I still believe the 1957 version of 3:10 to Yuma is one of the best westerns on film. It was a lot more atmospheric than the 2007 movie. As for TRUE GRIT, I like Jeff Bridges but he is no DUKE and he was hard to understand in the film.
Also I am a sucker for old movies and I loved the Paul Muni SCARFACE version. Just seeing Boris Karloff bowling is enough to give it a 10.
I liked TRUE GRIT and loved THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN but otherwise I wouldn't give you a bucketful of spit for most of them, including the Oscar-winning THE DEPARTED, a vicious, ugly film.
I guess when it comes to remakes the questions are:
If it was a great movie the first time around, why would you want to remake it?
And:
If it was a mediocre movie the first time around, why would you want to remake it?
I can see the point in remaking foreign films since it's not likely that the originals would have been widely seen. But, to me, that's really a different thing than remaking a movie that was already produced and distributed and seen right here in the USA.
I certainly agree with THE THING, and it answers Deb's question too, the original was a hokey 50s B&W effort, the remake was better written, acted, had special effects and was scary and suspenseful, which was the point and reason enough to make it. Carpenter's THE THING and ALIEN may be the two best scary movies out there.
I am fonder of the original versions of THE THING and SCARFACE than the remakes, but I think that's due more to their charm than any objective critical standard. However, the original SEVEN SAMURAI is a much more rich, complex and exciting film than MAGNIFICENT SEVEN, by any standard. Is it true that it was originally to be called THE MAGNIFICENT EIGHT before jealous co-stars Brynner & McQueen insisted that all Crider's scenes be cut out?
8 comments:
I still believe the 1957 version of 3:10 to Yuma is one of the best westerns on film. It was a lot more atmospheric than the 2007 movie. As for TRUE GRIT, I like Jeff Bridges but he is no DUKE and he was hard to understand in the film.
Also I am a sucker for old movies and I loved the Paul Muni SCARFACE version. Just seeing Boris Karloff bowling is enough to give it a 10.
NO NO NO!!!
They have got to be kidding? SCARFACE?
I liked TRUE GRIT and loved THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN but otherwise I wouldn't give you a bucketful of spit for most of them, including the Oscar-winning THE DEPARTED, a vicious, ugly film.
I guess when it comes to remakes the questions are:
If it was a great movie the first time around, why would you want to remake it?
And:
If it was a mediocre movie the first time around, why would you want to remake it?
I can see the point in remaking foreign films since it's not likely that the originals would have been widely seen. But, to me, that's really a different thing than remaking a movie that was already produced and distributed and seen right here in the USA.
I certainly agree with THE THING, and it answers Deb's question too, the original was a hokey 50s B&W effort, the remake was better written, acted, had special effects and was scary and suspenseful, which was the point and reason enough to make it. Carpenter's THE THING and ALIEN may be the two best scary movies out there.
Among so many omissions, there's the matter of THE MALTESE FALCON....
True. The third FALCON is the one that stuck.
Good point, Todd.
I am fonder of the original versions of THE THING and SCARFACE than the remakes, but I think that's due more to their charm than any objective critical standard. However, the original SEVEN SAMURAI is a much more rich, complex and exciting film than MAGNIFICENT SEVEN, by any standard. Is it true that it was originally to be called THE MAGNIFICENT EIGHT before jealous co-stars Brynner & McQueen insisted that all Crider's scenes be cut out?
Hollywood egos are sad things. I can say no more.
Post a Comment