Question:
Link.....http://www.teletext.co.uk/bigscreen/newsstory.asp?intarticleid=71322&intsubsectionid=7
Why :confused: :oh-hum:
Originally posted by jonathan.e
Why :confused: :oh-hum:
Seconded. Incidentally I'm selling the R1 original for £8 if anyone wants?
More corporate crap, but hey, it'll make a few bob. :zzz:
Why try something new when you can just rebadge and rehash a classic and make money?
This isn't the first and certainly won't be the last. Mind you, if people pay to see them, then they'll just keep on making them! :(
I'll vote with my absence on this one i think.
Incidentally as I recall, the original did very brisk business when re-released in cinemas after being unavailable for many years at Sinatra’s insistence proving audiences will turn out just as enthusiastically for a quality original as for some half-assed remake. It’s so much a product of it’s time and the Cold War that unless the re-make is a period piece it’ll be totally ridiculous.
Originally posted by jonathan.e
Incidentally as I recall, the original did very brisk business when re-released in cinemas after being unavailable for many years at Sinatra’s insistence proving audiences will turn out just as enthusiastically for a quality original as for some half-assed remake. It’s so much a product of it’s time and the Cold War that unless the re-make is a period piece it’ll be totally ridiculous.
They should extend the ending and have Janet Leigh be Sinatra's controller.
Why are they remaking all my favorite films!?! First Solaris and Failan (probably), now this. What's next, A Clockwork Orange starring Matthew McConaughey as Alex or 2001 with Alan Kalter as HAL?!?
All this remaking makes me wanna puke :mad:
Originally posted by jonathan.e
Why :confused: :oh-hum:
Why not ?
It's hardly a new phenomenon as the film companies have been re-making & re-re-making films ever since the birth of cinema.
Of course the probability is that the newer version will be a load of crap but I'll defer my opinion until the re-make(s) in question have actually been made & can be compared to the originals.
For example just imagine if someone had posted this in 1994/95 ....
"Michael Mann is about to re-make 'L.A. Takedown' :mad: "
:)
Also the rumours are that Tom Cruise own company is doing a remake of War of the worlds and maybe himself starring in it ! And Westworld remake with Arnold Schwarzenegger.
EDIT make that another WOTW made by Pendragons pictures
Originally posted by RDNZL
Why not ?
Because the original is "classic". Not a word to be bandied about lightly but appropriate in this case just as it is with others. I had the same reaction when a possible Citizen Kane remake was rumoured from Ridley Scott.
Originally posted by RDNZL
"Michael Mann is about to re-make 'L.A. Takedown' :mad: "
:)
Difference being LA Takedown is/was a poor, cheap TV movie.
Some things are perfect as they are although in the end it’s the remakes that come off worse as they can’t compare to the originals.
Name me some recent successful and acclaimed remakes of "classic" originals.
Difference being LA Takedown is/was a poor, cheap TV movie
And, more pertinently, LA Takedown was Michael Mann's own dry-run for Heat
I know :)
So do I - I was just using it as extreme example to make my point
:p :D
But one person's "poor, cheap TV movie" is another person's classic - it's only an opinion after all (btw I think L.A. Takedown is crap too but there you go ;) )
Here are some remakes (off the top of my head) that I don't think are too shabby .......
The Bounty (1984)
The Front Page (1974)
No Way Out (1987)
The Postman Always Rings Twice (1981)
Invasion Of The Body Snatchers (1978)
Evil Dead II (1987) ;)
The Fly (1986)
Scarface (1983)
Saw this again last night and it's not bad at all. Anyone else go courtesy of Radio1?
I went courtesy of the BBC Film 04 show. I thought it was ok, it just wasn't sinister enough for my liking. I would have prefered the paranoia level to have been cranked up, and for the Manchurian Corp to have been faceless. The themes of big business and goverment in bed together via all manner of corruption and shady occurrences is certainly interesting enough (especially in the current climate), it was all just a bit routine.
