Remakes, reinterpretations and other excuses for laziness
I was reading another blog randomly the other day (there is a link on my shiny new 'matts approved blogs' bit! the last one I think) and read that she had watched Alfie, starring Jude Law. Now often it doesn't take much to get me going, and this is one of my pet hates. People remaking already perfect pieces of work. Why? 'I wanted to pay tribute.....', 'I thought it was time for a modernisation....', 'It's a homage to the original......', 'I wanted to bring this work to a new generation......', 'blahblahblahblah.....'.
Bollox. You're a lazy talentless gimp who is out for a quick buck. You've got a guaranteed market with a well known brand, you don't need to employ anyone with talent to write the thing because it's already done. All you need is someone pretty in your remake and Presto, new film and you can afford your new Sculpted Gold Hatstand.
If they really want to update films and make them better. Pick a crap film and do some bloody work! Don't remake get Carter, it's already ace and since when does Sly know the first thing about acting? Don't remake Alfie because, well just don't! Don't remake the Lady Killers with Tom bloody Hanks because it's just embarassing when you compare it to the sublimely funny original! Don't even get me started on the Italian Job, Roller Ball and several other now massacred classics.
Here's a thing you may disagree with but I can prove it. Hollywood hasn't had an original idea in about 40 years, virtually everything that comes out is a remake of something or based on someone elses written work. No one has written a new film for as long as I can remember. Now that's just me ranting and it's possible I may be wrong, but right now I can't think of a single original concept. Please submit suggestions if you think of somehting. Even the Magnificent Seven is nicked. The Matrix? nicked. Sixth Sense? nicked. How do they get away with it? Few people are open minded enough to watch films with subtitles and that's where the ideas come from, places other than the States.
*[note]Actually that's unfair, there are some excellent film makers over there, they just don't get the exposure they should. Except for Tim Burton who does rock.*[/note]
I just watched an awesome Korean film called Old Boy. Violent, Disturbing but sometimes funny. It is beautifully shot, I have yet to see a hollywood picture with camera work like you find on Japanese and Korean productions. The corridor fight scene is continuous, rolling and beautifully done. Give it a few years and Hollywood will do to this amazing piece of work what they did to the Ring.
I could go on about how many other foreign films genuinely deliver. The original Taxi (not the Queen Latifa abomination) is a hilarious French Film, Delicatessen is another great French film. Life is Beautiful is an outstanding and touching film from Italy* . The list is endless but, unfortunately, most people are unaware of these films and if they see them at all it's only because of the inevitable, soulless and vastly inferior Hollywood remake.
Now I know I come across as totally anti-American film here but I can assure you I am not. I enjoy huge epic productions like LOTR, and the more common brain out- popcorn in film. I just wish they would leave well enough alone and turn their 'remaking' urges onto crap films. Let's see if someone can turn Piranha 2 into a good film shall we? That I would pay to see, and would acknowledge genuine talent if it was achieved.
A good example of how this can be done is the recent release of the Amytiville Horror, it was awesome. Ryan Reynolds, who I previously did not rate due to the awful Blade 3, delivers an outstanding Psycho. The original film was OK. Not good, not awful. So remake it, see if I care. I ranted before going but I can admit when i am wrong. You see? Take a bad or average film and make it great and I don't object!
This is taking longer than I thought so I will deal with the Hollywood tendancy to rewrite history and pass it off as fact another time. Pretty much anything recent (ie last 10 years!lol!) involving Mel 'Psycho, Anti-Semetic, Christian Supremacist' Gibson. Actually anything that they say is 'historical', I can assure you almost certainly isn't
[/rant]
*Won an Oscar I believe, not that they count for anything, just look at Titanic - or rather don't, you'll be ill.
8 comments:
OK just checked IMDb, was sure there was some failed attempt at lock Stock. I had an idea Cruise was in it, and have stumbled across anotehr travesty in the making. They have announced production of DeathRace 3000. Now The original DeathRace 2000 is awesome. Stallone gets his arse whoopped and David Carredine in it. It's also a ridiculous caricature and the acting is truly awful! It's great! Cruise is producing so it will be something entirely serious and action packed. to be fair it won't be bad, just another action flick, I just wish, as you say, they would change the Title and names.
You are right to an extent with DeathRace. I just balk at the idea that they can replace David Carredeine with anyone. Ever. I just think a lot of the tongue in cheek humour and just general dodginess of the original will be totally lost in a cruise-ified remake.
I thought Lord of the Rings was a predominantly New Zeland-made film. there's only about three American actors in the whole thing. I think LOTR is interesting in that its one of those films that has been tried and failed more times than you'd think possible--it was just too huge an endeavor for your average director. though production was usually ended by budget constraints, frequently it was stopped by the sheer time commitment and amount of tech necessary for success. i know Industrial Light and Magic helped out a fair deal, as well as several Macintosh-based animation programs (Gollum was Made on a Mac) but i think the production company was from Down Under.
Absolutely but it's still a Hollywood film in the sense all the cash came from New Line Cinema. I loved LOTR the movies, I thought they captured the spirit of the books perfectly. OK Liv Tylers' character should nly appear twice. At the beginning of the first film and the end of the last, but I'm guessing either Peter jackson really fancied her or was being cnsiderate and putting her in so we could have Toilet breaks at regular intervals. There were bits missing sure, but who wants Tom Bombadil anyway? A more pointless piece of text I have yet to read, particularly in an otherwise stunning book!
I knew soemone would raise the point of Stories and Plays and am fully prepared for it. Here's the difference and it is a major one. If a retelling of a classic story fails to capture the spirit and meaning of the original, it fails because A play and a Story by their very definition rely entirely on the quality of writing and the power of the delivery.
Films differ hugely, often wrapping products of Satans Own Arse in flashy lights and special effects and slapping a name of a work it bears only a paasing resemblance too as on it as a Title.
Look at I, Robot. Isaac Asimovs vision of a future of a twisted culture in which resides a Resentment of Automatons with the shadow of oouter Human Colonies living in prosperity. The book raises questions, both ethical and moral while managing to tell an engrossing and well written Story.
The film? A wise-cracking Wil Smith defeats the Evil Menace while coming to terms with his Naughty prejudice against robots. Said Robot finds a soul. It's like a crap version of AI, an already terrible film. If I wanted to watch pinnochio I would OK?
My point will be proven beyond all doubt when they remake Old Boy and change the story just enough to remove the fact that it does disturb, and is therefore unpallitabkle for their FastFood audience.
I hope your not suggesting the Knights Templar are made up matey, my friend with a History masters may differ with you there! lol!
Watch this space for the Historadramas of Hollywood. ;-)
Who's an English student? Has the last 5 years been a cunning facade masking your true vocation
I watched Alfie, didn't say I liked it, but anyway, hope you enjoyed your rant.
I don't rant often, and certainly not about movies (I bet it's a guy thing). Sometimes I watch a movie just for the hell of it.
The first movie I remember wanting to walk out of was Sphere. Did you get started again?
Hey, I watch movies just for the hell of it too, but if somegenetic defect makes afilm then calls it something it isn't I am going to get right up on Mr High Horse! lol! Look at it this way, if you order Chateaubriand froma restaurant and get half-cooked Tesco value sausages in gravy, you are going to say something right?
Yes I did enjoy my rant, it was great thankyou! ;-) Did I get started on what again? Another rant? watch this space...............
Post a Comment