American remakes of foreign classics

[dave durbin]

What do you think the worst, most pointless remake has been?

1. Sharon Stone's Diabolique

2. Jeff Bridges's The Vanishing

3. Madonna's Swept Away

4. George Clooney's Solaris

5. Roy Scheider's Sorcerer

6. Richard Gere's Unfaithful

7. Naomi Watts's The Ring

8. Meg Ryan's City of Angles

9. Richard Gere's Breathless

10. Bridget Fonda's Point of No Return

11. Tom Cruise's Vanilla Sky

12. Kevin Spacey's K-pax

13. Yul Brynner's The Magnificent Seven

14. Nathan Lane's The Birdcage

15. David Wayne's M

16. Bruce Willis's Last Man Standing

17. Wes Craven's Last House on the Left (a 'loose' remake of Bergman's The Virgin Spring)

18. Hector Elizando's Tortilla Soup

19. Al Pacino's Insomnia

20. Ewan McGregor's Nightwatch

[Perfume V]

Originally posted by dave durbin
What do you think the worst, most pointless remake has been?

1. Sharon Stone's Diabolique

2. Jeff Bridges's The Vanishing

3. Madonna's Swept Away

5. Roy Scheider's Sorcerer

6. Richard Gere's Unfaithful

8. Meg Ryan's City of Angles

9. Richard Gere's Breathless

11. Tom Cruise's Vanilla Sky

All these. :)

Vanilla Sky has perhaps the worst line of dialogue ever written by a 'name' screenwriter - Cameron Diaz barking "I swallowed your cum! That means something!" Yes. Yes it does.

I didn't know there had been a remake of M - the idea alone is staggeringly misguided. I did know that Joel Silver had been touting it as a vehicle for rapper DMX (Exit Wounds), and was laughed out of every studio in town. Yeah, I know. I wish I was joking too.

Pacino's Insomnia I felt was superior to the original. The original suffered from the same problem that Ken Begg detected in The Oscar (not that the original Insomnia was anywhere near that bad, of course!) - there's no-one to root for because the central character is so staggeringly unpleasant, but there's no tragedy to it either, because he started off a jerk and ended up a jerk.

Nolan didn't make many overt changes to the plot (bar the ending), but he successfully changed the entire feel of the whole thing by sucking the spectator into the cop's psychosis rather than forcing them to observe at a distance. If nothing else, it's proof that he has the most 'literary' mind of any name director in America.

Incidentally K-PAX is not a remake, it's an adaptation. I believe there was an Argentinian film with the same basic premise, but it's hardly a new idea anyway. It was bloody awful, though.

[oscar jubis]

I try to approach every movie with an open mind, even American remakes of foreign films. Once in a while, a remake will surprise you, either amplifying meaning by providing a different context or simply by retaining the spirit and conviction of the original. I don't mean to imply that "DOWN AND OUT IN BEVERLY HILLS" is as masterful as Renoir's BOUDU SAVED FROM DROWNING but it manages to generate the same anarchic hilarity . COUSINS is an excellent remake of Tacchella's "Cousin, cousine" with a perfectly cast Isabella Rossellini and Ted Danson(yep). I also like how Christopher Nolan's remake of INSOMNIA made the moral dilemma faced by the cop(Pacino) more palpable and resonant. Finally, what's wrong with "Vanilla Sky" is the over-exposition in the last minutes and my latina sister Cameron Diaz. Overall, I don't think it's a bad movie.

[Perfume V]

Well, in the interest of balance, I'd like to note that America is pretty good at mangling its own classics, too. Who can forget Paul Schrader's version of Cat People? I can't, and I'd bloody well like to.

[miseenscene]

The Trouble With Charlie, anyone?...

Do other nations shamelessly remake our films rather than subtitling them? I think not... Maybe we need to start teaching world film classes in middle school around here, so kids will grow up with an appreciation of more than A Christmas Story...

[Perfume V]

Actually, they do. India at the moment is going through a phase of remaking American films, including one film that's a remake of What Lies Beneath, which was practically a remake of about four Hitchcock films, and was abysmal anyway.

