I HATE REMAKES. And I think I made an entire post about that a few months ago, but nothing is ultimate, there has to be an exception or two for everything.
And this movie happens to be one. Jules Verne's masterpiece Around the World in 80 days is one of my favorite movies (Both the original and the remake) because even though both are dramatically different, each of them has touched me in a different way that marked both movies in my heart and my mind forever.
So, as usual we start with the classic version, starting David Niven as Fogg, Cantinflas as Passepartout, and the lovely Shirley McLaine as Princess Aouda. among dozens, literally dozens of huge stars who appear in as little as 3 seconds but make you jump from your seat in excitement without uttering a single word (That's exactly what I did when I saw Sinarta's cameo, by the way).
The movie's very much faithful to the book, describing the daring, extraordinary journey by the adventurous, mysterious Mr. Phileas Fogg. A member of the Reform Club and an enigma to every single person around him. A very cold, precise person who walks around carrying two watches, and eats his toast at exactly 83 degrees fahrenheit. Joined by his loyal valet, passepartout they take on a wager of 20,000 pounds (You can imagine how expensive that was in the late 1800's) to circumvent the world in 80 days, no more.
On their journey they go through France, Spain, Egypt, India, Japan, China, America, and then back to England by crossing the Atlantic ocean on a boat that literally gets taken apart to push on.
The beauty of that version is that it shows an glimpse of each of the cultures I mentioned above in a very fascinating way, a way that could come out of a mind only like Verne's.
As for the cameos, there are dozens, countless appearences made by the brightest stars of the era, some had perhaps a total of 5 seconds of screen time, but with each one you say "OH MY GOD!!, IT'S..." and it just makes you that much happier to see the face of an actor you love when you least expected. Anyone who saw X-Men: First Class would know what I mean, only I'm talking about much bigger names. We're talking Frank Sinatra, Marlene Dietrich, and the opening commentary was made by none other than TV's Edward R Murrow, so yeah. Much bigger names.
And now for the new movie, Steve Coogan plays an eccentric inventor, who also on a wager but for a very different purpose, agrees to take on a journey around the world in 80 days. Joined by the awesome Jackie Chan as a Chinaman on a quest to recover a sacred object for his village from an evil warlord makes a nice twist to the Verne story.
The difference between the two movies is mainly that the first is a light movie, a restrained comedy that makes you smile but leaves your eyes wide and mouth open at the beauty of the different cultures of the world. The new movie, however is a fully unleashed comedy, with Chan's extra special, super funny and super impressive fight scenes that add a lot of flavor to the movie and I personally think that if it hadn't been for Chan, the movie would've failed miserably.
So, in conclusion, yes. There are remakes that I actually like, not many though. But as I said before, everything has an exception.
Friday 22 July 2011
To Have and Have Not, To watch or watch not??
It's been quite a while since my last post, and I admit it. I miss writing a lot. I'd promised myself that I wouldn't stop, but I just wasn't in the mood for it. I didn't stop watching movies, of course. But that's not the point.
Today's movie made me feel quite mixed up, I didn't know whether to love or hate it. I still really don't know. Honestly.
The movie, naturally is To Have and Have not, starring Hollywood's badest badass ever Humphrey Bogart, and the ever radiant, extremely talented Lauren Bacall. Along with the legendary Walter Brennan.
The story, in my humble opinion is really weak, the flirting scenes and dialogue were very cheap and you could feel the effects of censorship in this era and how it forced what could've been a very clever scene between Bogart and Bacall and reduced it to near gibberish. The events are pretty much predictible and you could know how the film will go if you watch the first 3 minutes and had an IQ of 15. But that's not all. Now for the good part.
You see, even though the writing had severe shortcomings, and the screenplay seemed to be written by a toddler with Down's syndrome, the acting was simply mind blowing. Bogart played the role of Harry "Steve" Morgan exceptionally well, a badass as a badass should be in every way, very convincing and very natural.
Bacall was no different, even though her role was written badly she managed to glow and will be forever remembered for that iconic scene when she looks back at bogart, giving him an incredibly sexy smile and says: " You know how to whistle, don't you, Steve? You just put your lips together and... blow."
Here, you can see it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MheNUWyROv8
But aside from all that, my favorite character in the movie was by far was Eddie, the drunk, or "rummy" as they called him, played by Walter Brennan, winner of 3 Academy Awards for best supporting actor in the period of 6 years. A very smooth performance and to me he was the character I reacted to the most. I actually waited for the scenes he was in.
So, you see. That's why I'm so baffled by that movie. The writing's pretty bad, and the story is very predictible. But giving it to these giants is what made it an unforgettable part of movie history that will probably live on for many generations to come.
Today's movie made me feel quite mixed up, I didn't know whether to love or hate it. I still really don't know. Honestly.
The movie, naturally is To Have and Have not, starring Hollywood's badest badass ever Humphrey Bogart, and the ever radiant, extremely talented Lauren Bacall. Along with the legendary Walter Brennan.
The story, in my humble opinion is really weak, the flirting scenes and dialogue were very cheap and you could feel the effects of censorship in this era and how it forced what could've been a very clever scene between Bogart and Bacall and reduced it to near gibberish. The events are pretty much predictible and you could know how the film will go if you watch the first 3 minutes and had an IQ of 15. But that's not all. Now for the good part.
You see, even though the writing had severe shortcomings, and the screenplay seemed to be written by a toddler with Down's syndrome, the acting was simply mind blowing. Bogart played the role of Harry "Steve" Morgan exceptionally well, a badass as a badass should be in every way, very convincing and very natural.
Bacall was no different, even though her role was written badly she managed to glow and will be forever remembered for that iconic scene when she looks back at bogart, giving him an incredibly sexy smile and says: " You know how to whistle, don't you, Steve? You just put your lips together and... blow."
