I'm a huge film fan and will watch pretty much any type of film, from Martial Arts to Westerns, from Romances [though I don't really like Romcoms!]] to Historical Epics.
Why do it? Haneke apparently always wanted the original Funny Games to be an English language film. Which one is better? Well, it turned out quite a lot of people had indeed watched the Austrian original, and so didn’t bother with this one. Why do it? The technology available to DeMille in the 50s was light-years ahead of what he had the first time around. Which one is better? For all the remake's grandiosity, and the fact that it most likely is the The Ten Commandments you think of when someone mentions the film, I’ll have to say that what Cecil B Demille achieved in the 20s is nothing short of breathtaking. Why do it? While Hitch in the 30s was a great filmmaker, Hitch in the 50s was an astounding one. What’s different? The entire narrative structure is far more logical in the remake – it’s less a series of loosely connected hauntings, than Sarah Michelle Gellar’s fight to discover why this is happening to her.
Why do it? Sluizer’s original Dutch film was hailed as a masterpiece in some quarters – the tale of a man who spends years hunting for answers after his girlfriend is kidnapped, only to come to the attention of the kidnapper himself, is a dark and stark portrayal of obsession and the nature of evil. What’s different? Again, one is a dark and stark portrayal of obsession and the nature of evil. Which one is better? Just don’t even bother with the remake, even if it does feature Kiefer Sutherland and Sandra Bullock. Why do it? Nattevagten was an underground cult hit about a uni student taking a night janitor’s job.
Which one is better? It depends on who you’d prefer in your film – a young Sofie Grabol (from The Killing), a very young Nikolaj Coster-Waldau (from Game Of Thrones), or fresh from Trainspotting Ewan McGregor, plus a mental Nick Nolte.
Why do it? The Pang Brothers went on to direct horror franchise The Eye, but this was their original mega-smash. What’s different? Evil Dead II is far less of a straight horror than the original, and instead a comedy-horror, which is what people now associate with the first Evil Dead trilogy.
Of course, many filmmakers get their big break from remaking some of their earlier short-film work.
Here are some other stories that have been remade at least three times: Sweeney Todd (five times since the 1936), Anna and the King, Great Expectations, The Front Page, The Hunchbank of Notre Dame, and The Most Dangerous Game. So are we done?  Is story important, but storytelling paramount for how we react to a film?  Not necessarily.  I think that there is a more complete answer when it comes to big-budget animated features.
This entry was posted Friday, March 12th, 2010 at 9:23 pmand is filed under Animation, Story. I had some thoughts like this not long ago, and your argument definitely confirms it for me. In my humble opinion, story and story telling are huge factors, but great movies also have to appeal, and have appeal for audiences. Film is kind of a way to joining a group of people who are more attractive, and live a more interesting life then you.
Speaking of storytelling, which you were defining as getting all the pieces working together.
The story is basically the same, but it’s the way Mann approaches the material that makes you realise this is a director who’s come a long way in six years. Its themes of screen violence impacting real life resonate more with an American audience, and the tone is much more in the same vein as American indie directors working at that time. Which is a shame in some ways, because Michael Pitt is glorious in his lead psycho role, but ultimately the remake feels entirely redundant. Colour and sound had both become available, but better cameras, higher resolution, and the mighty VistaVision were all new introductions.