It was raised above average by good perfomances from Denzel and Liev Shreiber. I couldn't make up my mind if Meryl Streep was good, or poor (she hammed it up massively, it was a good Glenn Close impression really, I think her performance might have been more effective if she was more icey rather than just portraying a bitch) - I will give her the benefit of the doubt and say she was good though. :)
I saw it last night too. It was alright, would have felt slightly miffed if I'd paid to see it. It's nicely uncomfortable viewing in places, but it's almost like they tried to pack in too many ideas and spread them too thin. I think the way they managed to make it feel relevant to the current political situation was clever, BUT it'll date the film very very quickly. It's also guilty of over-explaining some things, and under-explaining others.
I'll disagree with Tob though, I thought Streep was hammy and over-acted almost every time she was on screen. One particular early scene has her chewing the scenary so much that it raised titters amongst the audience in the cinema - and I don't think it was intended to be amusing! It did seem like she was trying to impersonate Glen Close though.
I'd agree that it was all a bit routine though. Whilst unsettling early on, it then became somewhat formulaic, and didn't explore the darker themes it promised. Jeffrey Wright is woefully under-used too. The final third of the film doesn't rack up the tension enough, is guilty of not resolving things satisfactorily and also had what I thought was a major continuity error : When Denzel is shot at the end of the film, I could have sworn that the bullet hole was in his chest, over his heart. Then, we see him later with his left arm in a sling. Am I going mad? .
Despite my complaints, it's not a bad film. Just a mediocre one. Not a keeper.
I saw it too, Bill Carr, I could have sworn the show was aimed at his shoulder so he didn't die. That's where I saw it go anyway :shrug:
I'm hoping this remake will be an improvement over the dreadfully dreary and hopelessly dated original. I couldn't sell it on fast enough!
I'm hoping this remake will be an improvement over the dreadfully dreary and hopelessly dated original. I couldn't sell it on fast enough!
saw the original about 15 years ago, and remembering that I wasn't particularly impressed - perhaps it requires another viewing
saw the remake last night, and thought it was good, enjoyable hokum
Well just got back from it and thoroughly enjoyed it. For Manchurian Global read Haliburton perchance?
Streep was very good, although her relationship with her son was creepy to say the least!
I'm hoping this remake will be an improvement over the dreadfully dreary and hopelessly dated original. I couldn't sell it on fast enough!
Woof. Sacrilege. The only thing that's poor about the original is Lawrence Harvey's performance, imho, which I always hated.
PLUS: it has Sinatra and HENRY SILVA having a "karate fight".
Words do not have the power to express...
*cough* (http://Here.com/forums/showthread.php?t=294076) *cough* (http://Here.com/forums/showthread.php?t=308477)
(Not at all bitter that my thread got locked. No sirree!) ;)
Well just got back from it and thoroughly enjoyed it. For Manchurian Global read Haliburton perchance?
Streep was very good, although her relationship with her son was creepy to say the least!
I thought Angela Landsbury was considerably better in the original and the relationship was more creepy as well. Streep as so often, is rather mannered and obvious in her approach.
The original was a genuine classic, the remake just is a slightly better than average thriller.
I have the original, yet to watch it...But saw the remake, thought the ending was a huge letdown...typical Hollywood!!!
As a huge fan of the original film - and the novel - I wasn't expecting a great deal from the remake. But I thought it was pretty good for the first ninety minutes before making a complete mess of the climax. Liev Schreiber was an improvement on Lawrence Harvey though and Denzel Washington is always very watchable. As for Streep, she went wildly over the top but then so did Angela Lansbury. I don't know how you could play the part as conceived without going over the top. She was entertainingly hammy and that's exactly what I expected her to be.