Don't be fooled into thinking that foreign cinema is an ocean of originality. For one thing, the reason why India and America are going so remake crazy at the moment is because they're probably the only countries with film industries lucrative enough to buy the rights. The other factor is that we only get the creme de la creme of foreign films imported to us. There are plenty of underbudgeted rip-offs of whatever's popular out there. Hell, in the Seventies and Eighties, practically the whole of the Italian film industry was dedicated to unofficially remaking Dawn of the Dead...

[miseenscene]

I'm sure there are plenty of worthless foreign films that we're spared, as well as numerous good foreign films that we never get to see. We barely get to see any good American films, the way this distribution system works. But while every nation has it cinematic qualities and flaws, I'd like to think that even if France and Germany, et al, could afford to buy the rights to already-done films, they'd still be able to come up with original ideas. Perhaps the reason we, and India, remake so many films is because we ARE a successful business model (unfortunately, the accent is on "business") and we stay close to the ideas that have been proven to make money. Nations that have yet to have their fortunes altered significantly by films haven't had a reason to rip off the previous successes, either.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by miseenscene
numerous good foreign films that we never get to see. We barely get to see any good American films, the way this distribution system works.
For an excellent description and analysis of how we get screwed:
MOVIE WARS: How Hollywood and the Media Limit What Films We Can See by Jonathan Rosenbaum. An excerpt is available at chireader.com

[Perfume V]

I'm in two minds. On the one hand I suspect if France and Germany suddenly did come into money, they'd buy up as many remake properties as they could get their hands on. On the other hand, is that a bad thing? I'd rather that a remake was given to Patrice Chereau than F Gary Grey.

Case in point: Francoise Ozon's original idea for 8 Women was a remake of the 1939 George Cukor confection The Women, but the rights to that film are currently in the hands of Julia Roberts and Meg Ryan. Well, if I had any say in it, I know who I'd sell them to...

[miseenscene]

Ang Lee? ;)

[Perfume V]

Nah. James Cameron, obviously. ;)

[dave durbin]

Forget you two, how 'bout Brett Ratner? : )

[Perfume V]

See, that's probably going to happen. Ratner's rapidly becoming the Nicole Kidman of the directing world - he seems to be attached to every project going, whether he's right for it or not.

I think it was on fametracker.com where someone suggested we should give daily thanks to Mike Myers for disposing of the national shame of having Rush Hour 2 as America's biggest ever comedy opening. *L*

[Ilker81x]

Once and for all, i'm going to get it off my chest...

Americans want happy endings! If they're not going to be happy endings, then there has to be some kind of pretentious but effective moral and ethical message that appeals to people's sensibilities of right and wrong.

Americans are not fans of artsy-fartsy movies. Sure there are exceptions to the rule, and this is where cult audiences come in. And sometimes there are movies so original and daring that they break out of that convention ("Memento"), and sometimes there are movies with dialogue and action so good that the end doesn't matter ("Reservoir Dogs").

However, 9 times out of 10, it will be the case that Americans want their films to be easy to understand, with endings that show everything is okay. I HATE this because I hate remakes. I see films as an art form...some are more artistic than others, but I see every film as a work of art...it's just that films are made by multiple artists as opposed to one person. Be that as it may...to me, remaking a film is as bad as someone doing a Van Gogh, and then adding something of their own and calling it theirs. I BARELY heard anybody take note of the fact that "Insomnia" was a remake...most people I spoke to about it said the same thing to me: "There's an original version?"

I know that not all remakes do this...some remakes are of films everybody knows anyway, but it still strikes me as a poor attempt to redo a work of art by someone else just because you didn't like something about it. Imagine somebody redoing a David Lynch movie and making it understandable. Perhaps Lynch is too extreme an example since he is an artist (as I've discussed in the Featured Forum section), but the idea is the same. Imagine if you redid "Lost Highway" as a schizophrenic psychiatric case as opposed to the mindwarp metaphorical film it was. "American Psycho" without the trick ending where you question whether or not he was really a killer or if it was all in his mind. They lose their effect if you do such a thing. Imagine doing a Monet painting in a photorealistic manner instead of impressionist...sure it looks polished and shiny, but it's devoid of any soul or originality.

