The other day I did a movie review story about crappy sequels (click here to read it). Today I’m taking a look at remakes – mostly good ones with one stinker tossed in. It’s the entire concept of remakes that I’m dishing on today. Remakes can make sense (or not); they can be good (or bad); and they can most often just be a way to cash in for a few dollars without having any creativity (I really don’t have an opposite side of the coin for this one). So, let’s look at some remakes such as “The Taking of Pelham One Two Three,” “Fun with Dick and Jane,” “Ocean’s 11” and “Dawn of the Dead.”
‘The Taking of Pelham One Two Three’
‘Fun with Dick and Jane’
‘Manhunter’ (‘Red Dragon’)
‘Ocean’s Eleven’ | ‘Dawn of the Dead’
(Check each individual review for links to running times, directors, stars, etc.)
SOME REMAKES MAKE SENSE, OTHERS DO NOT
If it wasn’t for a production such as “Macbeth,” I’d say that remakes in Hollywood were nothing but a lack of creativity and the desire to make an almost sure-fire buck. Really, could you see remaking “The Godfather?” Unlike “Macbeth,” which is judged on an individual actor’s performance and not the entire production like “The Godfather,” the latter is an entire film that should never be remade. So, there are good remakes to go along with the many more bad remakes and I’ll be looking at a few of both today.
(CLICK HERE FOR ALL MY MOVIE REVIEWS)
“The Taking of Pelham One Two Three” (1974)
“The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3” (2009)
Let me kick it off today with “The Taking of Pelham One Two Three” (click here for my review). When you spell the numbers out it is the film from 1974 with Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw, while the numerals (“The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3”) are the one from 2009 with Denzel Washington and John Travolta reprising the main characters. The remake pretty much follows the original’s formula – the concept of hijacking a subway train is as good today as it was more than a generation ago – but it is much more profane. You’d think the remake was by Martin Scorsese since the most common word is an “f-bomb.” Here’s one where the original is really good and the remake is solid, while not being as good as the original.
“Ocean’s 11” (1960)
“Ocean’s Eleven” (2001)
Here’s another one where the remake is solid, but offers a different context because of the years and difference of cool in between the two. The original “Ocean’s 11” (click here for my review) was Frank Sinatra and his “Rat Pack” having fun in Vegas. The story (the robbery of casinos) was secondary to assembling a package of the coolest guys (and Angie Dickinson and Shirley MacLaine) around. Jump forward to 2001 and with “Ocean’s Eleven” (click here for my review) you have George Clooney and a bunch of Hollywood cool cats (with the female lead played by an uninspired and uninspiring Julia Roberts). You cannot compare these two like you could “Pelham,” but the original “Ocean’s” is just that much better than the remake – although “Ocean’s Eleven” is much better than most of the dreck from Hollywood that year. The original uses both the numerals and spells the number, unlike the remake which spells it out.
“Manhunter” (1986)
“Red Dragon” (2001)
The remake of “Manhunter” (click here for my review) is one of the unusual cases in Hollywood. The original was taken from a Thomas Harris novel and adapted by “Miami Vice’s” Michael Mann. He changed the title from “Red Dragon” as well as monkeyed around with the spelling of a bad guy’s name: “Dr. Hannibal Lecktor.” It’s a solid film but not great. Jump forward and Harris’ second novel, “The Silence of the Lambs,” is made into a film that’s a big Oscar winner and everybody’s looking to cash in. They look back and see Mann’s effort and, with the sound of cash registers ringing in their ears, remake it as “Red Dragon” – the book’s original title introduced as well as spelling “Lecter’s” name as the author chose. They also have Oscar-winner Anthony Hopkins as the villain. That’s not to say Brian Cox, who is the original “Lecktor,” did a bad job – just the opposite. Cox did a wonderful job with the small amount of screen time he had in the original. Check out both – Edward Norton is good, but not the best physical type for the detective in the remake (“Will Graham” should actually have a physical presence that the matchstick Norton does not have – but he does make up for it with his incredible talent).
“Dawn of the Dead” (1978)
“Dawn of the Dead” (2004)
I love horror films and while I knew no one could ever do a good remake of “Halloween” (click here for my review), I also believed that there couldn’t be a good remake of “Dawn of the Dead” from 1978 – itself a sequel and a zombie film set mostly inside a mall – and I never thought anyone would do a better movie poster. I was right about “Halloween” (its remake that’s also described as a prequel and reimaging in 2007 by Rob Zombie – yes, that’s his name – is a shallow, crass attempt that not only falls flat, but is pure excrement), but found out that “Dawn of the Dead” could be remade well. The remake is a nice, tight zombie movie that uses the original concept but updates it more than a generation and uses fast-walking zombies. Ving Rhames is really good here.
“Fun with Dick and Jane” (1977)
“Fun with Dick and Jane” (2005)
Here’s the only one today that I’ll diss on a bit. I really liked the original “Fun with Dick and Jane” (click here for my review) but the remake “Fun with Dick and Jane” comes up short because the original was turned into a “vehicle” for Jim Carrey’s style of comedy. In the original you had George Segal and Jane Fonda as the middle-class couple fallen on hard times – and they turn to crime and find that it pays. The remake is similar (but updated with modern trappings). But that’s about all. The remake tries to play off Carrey’s strengths, but if you’ve seen the original then you’ll instantly know how weak the remake comes off. Take my word for it: Find the original if you really like the concept or if you didn’t like the remake because of Carrey.
“Scarface” (1932)
“Scarface” (1983)
Finally, you
have remakes that are more accurately described as “updates.” The most recognizable one is “Scarface.” The original “Scarface” was in 1932 and starred Paul Muni and is described on IMDb.com as, “An ambitious and near insanely violent gangster climbs the ladder of success in the mob, but his weaknesses prove to be his downfall.” Jump forward a half-century and you’ll find Al Pacino meeting that description in the “Scarface” remake in 1983. But it’s difficult to compare the two since the remake is contemporary drug crime while the original was about old-school gangsters. Still, the concept held tight and the modernization necessary – and it worked since “Scarface” from 1983 is excellent (I never saw the original).
Well, those are just a few examples of good and bad remakes. There are just too many to address in a single review, so I’ll just leave it at this.
© Chuck Curry and A Gator in Naples, 2015.
Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without
express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner
is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that
full and clear credit is given to Chuck Curry and A Gator in Naples
with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