As a huge fan of the original film - and the novel - I wasn't expecting a great deal from the remake. But I thought it was pretty good for the first ninety minutes before making a complete mess of the climax. Liev Schreiber was an improvement on Lawrence Harvey though and Denzel Washington is always very watchable. As for Streep, she went wildly over the top but then so did Angela Lansbury. I don't know how you could play the part as conceived without going over the top. She was entertainingly hammy and that's exactly what I expected her to be.
My thoughts almost exactly :) I only found the last 10 minutes or so disapointing; the ending was far too neat for my likeing (although I thought it was a nice twist changing which character was the assassin), didn't buy the scene on the beach at all though. Overall not a disgrace by any standards, though it did seem to owe as much to the Watergate-era thrillers (The Parallax View, The Conversation etc) as it did to Frankenhiemer's original.
Couldn't see the point of it really. There was every opportunity to keep it as topical as the original, but it just lacked fire. Compare the scene from both where the brainwashed soldiers are asked to kill their buddies. Filming it like a dream sequence in the remake removed the edge from the scene entirely. Schrieber was the only improvement on the original and Demme seems incapable of making a decent film these days.
Jeffrey Wright looked like he was going to be man of the match but was subbed after 10 minutes. Was this Meryl Streep wielding her power after he acted her off the screen in Angels In America?
A bit disappointed really. The trailer seemed to indicate a film with a lot of tense moments, but the film seemed to amble along. The tension built up in a scene, then dissipated. Lame ending too. I expected Streep to get killed, but got a bogof! Also don't believe that Hallib..er Manchurian would collapse so easily.
Pretty much agree with everybody else on this - showed some promise, but soon became highly predictable and hum-drum. If this is the best anti-establishment stuff Hollywood can put out post-9/11 then we lost more than a tourist attraction and a few bankers that day.
thought it was pretty good, but lacking that special "something" lol
The king of the very bad remake has done it again: taken a classic and fairly butchered it. How this man keeps working is a miracle; all his films and especially Silence of the Lambs have been bad. He has conjured such a convoluted plot, with the always good Denzel Washington playing a character that is wholly inconsistent. Frank Sinatra's character in the original had authority, and brains; this guy wanders around, doing stupid things and really should have been bumped off in the first half hour. So obvious was his movements that the baddies would have had no problem killing him and getting away with it. But they let him live, and the filmmakers think that with one line they have justified this decision. I could go on but it really is pointless as the loopholes in the plot are so many, for instance: one minute both Denzel and Liev are brainwashed automatons, then the next the can override this; how we do not know.
Why are they remaking all my favorite films!?! First Solaris and Failan (probably), now this. What's next, A Clockwork Orange starring Matthew McConaughey as Alex or 2001 with Alan Kalter as HAL?!?
All this remaking makes me wanna puke :mad:
I would like to think that the Manchurian Candidate was not a remake but a "rework" of the novell.....
:thumbs: As a huge fan of the original film - and the novel - I wasn't expecting a great deal from the remake. But I thought it was pretty good for the first ninety minutes before making a complete mess of the climax. Liev Schreiber was an improvement on Lawrence Harvey though and Denzel Washington is always very watchable. As for Streep, she went wildly over the top but then so did Angela Lansbury. I don't know how you could play the part as conceived without going over the top. She was entertainingly hammy and that's exactly what I expected her to be.
:thumbs:
Also the rumours are that Tom Cruise own company is doing a remake of War of the worlds and maybe himself starring in it ! And Westworld remake with Arnold Schwarzenegger.
EDIT make that another WOTW made by Pendragons pictures
It's no rumour, they're already filiming and it'll be released summer 2005. Directed by Speilberg.
http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/waroftheworlds/
"Michael Mann is about to re-make 'L.A. Takedown' :mad: "
:)
:doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: "Heat" is the remake of 'L.A. Takedown' :thinking: :?:
well spotted :doh:
Answers:
Why :confused: :oh-hum:
Answers:
Originally posted by jonathan.e
Why :confused: :oh-hum:
Seconded. Incidentally I'm selling the R1 original for £8 if anyone wants?