Americans don't see the problem with this, and so they will always remake great Foreign films into inferior versions that appeal more to their sensibilities. I was born in America, and I consider myself an American. But I come from a European/Asian family, and I've studied art and philosophy (y'know all that stuff that Europeans are more famous for)...so maybe that explains it, but seriously...that's the truth of the matter. Either Americans get what they want, or they remake it.

This is just my opinion, and there are exceptions. I do not say this to take down on Americans...it's just the truth as I see it.

[miseenscene]

I'll agree. I'm not so sure the fault lies with the American audiences, though, as it does with the studios themselves. As we've discussed elsewhere, films weren't all that happy in the '70s, yet they found mainstream success -- The French Connection, The Last Picture Show, The Godfather, etc. I think audiences, given choices, would rather see something original and thought-provoking and possibly containing an unhappy ending. However, the marketing departments responsible for selling mainstream films can't make an unhappy-ending film into an easy High Concept sell. ("The French Connection: It's about a cop and his partner who almost bust a drug dealer but he gets away in the end." "He gets away? Well, that's not very interesting...")

American audiences have been conditioned to accept dumbed-down product AND to be jingoistic when it comes to exploring other cultures, neither of which helps the cause of foreign films. It isn't that studio heads are actually looking to remake good foreign films; it's that they have no new ideas, and it's better business to remake a foreign film (thereby employing American actors, crew, etc.) for an American audience than to buy the rights to a film they've already conditioned the average American to avoid.

Then again, we cannibalize our own classics for the same reasons. If there wasn't one original script last year that was better than the idea of remaking Charade into The Truth about Charlie, then American screenwriters are in a sad state of affairs. I don't think that's the case; I think we're just in some odd, retro-refitting timeloop fad that we'll hopefully grow out of before somebody decides remaking Breathless is a good idea...

Oh, wait...

[Perfume V]

Originally posted by miseenscene
I'll agree. I'm not so sure the fault lies with the American audiences, though, as it does with the studios themselves.

I'd agree with this. for a start, all the Americans I know are whip-smart. For another thing, I remember reading an interview with the much-missed Douglas Adams about his "abortive, thank God" attempts to make 'The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy' as an American TV series. He said the most common cry from audiences he met during research and development was "Don't let them Americanise it!"

By contrast, the producer saw it as "Star Wars with jokes". Go, and indeed, figure.

[Ilker81x]

Y'know...you're all right. It is the studios' fault more than anything. The thing is...I used to know that. I guess in my response I was quoting the studios' standpoint on American audiences. But I can't blame them for making those assumptions also because while a person is smart...people as a group are dumb.

Many of my friends are intellectuals and total film buffs, and they like movies for reasons other than "It's cool!" However, I can account for dozens of times I've tried talking about movies with other people and getting the most ridiculous answers. I'm not saying it's true for all people...if anything it's 50/50. But I've read dozens of reviews from normal people on "Amadeus." I don't mind people not liking it...it's a good movie, but it's not for everybody. What I can't stand is people saying it's a bad movie because: a) It's historically inaccurate, or b) It's boring because there's no action or sex in it. And I have heard PLENTY of people say that about "Amadeus." I mean, neither is the point of the movie. It's not an action movie, and it's not a biography (nor did it ever pretend to be). That makes it a bad movie?

People who are expecting nonstop action and mindless sex should watch those kinds of movies and not expect anything else from movies that are not made for them. People who watch intellectual dramas should not expect intelligence from an action movie. The two worlds really should stay separate instead of badmouthing each other. But I too am guilty of badmouthing, so maybe I'm just a hypocrite.

My point is this...movies are movies, and they are made for a specific audience. In the world of remakes, the studios and the producers run the risk of antagonising the audience of the original because they're making the film as a remake for a different audience. It's not really an us vs. them mentality so much...or at least it shouldn't be. By the same token, it's also the fault of the viewers for not taking this into account. Fans of the original still have the original to watch, so...why complain about the remake? I was very angry at the remakes of "Insomnia" and "Solaris" when I saw them. Today...I'm not so much, because I still have the originals in my collection, and I can just watch the versions that I know and love. Let the people the studios did the remake for have it.

