Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: February 02 2004
Location: South England
Status: Offline
Points: 14693
Posted: April 20 2011 at 11:27
Snow Dog wrote:
topographicbroadways wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
I will stand up for Russell and say I like him. But that persona is bound to attract hate as well I guess.
My vote though?
I really, really, really, really,really don't care.
But the original wasn't a preciuos thing not to be messed with. It was alright. Nothing more.
I agree on the original film but Hollywood remakes in general are just a terrible way that Hollywood filmmakers make more money with minimum effort and maximum profits. Really annoying to me.
And with Russell Brand it isn't his "persona" that annoys me. He really, really, really, really, really, really just isn't funny in any way and his prancing around yelling it doesn't make it any funnier despite popular opinion.
Oh..I think he's funny.
I saw the original on TV over the weekend (I was at my mother's & she was watching it, OK?!?) & Dudley Moore played the part beautifully; an innocent, bumbling fool, pampered by money & no idea how to act in the real world.
RB has one on screen persona & this has been beautifully described/analysed above:
"He really, really, really, really, really, really just isn't funny in any way and his prancing around yelling it doesn't make it any funnier despite popular opinion"
Before Dudley Moore came to the film he'd already proven himself to be an accomplished comedy performer/writer (not to mention musician); all RB has proven to me is there are limits to my pacifism.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: April 20 2011 at 12:59
Haven't seen the remake, don't want to. Remakes are always an ill considered idea IMO. The last half-decent remake was The 39 Steps from 1959, but even that wasn't as good (or critically aclaimed) as Hitchcock's original. There have been a few remakes that have been "adequate", but in the main they are worse. Remaking of European films is generally "okay" until you see the original, then it all falls apart when you see how much really did get lost in translation.
Remaking films that rely on the comedic talents of one man are destined to fail before filming has even begun because the comparisions not only pit the films against each other, but the talent of the respective actors/comedians too.
However, in Brand's case it was neither foolhardy nor arogant to attempt this film, merely expedient given he is a one-trick pony with a limited career span, he needs to cash-in on his popularity while he can.
Joined: February 02 2004
Location: South England
Status: Offline
Points: 14693
Posted: April 21 2011 at 06:02
Dean wrote:
Remaking films that rely on the comedic talents of one man are destined to fail before filming has even begun because the comparisions not only pit the films against each other, but the talent of the respective actors/comedians too.
However, in Brand's case it was neither foolhardy nor arogant to attempt this film, merely expedient given he is a one-trick pony with a limited career span, he needs to cash-in on his popularity while he can.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: April 21 2011 at 08:37
Snow Dog wrote:
Some remakes are quite good.
Bedazzled was alright........but then you compare it to the Cook and Moore original and it's nowhere. Don't compare is best sometimes.
That's easy enough if you've never seen the original, but most remakes are of good or popular originals (Get Carter, The Italian Job, Alfie, Planet of the Apes, King Kong, The Wicker Man, The Producers, Clash of the Tie-pins, War Of The Worlds, Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory, Psycho, Omega Man (technically a remake itself), Solaris, The Time Machine, The Pink Panther, The Karate Kid, etc.) - most of these are well remembered so it's difficult not to make a comparison. Ive heard rumours that they remaking 2001 - A Space Odyssey ... why?
Have any of these really improved on the original beyond a bit of CGI and a bigger name above the title? If the producer, director, star has something to prove, then take a real stinker and make it right... Battlefield Earth anyone?
Joined: January 20 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 1601
Posted: April 21 2011 at 12:44
Yeah I thought Russel Brand was funny in the movie, but the whole dumb alcoholic persona is something that would amuse me. I also agree however that it isn't surprising that his personality draws lots of hate, as I thought I would despise him before I saw the movie. In fact almost everyone in here insulting the movie seems to have not seen it....and it's hardly a lazy remake as very little of it reflects the original. People just always need to complain, if it had been close to the original people would wine about it being a copy cat, if it differs people complain about it not holding true. Any time theres a remake people all get so upset and jump to bash it immediately. It is rather hard to come up with original movie concepts after a hundred years of making them, look at music post-developed technology(lets say 60's), even in that field people can't stop being repetitive. At least movie's are intentional remakes and not just horribly rehashed stories under a different name (aka every horror movie ever, every love movie ever).
Edited by himtroy - April 21 2011 at 12:47
Which of you to gain me, tell, will risk uncertain pains of hell?
I will not forgive you if you will not take the chance.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: April 21 2011 at 13:49
himtroy wrote:
Any time theres a remake people all get so upset and jump to bash it immediately. It is rather hard to come up with original movie concepts after a hundred years of making them, look at music post-developed technology(lets say 60's), even in that field people can't stop being repetitive. At least movie's are intentional remakes and not just horribly rehashed stories under a different name (aka every horror movie ever, every love movie ever).
So, every film that could be made has already been made and there is nothing new under the sun? On a simplistic level that may be true, but if that were truly the case then no new books would ever get written - it's not as if we get remakes of classic novels released every month - new this month Great Expectations by Dan Brown, next month sees the release of Stieg Larsson's version of The Woman in White. No, original works are out there being written every day, but for the money that even a low budget film costs, the risks are too high to take a punt on an untried story and even when they do take that risk, the desire to fiddle about and change the story to fit some Hollywood blueprint of the ideal movie wins out so we get the obligatory relocation to California/Miami/Chicago/New Yawk and the obligatory love interest and the obligatory car chase and the obligatory happy ending with the obligatory ironic twist and the obligatory moralising because test screenings before an arbitrary audience of freeloading couch spuds overdosed on sugar enriched popcorn and a gallon of iced Pepsi preferred the version where Hamlet is played by Will Smith as a plucky but downtrodden taxi driver from Brooklyn and he doesn't die at the end and rescues Ophelia in the knicker time by administering CPR, but they did think the CGI animation of Yorick's skull was a bit rubbish so perhaps James Earl Jones could dub a voice-over. Did I miss anything?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.117 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Arthur
Topic Options
Snow Dog wrote:
) & Dudley Moore played the part beautifully; an innocent, bumbling fool, pampered by money & no idea how to act in the real world.