Answers:
More corporate crap, but hey, it'll make a few bob. :zzz:
Why try something new when you can just rebadge and rehash a classic and make money?
This isn't the first and certainly won't be the last. Mind you, if people pay to see them, then they'll just keep on making them! :(
I'll vote with my absence on this one i think.
Answers:
Incidentally as I recall, the original did very brisk business when re-released in cinemas after being unavailable for many years at Sinatra’s insistence proving audiences will turn out just as enthusiastically for a quality original as for some half-assed remake. It’s so much a product of it’s time and the Cold War that unless the re-make is a period piece it’ll be totally ridiculous.
Answers:
Originally posted by jonathan.e
Incidentally as I recall, the original did very brisk business when re-released in cinemas after being unavailable for many years at Sinatra’s insistence proving audiences will turn out just as enthusiastically for a quality original as for some half-assed remake. It’s so much a product of it’s time and the Cold War that unless the re-make is a period piece it’ll be totally ridiculous.
They should extend the ending and have Janet Leigh be Sinatra's controller.
Answers:
Why are they remaking all my favorite films!?! First Solaris and Failan (probably), now this. What's next, A Clockwork Orange starring Matthew McConaughey as Alex or 2001 with Alan Kalter as HAL?!?
All this remaking makes me wanna puke :mad:
Answers:
Originally posted by jonathan.e
Why :confused: :oh-hum:
Why not ?
It's hardly a new phenomenon as the film companies have been re-making & re-re-making films ever since the birth of cinema.
Of course the probability is that the newer version will be a load of crap but I'll defer my opinion until the re-make(s) in question have actually been made & can be compared to the originals.
For example just imagine if someone had posted this in 1994/95 ....
"Michael Mann is about to re-make 'L.A. Takedown' :mad: "
:)
Answers:
Also the rumours are that Tom Cruise own company is doing a remake of War of the worlds and maybe himself starring in it ! And Westworld remake with Arnold Schwarzenegger.
EDIT make that another WOTW made by Pendragons pictures
Answers:
Originally posted by RDNZL
Why not ?
Because the original is "classic". Not a word to be bandied about lightly but appropriate in this case just as it is with others. I had the same reaction when a possible Citizen Kane remake was rumoured from Ridley Scott.
Originally posted by RDNZL
"Michael Mann is about to re-make 'L.A. Takedown' :mad: "
:)
Difference being LA Takedown is/was a poor, cheap TV movie.
Some things are perfect as they are although in the end it’s the remakes that come off worse as they can’t compare to the originals.
Name me some recent successful and acclaimed remakes of "classic" originals.
Answers:
Difference being LA Takedown is/was a poor, cheap TV movie
And, more pertinently, LA Takedown was Michael Mann's own dry-run for Heat
Answers:
I know :)
Answers:
So do I - I was just using it as extreme example to make my point
:p :D
But one person's "poor, cheap TV movie" is another person's classic - it's only an opinion after all (btw I think L.A. Takedown is crap too but there you go ;) )
Here are some remakes (off the top of my head) that I don't think are too shabby .......
The Bounty (1984)
The Front Page (1974)
No Way Out (1987)
The Postman Always Rings Twice (1981)
Invasion Of The Body Snatchers (1978)
Evil Dead II (1987) ;)
The Fly (1986)
Scarface (1983)
Answers:
Saw this again last night and it's not bad at all. Anyone else go courtesy of Radio1?
Answers:
I went courtesy of the BBC Film 04 show. I thought it was ok, it just wasn't sinister enough for my liking. I would have prefered the paranoia level to have been cranked up, and for the Manchurian Corp to have been faceless. The themes of big business and goverment in bed together via all manner of corruption and shady occurrences is certainly interesting enough (especially in the current climate), it was all just a bit routine.