So while I will agree that yes, miseenscene and Perfume V are right that it does seem to be the studios' responsibility for "Americanising" remakes...it's also the fault of the American audiences for falling into it.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Ilker81x
What I can't stand is people saying it's a bad movie because: a) It's historically inaccurate
I am a concerned about period films that attempt to present a skewed interpretation of an event as historically accurate. Children are particularly susceptible, given the concreteness that characterizes their thinking. Discussion of historical verisimilitude is important when appraising many films.


it does seem to be the studios' responsibility for "Americanising" remakes...it's also the fault of the American audiences for falling into it.
What bothers me more than remakes is Hollywood's monopoly over screens worldwide, the lack of distribution and marketing of challenging, often subtitled fare, and the media's failure to educate the public about cinema. Now, to stick to the "Americanising" topic: Whadya think about the Disney-dubbed version of SPIRITED AWAY adding a line or two at the end to "interpret" the film for us. Ludicrous.

[Ilker81x]

Disney dubbed "Spirited Away"? I didn't realize that. I went to see it in the theater with a coupla friends who knew I was into Anime/Manga. I guess the dub was alright, but I haven't seen the original Japanese, so I can't say just yet.

Like, the original English dub for "Akira" may have been severely flawed, but the newer one is just as difficult to swallow in my opinion. Something about Japanese names, the way they are pronounced...it doesn't sound quite right in English. Like they emphasize the first syllable of Kaneda (KAH-nay-da), while in English it sound more natural to emphasize the second syllable (kah-NAY-da).

It's really difficult to dub any foreign movie, be it animated or live action, be it Japanese or Cantoneses or even French. Other languages have so many factors that determine what the word means...stress, intonation, pronounciation, context, etc... Like Cantonese has one word for every curse word out there...one word can mean bastard, fuck, shit, etc...while when we translate it, we're not sure which one to use, and a literal translation of the words may not give the exact meaning.

As far as "Spirited Away," I can't say too much. The movie kinda reminded me of a Terry Gilliam movie...if he decided to make something for kids. I'd have to see it again and see the Japanese version.

[Ilker81x]

I am a concerned about period films that attempt to present a skewed interpretation of an event as historically accurate. Children are particularly susceptible, given the concreteness that characterizes their thinking. Discussion of historical verisimilitude is important when appraising many films.

I would be concerned too if those movies made any attmempt to claim accuracy. "Amadeus" NEVER claimed to be accurate, the playwright never claimed it to be, the filmmakers never claimed it to be. The problem is that people disregard this and assume that since it's "Based on a true story," it means they tried to present true events as accurate as possible. Pardon my language, but bullshit! It's not "transcribed" from actual events, it's "based" on, which means that real people and events were used as a groundwork to create a dramatic piece. If the distinction is made (and it often is), then I think that it shouldn't be a concern. "Gettysburg" didn't say "based on actual events." It said "based on the book 'The Killer Angels' by Michael Shaara," and another work by Ken Burns (if I remember correctly). The book by Shaara is also "based" on actual events, and may have some embellishments for the sake of presenting a dramatic book (I doubt Joshua Chamberlain had those specific conversations with his lieutenant Buster Kilrain...maybe he did, but it was in the book for dramatic dialogue). Historical verisimilitude can be a topic of discussion, but it is NOT particularly important because unless the movie actually says "based on the events that took place on so-and-so date." If the movie claims to be something more than a dramatic piece, than don't assume it's historical accuracy because that's far form the point.

If you're concerned about children making the assumption that it's real, then I think you're worrying a little too much. I used to think that "Amadeus" was totally true, but then I went to school, read different books on the subject of Mozart and Salieri, did some research, listened to more of the music, and I learned. My teachers told me I was wrong, then I went home and my parents told me the same...I learned the hard way, but it was a good life lesson because from then on I never took anything at face value without really looking into it. Learning isn't always from scratch. You have to see an idea, and make the mistake of thinking that it's unquestionably true...and then learn from it later. Besides...most period piece movies like "Immortal Beloved" and "Gettysburg" that are supposedly based on true events are not suitable for children to watch in the first place. If they do watch it, they should learn from it. Tell them that it isn't all true...get them asking questions.

