross can't say lines) but they are both just plain mistakes.

Somewhere along the line, I also saw a grade-Z sequel called "Revenge of the Stepford Wives", which ended with the Stepford Wives stomping their tormentors to death with their stiletto heels. (!) That movie was crap, and it was still more entertaining than either of these two.

 

Next, courtesy of General_Dodonna:

"The Omen".

Yes, folks, Damien rides again. The original 1976 cheesefest, starring Gregory Peck, Lee Remick and the Son of Satan is being remade.

And the question is: Why?

 

Oh no, not a remake of "The Omen." I love this movie. The 70s had some great horror movies that were before CG, that were geniunely scary and this was one of my favorites. And they can't replace Gregory Peck.

I'd rather see a halfway decent sequel--that the only place where 'The Omen' movies have gone wrong.


Regarding "The Producers," I love the movie, and I've seen the Broadway version twice. It's going to be a very funny movie--even though one of my favorite songs from the musical has been cut ("Where Did We Go Right?")

There were a lot of changes in the stage version--it takes place in the 50s instead of the 60s, so there's no "LSD" character. His role in 'Springtime for Hitler' is now played by another major character--but I won't spoil who it is. The aftermath of 'Springtime' goes in a completely different direction that is absolutely hilarious.

I think both versions will compliment each other really well. The musical was one of the funniest things I've ever seen (although 'Monty Python's Spamalot' was even funnier).

 

Well, I have to admit that sounds promising...

Next: "King Kong"

First version: 1933, directed by Merian C. Cooper, starring Fay Wray;

Second version: 1976, directed by John Guillermin, starring Jessica Lange and Jeff Bridges;

New version stars Adrien Brody, Naomi Watts, and Jack Black, and is directed by Peter Jackson. At one time, this movie was supposed to be directed by James Cameron.

The first version was a huge hit. It is one of the most distinctive-looking movies you will ever see; it looks animated Blake.

The second version, in living colour, tries hard, but is a stiff and did the same at the box office.

Okay, Peter Jackson is God to a lot of people, but unless he has something to add here, why is he doing this?

 

Oh before we move on I wanted to chime in on The Omen. If you get a chance to listen to the DVD commentary I highly recommend it. I really enjoy Donner's commentary on his films, even on subpar films like Lethal Weapon 4. He just seems to be a fun personable guy, that knows his job, is willing to share the spotlight, and tells good stories. Anyway while making the film he directed it with the mindset that Damien's parents went insane. He credits that as what made the film successful. He wanted it to be plausible that a couple would go insane believing that their son was the anti-christ and leave it to the audience to decide on Damien's true identity. The next films abandonded this concept to fully embrace the anti-christ stuff & I think that's why they don't work as well. I'm curious if the remake will take this into account, or whether they will just play up the devil/hell/apocalypse angle.

As for King Kong Jackson has said its a dream project. After bringing a supposedly unfilmable set of books to the screen I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I had little faith years ago when I heard he would be at the helm for The Lord of the Rings films but now I'm a convert. From the previews it looks like Jack Black just might be playing a certain New Zealand director, talk about having your cake & eating it too.

 

I think he'll do a great job of King Kong, but I do have to ask the question why do we need another film about Kong?

 

Evidently King Kong was Peter Jackson's favorite movie as a kid and he has been dreaming of remaking it for most of his life. I saw the teaser and it looks awesome. I think it will be a hit and I will see it.

Regardless of if you liked Lord of the Rings you have to respect Peter Jackson. He went from low-budget splatter films to a movie trilogy that a worldwide phenomenon. How he convinced New Line to fund him is beyond me.

Oh and the way he dressed at the Academy Awards was an awesome stand for individuality.

 

The original Kong is full of iconic stuff of course, but the fact is it's an example of very early cinema and the style and construction is dated. I've never had much of a problem with remaking films from that era, because just refilming the content with modern cinematic techniques would result in something strikingly different to the original, for better or worse.

 

The first remake of King Kong was idiotic, mainly because it attempted to bring a seventies aesthetic to the proceedings. And nothing dates faster than seventies aesthetic.

This remake is apparently set in the thirties, which is a step in the right direction. I am not looking forward to seeing a motion capture Kong, especially one played by Serkis, nor am I looking forward to his turn as Lumpy the cook. Brody, Watts and Black are odd casting choices, but have done good work previously.

The fact remains that the first Kong is a masterpiece. Even today, it is still a pulse pounding film. It moves like gangbusters and just never lets up for a second. I hope the new one is at least half as good.

 

Evidently King Kong was Peter Jackson's favorite movie as a kid and he has been dreaming of remaking it for most of his life.

This is always the rationale film-makers give for remaking a classic movie, and it makes no logical sense whatsoever. If you really loved the movie, then you really loved it as it was, right? Again, what's the point?

And as an example:

"The Bad News Bears" (1976) directed by Michael Ritchie and starring Walter Matthau v. "The Bad News Bears" (2005) directed by Richard Linklater starring Billy Bob Thornton.

When I heard about this movie I predicted it would be "Bad Santa" with cleats. I understand that's a fair estimate. It's so similar to the original, the original screenwriter got a credit, even though he's been dead for 8 years. What's the point? Some dirty jokes?

 

Billy Bob Thorton`s Bad Santa humor works really well,but I think it`ll probably Bad Santa becomes a Baseball coach...

 

are you kidding? Bad News Bears was a great movie!

 

I actually went and saw the remake of the Bad News Bears last night, i remember watching he old one when i was kid. It was really funny, if you like potty mouth kids, billy bob thorton and fights. I loved it

 

I saw it today,it was so-so they don`t do anything new with the baseball movie,it had funny momments but they were few and far between,and it was really predictable,if you want a great Thorton comedy see Bad Santa.

 

Its a good movie, too. Has anyone noticed that these remakes for the most part are getting very good treatment. The question still begs why there are so many. Even a lack of originality in the film industry, particularly the studio part of it, shouldnt generate this many remakes.

 

I'm sorry to say that I feel that Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was just made to capitolize on the popularity of Johnny Depp and the Wonka-related stuff at Hot Topic stores.
I feel like I'm the only person on Earth that dislikes Johnny Depp as an actor.

Feel free to flame me now.

 

Tim Burton is a huge fan of Roald Dahl.