It was raised above average by good perfomances from Denzel and Liev Shreiber. I couldn't make up my mind if Meryl Streep was good, or poor (she hammed it up massively, it was a good Glenn Close impression really, I think her performance might have been more effective if she was more icey rather than just portraying a bitch) - I will give her the benefit of the doubt and say she was good though. :)
Answers:
I saw it last night too. It was alright, would have felt slightly miffed if I'd paid to see it. It's nicely uncomfortable viewing in places, but it's almost like they tried to pack in too many ideas and spread them too thin. I think the way they managed to make it feel relevant to the current political situation was clever, BUT it'll date the film very very quickly. It's also guilty of over-explaining some things, and under-explaining others.
I'll disagree with Tob though, I thought Streep was hammy and over-acted almost every time she was on screen. One particular early scene has her chewing the scenary so much that it raised titters amongst the audience in the cinema - and I don't think it was intended to be amusing! It did seem like she was trying to impersonate Glen Close though.
I'd agree that it was all a bit routine though. Whilst unsettling early on, it then became somewhat formulaic, and didn't explore the darker themes it promised. Jeffrey Wright is woefully under-used too. The final third of the film doesn't rack up the tension enough, is guilty of not resolving things satisfactorily and also had what I thought was a major continuity error : When Denzel is shot at the end of the film, I could have sworn that the bullet hole was in his chest, over his heart. Then, we see him later with his left arm in a sling. Am I going mad? .
Despite my complaints, it's not a bad film. Just a mediocre one. Not a keeper.
Answers:
I saw it too, Bill Carr, I could have sworn the show was aimed at his shoulder so he didn't die. That's where I saw it go anyway :shrug:
Answers:
I'm hoping this remake will be an improvement over the dreadfully dreary and hopelessly dated original. I couldn't sell it on fast enough!
Answers:
I'm hoping this remake will be an improvement over the dreadfully dreary and hopelessly dated original. I couldn't sell it on fast enough!
saw the original about 15 years ago, and remembering that I wasn't particularly impressed - perhaps it requires another viewing
saw the remake last night, and thought it was good, enjoyable hokum
Answers:
Well just got back from it and thoroughly enjoyed it. For Manchurian Global read Haliburton perchance?
Streep was very good, although her relationship with her son was creepy to say the least!
Answers:
I'm hoping this remake will be an improvement over the dreadfully dreary and hopelessly dated original. I couldn't sell it on fast enough!
Woof. Sacrilege. The only thing that's poor about the original is Lawrence Harvey's performance, imho, which I always hated.
PLUS: it has Sinatra and HENRY SILVA having a "karate fight".
Words do not have the power to express...
Answers:
*cough* (http://Here.com/forums/showthread.php?t=294076) *cough* (http://Here.com/forums/showthread.php?t=308477)
(Not at all bitter that my thread got locked. No sirree!) ;)
Answers:
Well just got back from it and thoroughly enjoyed it. For Manchurian Global read Haliburton perchance?
Streep was very good, although her relationship with her son was creepy to say the least!
I thought Angela Landsbury was considerably better in the original and the relationship was more creepy as well. Streep as so often, is rather mannered and obvious in her approach.
The original was a genuine classic, the remake just is a slightly better than average thriller.
Answers:
I have the original, yet to watch it...But saw the remake, thought the ending was a huge letdown...typical Hollywood!!!
Answers:
As a huge fan of the original film - and the novel - I wasn't expecting a great deal from the remake. But I thought it was pretty good for the first ninety minutes before making a complete mess of the climax. Liev Schreiber was an improvement on Lawrence Harvey though and Denzel Washington is always very watchable. As for Streep, she went wildly over the top but then so did Angela Lansbury. I don't know how you could play the part as conceived without going over the top. She was entertainingly hammy and that's exactly what I expected her to be.