I say again, historical accuracy is NOT important in a period-piece movie unless they make a bona fide claim that it's supposed to be accurate. "Immortal Beloved" doesn't say this, "Amadeus" doesn't say this, "Gettysburg" doesn't say this, "The Mothman Prophecies" doesn't say this (well...it does, but in the credits it says based on the man's book). Unless it's a documentary, it's nothing to complain about.

[tabuno]

Of Dave Durban's 20 movie list of pointless remakes, I finally managed to see the third movie (the original and the remake) and so far I have to disagree with Dave with all three movie remake "pointless" assertion.

Point of No Return.
Solaris

and now

The Ring

All three remakes had both qualitative and cinematic differences that added power, strength, and depth to the originals. Interestingly The Ringu (the Japanese original version) which I saw yesterday had a much more American presentation than the American version "The Ring." The Japanese version depended heavily perhaps too much so on eerie (but effective) music and was so explanatory that it left little to the imagination nor ambiguity at the end. The American version on the other hand added classic horror elements and had a particularly European flavor, leaving questions and raising disturbing issues about good and evil at the end (unlike most horror/occult movies). While the original went to far in making for a polite ending, other cheap horror films go the other direction and use the wicked twist ending. But the remake does neither.

Both the remakes "Point of No Return" and "Solaris" were powerful updates to their predecessors. Bridget Fonda has a much more powerful, explosive, exciting role with a much more gripping, polished script (even though the parallels are starkly apparent) making a comparison a critics' playground delight. The remake of Solaris was more focussed and emphasized the relationship component, a humanism touch that allowed the viewer to not get too scattered. The purposes of the original and the remake were totally different, and saying the a remake of "Solaris" was pointless is really overstating and overlooking how diverse the source material can be interpreted. "Solaris" trying to achieve something completely different and succeeding in its message about having another chance at love is definitely not pointless, especially in today's world of inhumanity and hatred.

I think Dave has struck out three of three so far on his list. Seventeen more to go. But I'm going to go running out to the rental store tos all seventeen original movies. There's still these three films to discuss and unfortunately knowing Dave, I may have to run out and rent all six (original and remakes) in order to have an intelligent dialogue with the brilliant, intelligent but always controversial Dave Durban.

[Ilker81x]

In response to tabuno. I agree with your point that the original "Solaris" and the remake had completely different purposes, and that is both a good and a bad thing. The good thing is that the distinction is made that the filmmakers may or may not have approached the film as a "remake" but a film based on the same book. I don't know if this was the case or not, but when considering that the two versions of the film have different purposes, that argument can be made ot defend the newer American version. I DON'T agree however that "Point of No Return" and the new "Solaris" do NOT capture any more power or strength than the originals. I prefer "La Femme Nikita" because I could feel for Anne Parillaud. She was playing someone thrust into a life she didn't want, whereas Bridget Fonda seemed pretty screwed up from the beginning. I didn't sympathize with her too much because I didn't get the same feelings from her performance that I did from the original. You could argue that the original was about a person who didn't want it because she couldn't take it, and the American version was about someone with too strong a character to subvert herself, but I don't think one is stronger than the other in terms of the story's power. As for "The Ring" and "Ringu," you also have to take into account the type of culture we are dealing with. The Japanese are a very visual, symbol-based culture, they are a very FAST culture...go to Tokyo and it's incredible, everybody's moving and everything's going so fast. They are known for cramming a great deal of information in a short time, which is why I suspect some of the best anime movies are either really confusing (like "Akira"...so much information in the span of two hours...it's a 2,000 page book for crying out loud), or really short (like "Ghost in the Shell"...it told the story and all that was essential to it...but the movie flew by in little more than an hour, and it's a theatrical movie). "Ringu" is a perfect example of Japanese culture and filmmaking. Sure they explain everything, but it's done in just as much time as the American version which told less. I'll agree that the effect of horror is probably greater in the American version, but while that may add more power for us it wouldn't seem so for the Japanese.