Over 100 minutes longer, he also packs in larger and more impressive set-pieces, gives the film over to mega-stars such as Charlton Heston rather than just actors (since the Paramount Decree of 1949 star power had gone stratospheric), and laid down the marker yet again for all other filmmakers.
Film form as we know had only really been defined seven years earlier, and only invented less than 30 years before, so to create an epic as we know and understand it today in that time is nothing short of monumental.
She is the main thread the new film revolves around, and there are even various sub-plots for her character. The original mixes up traditional film form and is more like a short story anthology than anything us Western audiences are used to. It had credibility, a certain Euro-cool, and by remaking it, it seemed like Hollywood could compete with the Miramax-inspired indie revolution at the time. The other is a Hollywood film in which goodies fight baddies, and there is a mystery to be solved, and not just pored over to an unrelenting ending. It played well on initial release, and garnered a fair bit of praise, but crucially didn’t break through. What do you do if you’ve made a universally-acclaimed Sundance Grand Jury prize winning debut feature?
Nicolas Cage’s production company duly took note, and bought the rights in order to give Cage a new action vehicle. Made on a miniscule budget, Raimi’s film helped redefine horror for a new generation, shook up traditional filmmaking techniques, and made home video a viable market for film releases. Raimi and Bruce Campbell’s greater experience allows them to be a bit looser with their characters, and you can tell that this isn’t so much of a re-tread as the filmmakers getting things perfect this time round while still expanding upon their original mythos. But rather than a full-on remake this is more the director getting the chance to showcase their promise on a far larger scale, or revisiting a previous beloved calling card. It really is true that there’s no such thing as a bad idea, only bad exexution of an idea. And I think we are defining a great movie as one that sticks with you and becomes part of you. He made the great point about the light saber fights were cool largely because what they meant to the characters.
You are the invisible mute friend running along beside them throughout all their adventures. The excellent 2008 Swedish vampire tale, which has already been remade once as the surprisingly good US picture Let Me In, is being remade yet again, joining the likes of Rush Hour, Problem Child, Uncle Buck, The Returned and other films which for some reason are deemed fit for a TV series. However,ever since I was a kid, sneaking downstairs when my parents had gone to bed to watch old Universal and Hammer horror movies, I've always been especially fascinated by horror, and though I enjoy all types of horror films, those Golden Oldies with people like Boris Karloff and Christopher Lee probably remain my favourites.
Perhaps they weren’t happy with the first effort, or perhaps they’ve been offered more money, or the chance to reach a different (American) audience. Heat was a mega-budgeted Hollywood crime epic which brought together Pacino and De Niro while they were still at the height of their powers. Haneke decided to make this a shot for shot remake of his original film, except this time set in the USA. The setting and characters are American, the film is in glorious Technicolor, and the length is much, much greater – the original was a sprightly 75 minutes, while the remake runs at a sometimes sluggish 120 minutes. The first film is of a director feeling his way, and is a bit rough around the edges in part.
Speaking of endings, this is the classic case of changing one which is powerful and perfect, to one which is not so good.
Perfect for the Weinsteins, who swept in and hired Bornedal to do it all again – but this time in English. They’re both atmospheric in the same way, both play out in similar terms of story, and both have the same set-pieces.


But while it seemed a no-brainer that he would follow it up on an increased budget, and for a wider release next time round, it wasn’t until the failure of Crimewave that the idea began to gain ground. Evil Dead II is the film you wish you could make, while Evil Dead is the film you think you might be able to make (if you were a genius). Tokyo Godfathers, a Japanese anime film, came out a year later, and made it five times for the same basic story. But thinking back on that kind of film, what floats up to me is resonant scenes, which are usually resonant because of what the characters feel about them. A&E, currently riding high with Bates Motel, won the rights to the property after a bidding war with Showtime. That's not to say I don't enjoy a bit of blood and gore every now and again though, and am also a huge fan of Italian horror, I just love the style.
LA Takedown is a far leaner film in many respects, but Heat has the gravitas, the character development, and also a slightly different ending (no spoilers here though). We also get the Oscar winning song Que Sera Sera from lead Doris Day, a suitably charming lead role from Jimmy Stewart in place of the more buttoned up turn from Leslie Banks, and a change of setting from Switzerland to Morocco.
Stewart and Day handle the tonal changes between suspense and comedy with far more aplomb, but the films length does take away some of the enjoyment. And what better way to lend credibility to the project and convince the potentially sceptical fans of the original that this would be a meaningful remake than hire the original director?
The remake is considered glossier than the original, which in turn has been criticised for its apparent misogyny. Gone is the stark black and white aesthetic and pared-back narrative, replaced instead with bloated motives for everybody. While titled a sequel, it’s most definitely the first film redone on a bigger budget, and designed to relaunch Raimi’s career and remind everyone of his talent.
The overall story was the vehicle for me to connect with the characters, the acting brought out the characters so I emotionally connected with them. Otherwise those theme park rides (where you sit inside a jiggly box and watch a screen tricking you into thinking your on a spaceship saving the world) would be the main source of entertainment. The network is teaming up with Teen Wolf showrunner Jeff Davis and actor-screenwriter Brandon Boyce to adapt the story about about a bullied teen boy who befriends a young female vampire. On the other hand however, The Grudge is actually a bit more scary in a traditional sense than the original, which is a bit more psychological.
There are really no surprises in the remake, and instead you’re given a terrible mirror version where every good choice in the original has been altered for the worse. It also lost most of the elements which made the original engaging, and instead replaced them with a pedestrian plot and leaden direction. Reflecting back on a movie is kind of like remembering a fun summer at camp, it’s like a big amourphous blob of fun feelings and if you look carefully memories of specific events (scenes) where you were having fun with your friends surface. The series will follow the boy and female vampire, who lives in secrecy with her mysterious guardian.
When a series of strange murders pops up in their small Vermont town, it attracts the attention of a federal marshal with a mysterious past of his own.



American top 10 movies this week
First aid kits for nurses

Rubric: Solar Flare Survival



Comments

  1. Brat
    For 1 adult your doctor might want the.
  2. 5544
    Also excellent to put some very important things dallas, New Orleans, Tampa, and Washington.