Answers:
As a huge fan of the original film - and the novel - I wasn't expecting a great deal from the remake. But I thought it was pretty good for the first ninety minutes before making a complete mess of the climax. Liev Schreiber was an improvement on Lawrence Harvey though and Denzel Washington is always very watchable. As for Streep, she went wildly over the top but then so did Angela Lansbury. I don't know how you could play the part as conceived without going over the top. She was entertainingly hammy and that's exactly what I expected her to be.
My thoughts almost exactly :) I only found the last 10 minutes or so disapointing; the ending was far too neat for my likeing (although I thought it was a nice twist changing which character was the assassin), didn't buy the scene on the beach at all though. Overall not a disgrace by any standards, though it did seem to owe as much to the Watergate-era thrillers (The Parallax View, The Conversation etc) as it did to Frankenhiemer's original.
Answers:
Couldn't see the point of it really. There was every opportunity to keep it as topical as the original, but it just lacked fire. Compare the scene from both where the brainwashed soldiers are asked to kill their buddies. Filming it like a dream sequence in the remake removed the edge from the scene entirely. Schrieber was the only improvement on the original and Demme seems incapable of making a decent film these days.
Jeffrey Wright looked like he was going to be man of the match but was subbed after 10 minutes. Was this Meryl Streep wielding her power after he acted her off the screen in Angels In America?
Answers:
A bit disappointed really. The trailer seemed to indicate a film with a lot of tense moments, but the film seemed to amble along. The tension built up in a scene, then dissipated. Lame ending too. I expected Streep to get killed, but got a bogof! Also don't believe that Hallib..er Manchurian would collapse so easily.
Answers:
Pretty much agree with everybody else on this - showed some promise, but soon became highly predictable and hum-drum. If this is the best anti-establishment stuff Hollywood can put out post-9/11 then we lost more than a tourist attraction and a few bankers that day.
Answers:
thought it was pretty good, but lacking that special "something" lol
Answers:
The king of the very bad remake has done it again: taken a classic and fairly butchered it. How this man keeps working is a miracle; all his films and especially Silence of the Lambs have been bad. He has conjured such a convoluted plot, with the always good Denzel Washington playing a character that is wholly inconsistent. Frank Sinatra's character in the original had authority, and brains; this guy wanders around, doing stupid things and really should have been bumped off in the first half hour. So obvious was his movements that the baddies would have had no problem killing him and getting away with it. But they let him live, and the filmmakers think that with one line they have justified this decision. I could go on but it really is pointless as the loopholes in the plot are so many, for instance: one minute both Denzel and Liev are brainwashed automatons, then the next the can override this; how we do not know.
Answers:
Why are they remaking all my favorite films!?! First Solaris and Failan (probably), now this. What's next, A Clockwork Orange starring Matthew McConaughey as Alex or 2001 with Alan Kalter as HAL?!?
All this remaking makes me wanna puke :mad:
I would like to think that the Manchurian Candidate was not a remake but a "rework" of the novell.....
Answers:
:thumbs: As a huge fan of the original film - and the novel - I wasn't expecting a great deal from the remake. But I thought it was pretty good for the first ninety minutes before making a complete mess of the climax. Liev Schreiber was an improvement on Lawrence Harvey though and Denzel Washington is always very watchable. As for Streep, she went wildly over the top but then so did Angela Lansbury. I don't know how you could play the part as conceived without going over the top. She was entertainingly hammy and that's exactly what I expected her to be.
:thumbs:
Answers:
Also the rumours are that Tom Cruise own company is doing a remake of War of the worlds and maybe himself starring in it ! And Westworld remake with Arnold Schwarzenegger.
EDIT make that another WOTW made by Pendragons pictures
It's no rumour, they're already filiming and it'll be released summer 2005. Directed by Speilberg.
http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/waroftheworlds/
Answers:
"Michael Mann is about to re-make 'L.A. Takedown' :mad: "
:)
:doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: "Heat" is the remake of 'L.A. Takedown' :thinking: :?:
Answers:
well spotted :doh:
1 2