I still believe that MOST American remakes are not very well made and do not capture the intensity of the foriegn originals. There are exceptions, and I think "The Ring" is one of them. But I think in order to make any kind of assessment on which is better, one should know something about the culture that created the original film. You can like the remake, but I think if you don't take into account the cultural elements that went into the original film you can never fully appreciate it or understand how it has the appeal that someone remade it. Obviously they must be really good movies if somebody decided to remake them. And then you also have to take into account the purpose of the remake...if it's different from the original, then that can play a factor. Maybe one is not better than the other because they have different intentions. These days, a lot of American remakes are trying to make money (and fill in the void for lack of originality). The original "Insomnia" was meant to make you feel uneasy and even a little disgusted at the innate evil of this one cop, even though he got the killer in the end. The American version gave that sense of redemption and justice because the cop repented for what he'd done. That's American filmmaking. It depends on your personal taste.

My tastes are usually against happy endings. Not because I'm a nihilist, but because most of the time they seem predictable and shallow...and overall unrealistic. Not that I think redemption and vindication doesn't happen in reality...just that I've yet to see it happen to this extent. I once said I respected Spielberg because he sacrificed an artistic screenplay to input a happy ending for "A.I." because he wants to make people feel good and give that sense that even though it doesn't happen in real life, we can watch a movie and feel there is some sense of good. That's okay...but in my mind, there's a limit to which that can be done before it becomes saccharine and hard to swallow.

But that's just me...but still, excellent point tabuno.

[tabuno]

There are some days when I shudder and fret about opening up a thread and to begin to read a response to a comment - there are bunches of anxious tensions, imaged horrors of words that are designed to shock, to anger, to rouse one's ire but...then there are times when I can look forward to reading some intelligent narrative that actually appears to have some meaning and moves life forward instead of becoming a shouting MATCH and wonder what is the meaning of life in hell.

[stevetseitz]

1. Sharon Stone's Diabolique= Crap

2. Jeff Bridges's The Vanishing= Crap (tacked on Hollywood thriller ending)

3. Madonna's Swept Away= Crap

4. George Clooney's Solaris= Crap

5. Roy Scheider's Sorcerer= Not too bad.

6. Richard Gere's Unfaithful= Crap

7. Naomi Watts's The Ring= Crap

8. Meg Ryan's City of Angles= Crap

9. Richard Gere's Breathless= Crap

10. Bridget Fonda's Point of No Return= Crap

11. Tom Cruise's Vanilla Sky= Not a total loss, but I missed the original

12. Kevin Spacey's K-pax= Crap

13. Yul Brynner's The Magnificent Seven= Not a bad western but why combine characters Kikuchiyo and Katsushiro?

14. Nathan Lane's The Birdcage= Crap

15. David Wayne's M= seen only orginal

16. Bruce Willis's Last Man Standing= Crap (Fistful of Dollars was O.K. though)

17. Wes Craven's Last House on the Left (a 'loose' remake of Bergman's The Virgin Spring) Have not seen either version.

18. Hector Elizando's Tortilla Soup= Have not seen either version

19. Al Pacino's Insomnia= Crap: see "The Vanishing"

20. Ewan McGregor's Nightwatch= eerie but haven't seen the Danish version yet.

[tabuno]

Why can't stevetseitz just summarize in one line because I don't get much out of his comments other than "crap." It's sort of a "crappy" way to discuss movies I think.

[Ilker81x]

No kidding tabuno. I'm sorry, but if you're going to summarize your opinion of something as "crap," then you kinda have no choice but to explain why. Otherwise, you run the risk of sounding no more intelligent than those people who say they like something just because "it's cool."

I didn't know "K-Pax" was a remake. What is it a remake of? And why does everybody else think that it's crap? I liked Kevin Spacey and Jeff Bridges in that movie. I liked that movie. Nothing new, but I thought it was entertaining and it made me think about the counterpoint to psychology. Like in "The Mission" when Jeremy Irons tries to get Robert DeNiro to join the church, asking if he dares try it, and DeNiro replies, "Do I dare? Do you dare to see it fail?" It's the same thing in "K-Pax" when Jeff Bridges asks Kevin Spacey to consider that he might actually be crazy, and Spacey replies, "Only if you consider the possibility that I actually am from K-Pax." I like when a movie introduces that counterpoint to psychology because it asks us to consider a possiblity that would not have occured to us otherwise...a possibility so ridiculous and seemingly impossible that it might be true.

Was "Unfaithful" a remake? Because when I heard it was by the same director as "Indecent Proposal" and "Fatal Attraction" the only reason I didn't want to see it was because it was proof positive to me that the director does the same thing over and over again.

I also can't agree with "Last Man Standing" being a remake of "Fistful of Dollars" because many action movies borrow plots from old westerns and "update" them for a different time period. It's not specifically a remake so much as it is a plot rehash. There is a difference in my mind because it's one thing to rip off a story and put it in a different context, but it's another to blatantly copy it. Like "Outland" (a not-bad sci-fi movie with Sean Connery) was basically "High Noon" in space.

"Vanilla Sky" was a decent remake I think because Cameron Crowe added his own personal touches to it to make it something other than a mere remake. Sure it's a remake, but it has those elements that distinguish it as a Cameron Crowe film, so I respect it a lot. And Nathan Lane's "The Birdcage" was NOT crap! The performances in that movie are absolutely hilarious. Not the same as the original French version, but they didn't try to be. They all had their own touches to make the characters different but equally fun. Robin Williams was in fine form and Hank Azaria was a riot. Anytime he spoke it was always funny. That was an excellent remake, I don't care what anybody says.

See how easy that was? If you're going to call something crap, defend your stance and give a reason. That's what this forum is about, open discussion. It can't be a discussion if you state an opinion that has no backing because otherwise...and excuse me for saying this 'cuz I'm not trying to be insulting, but it's a pretty asshole-ish thing to say when you say it like that. Give a reason.

[stevetseitz]

Sorry if I am not verbose or loquacious for you. I had hoped filmwurld's boards would be free of the the usual "diarrhea of the written word" that gets posted by wanna-be movie snobs on other movie boards.

I responded to the topic at hand and I don't think I need to waste my (or the readers) time by expanding on the fact that most of the movies listed were simply bad, stupid, poorly made and sloppily directed.

>>...it's a pretty asshole-ish thing to say when you say it like that. Give a reason.<<

I did give reasons on the films that merited mention like "Insomnia" and "The Vanishing".

The reasons for my disparagement for the other films should be obvious: Sharon Stone, Madonna, George Clooney, Meg Ryan, Richard Gere. These people are paparazzi-bait not serious actors. If you are going to remake a film don't sabotage it by casting fame instead of talent.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by tabuno
Why can't stevetseitz just summarize in one line because I don't get much out of his comments other than "crap." It's sort of a "crappy" way to discuss movies I think.
I prefer this monosyllabic stevetseitz to the one that turns every other post into an opportunity to disseminate right wing politics. That is, when he isn't calling serious film lovers snobs.

[stevetseitz]

>>I prefer this monosyllabic stevetseitz to the one that turns every other post into an opportunity to disseminate right wing politics. That is, when he isn't calling serious film lovers snobs.<<

I knew some people would appreciate concise nature of my post. By the way, Oscar, I wouldn't prefer you to be anything other than your left wing "serious" film lover self. :)

[anniedoa]

hey dave!!! it's me.... russ's mom!!!!

i think the worst remake ever is "sweet charity" with shirley mcclain. it made me sick!! it couldn't even begin to compare to fellini's "nights with cabiria" now that was a beautiful movie.

[stevetseitz]

Saying that "Americans" want happy endings" sounds like something a high-schooler would say. Lumping Americans into a unified mass is simplistic.

Americans aren't "jingoistic" when it comes to exploring other cultures. I know many Americans who regularly watch French, German, Russian, Italian films. I have even seen a film from Macedonia. It's true that most Americans, like any audience, prefer movies in their own language. It has nothing to do with nationality. There are people all over the world who watch movies more for "diversion and entertainment". It's not fair to lump avid movie fans, American or not, into this category.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by anniedoa
the worst remake ever is "sweet charity" with shirley mcclain. it made me sick!! it couldn't even begin to compare to fellini's "nights with cabiria"
You are right. Yet, Bob Fosse turned it into something in a totally different genre and he didn't even steal the title. It's a campy, fun musical no one can confuse with Nights of Cabiria. Sweet Charity may even send some renters Fellini's way, when they see his name prominently displayed in the credits.

anniedoa, when did you watch Nights? Is there anything specific that makes it memorable for you? A restored version (that includes most of what was cut for its original U.S. release) was shown in theatres in late '98, and released on DVD in '99. It is gorgeous.

[anniedoa]

hey oscar!!! i'm new at this, so i'm going to have trouble following the rules. this is too much fun!!!

i first saw nights with cabiria in 1972. i went nuts over it!!!! i bawled like a baby almost entirely thru it. i can't spell her name, but guilleta messina??? was so beautiful. i love fellini


movies, and this one is my favorite. i read an interview with fellini about the movie, and he said the original ending, cabiria was supposed to die. he said when they watched it, it was just too much for everybody, so they decided to change it. that's just tooo much for me!!!! no kidding. a person could go into a
coma or something!!! i loved everything about that movie. it is sooooo corny and sooo real. well....fellini real. i think he really understands reality. but then i might be kind of nuts!!!
i think no one should dare to "remake" or even use in the credits a fellini film. they have a mood and characters like no one can re-create. unless you can help me out. who else creates characters that are so strange that they become so real? i love movies with a great dark mood.... there are a few goods ones out there.
like mary poppins......hahahahahahahahah! sorry this is so long... i don't have anyone to talk to about movies. the chat rooms are a joke. i'll get better i promise... just don't kick me outa here yet!!

[Johann]

I saw the re-release of Nights of Cabiria with Dr. Strangelove on the big screen in '98. A historic night for me. I didn't cry, but "La Strada" gets me every time. When Zampano hears that trumpet, the floodgates open. Real men cry every once in a while...

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by anniedoa
hey oscar!!! i'm new at this, so i'm going to have trouble following the rules.
Welcome anniedoa! No rules!! I do try to be as specific and precise as possible in my comments, and to keep the focus on film. I also believe in crediting others when I use their ideas consciously. For instance, I plan to call 2002: the year of the political film in my upcoming best-of-2002 post. It's only fair to credit Johann who brought it to our attention oh... about 3 months ago.

i first saw nights with cabiria in 1972. i went nuts over it!!!! i bawled like a baby almost entirely thru it. i can't spell her name, but guilleta messina??? was so beautiful. i loved everything about that movie. it is sooooo corny and sooo real. well....fellini real. who else creates characters that are so strange that they become so real?
The film we saw in America before '98 had an important, unique sequence removed. It's know as "man with a sack". In the first, Cabiria has her purse stolen by a boyfriend who pushes her into a river. The second sequence ends with Cabiria being dropped by an actor once his girlfriend returns. This sequences move from hope to disappointment. This "new" sequence is the only one that moves from disappointment to hope, as a despondent Cabiria encounters a man delivering clothes and food to the homeless. She is touched by his mission and moved to reveal her real name for the first and only time in the film. The restored version is likely to have better sound and image than the print you saw in '72.

You mention the characters being so strange yet so real. Cabiria is a hooker with a heart of gold, an "innocent" whose hopes are invariably dashed. What makes her strange and distancing is Ms. Masina's acting style. It is a style usually associated with the silent era, full of theatrical grimacing. Is her performance an homage to Chaplin,Keaton,etc.? Is the name Cabiria a reference to Italy's silent film of the same name? What I found real is her emotional vulnerability, the wonderful sense of place, and the "street Italian" dialogue written by one P.P. Pasolini.

I hope you visit a new Fellini thread called The Maestro if you want to discuss other films by Fellini. Find it under Favorite Films.