Here, you can see it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MheNUWyROv8
But aside from all that, my favorite character in the movie was by far was Eddie, the drunk, or "rummy" as they called him, played by Walter Brennan, winner of 3 Academy Awards for best supporting actor in the period of 6 years. A very smooth performance and to me he was the character I reacted to the most. I actually waited for the scenes he was in.
So, you see. That's why I'm so baffled by that movie. The writing's pretty bad, and the story is very predictible. But giving it to these giants is what made it an unforgettable part of movie history that will probably live on for many generations to come.
Friday 22 April 2011
Adaptations and remakes....WHY???!!
This next article probably won't sound like me, because I'm going to be trashing some movies, but honestly, they had it coming, and here's why.
In recent years, we've seen a lot of adaptations and remakes for everything from movies to TV shows to video games. And the general rule was that they all sucked. Even though they may have been successful, the fans of the original works were all frustrated and disappointed in every single case.
I've always been a fan of authenticity and originality, and I've always preferred the original works over the remake no matter how bright and shiny the new one looks and how poorly produced and simply made the original was. Old is gold applies every time in this case and there are no exceptions.
For example, the remake of Alfred Hitchcock's "Rear Window" in 2007 is nothing short of a disgrace, and for an actor no matter who he is to put himself in a situation where he gets compared to Jimmy Stewart is simply dumb. Another example of that stupidity are the new "Pink Panther" movies. Steve Martin is a great actor and a brilliant comedian, but he is not and will never ever be Peter Sellers. It's that simple.
Another example from the world of television is the TV show "Mission: Impossible". A fact that it was the longest running spy series on television and by far the most successful of them. The series was based on teamwork, there was the team leader who was the only intelligence professional, then there were other professionals who were assigned to the team as the mission required, so there were the actors, the electronics genius, the heavy lifter, and others who together made that show incredibly enjoyable with their chemistry on screen and how well they worked together. Then came the movies not only to ruin that concept and replace it with the one man leader who can do anything and everything on his own. In all fairness the first movie did have a glimpse of the show in it but they had to crap all over it by killing off the team in the first 5 minutes of the movie and by showing that the sereis' main character as a traitor and a mole, which for the original series fans was like a slap across the face. I was around 10 when I saw the movie with my mother when it came out and I've never till this day seen her so angry at something, and when I got the show and saw it I can say that not only do I understand, but also I'm just as pissed.
And now to video games, where many great games were made into movie only to find that they changed their story lines, altered characters' behaviours and personalities, and removed all elements that made the game loved by the fans. Among the examples that stand out in the area are the Resident Evil and Tomb Raider series. There's also Alone in the Dark, Hitman, and Max Payne. There have been rumors of adaptations for Metal Gear and Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell going around for a couple of years, but I pray to God they never see the light of day, because the others I could live with (Hardly, but I got over them). But not these two, that would be too much.
A final example comes from literature. I can understand that when a book is being made into a movie, you have to cut some corners in order to fit a several hundred page book into 2 hours of screenplay, but what's not acceptable is to change the story, alter the characters and remove all resemblence to the original work. And that's what's been done to the Bourne series.
I'm not a huge fan of Robert Ludlum's, I find his work all the same and that he just changes a few things in each book. But not the Bourne series, they were by far his best work.
I can understand the changing of the era, because Carlos the Jackal is in prison and there has to be a modern day villain. But what I don't like that if you watch the movie there's not one single thing that reminds you of the book, not one. And what pissed me off was that someone (I don't remember if it was Damon or Doug Liman the director) actually bragged about it during an interview.
Like I said before, I admire originality and authenticity, so that remake thing's never worked with me before and probably never will.
A.G
In recent years, we've seen a lot of adaptations and remakes for everything from movies to TV shows to video games. And the general rule was that they all sucked. Even though they may have been successful, the fans of the original works were all frustrated and disappointed in every single case.
I've always been a fan of authenticity and originality, and I've always preferred the original works over the remake no matter how bright and shiny the new one looks and how poorly produced and simply made the original was. Old is gold applies every time in this case and there are no exceptions.
For example, the remake of Alfred Hitchcock's "Rear Window" in 2007 is nothing short of a disgrace, and for an actor no matter who he is to put himself in a situation where he gets compared to Jimmy Stewart is simply dumb. Another example of that stupidity are the new "Pink Panther" movies. Steve Martin is a great actor and a brilliant comedian, but he is not and will never ever be Peter Sellers. It's that simple.
Another example from the world of television is the TV show "Mission: Impossible". A fact that it was the longest running spy series on television and by far the most successful of them. The series was based on teamwork, there was the team leader who was the only intelligence professional, then there were other professionals who were assigned to the team as the mission required, so there were the actors, the electronics genius, the heavy lifter, and others who together made that show incredibly enjoyable with their chemistry on screen and how well they worked together. Then came the movies not only to ruin that concept and replace it with the one man leader who can do anything and everything on his own. In all fairness the first movie did have a glimpse of the show in it but they had to crap all over it by killing off the team in the first 5 minutes of the movie and by showing that the sereis' main character as a traitor and a mole, which for the original series fans was like a slap across the face. I was around 10 when I saw the movie with my mother when it came out and I've never till this day seen her so angry at something, and when I got the show and saw it I can say that not only do I understand, but also I'm just as pissed.
And now to video games, where many great games were made into movie only to find that they changed their story lines, altered characters' behaviours and personalities, and removed all elements that made the game loved by the fans. Among the examples that stand out in the area are the Resident Evil and Tomb Raider series. There's also Alone in the Dark, Hitman, and Max Payne. There have been rumors of adaptations for Metal Gear and Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell going around for a couple of years, but I pray to God they never see the light of day, because the others I could live with (Hardly, but I got over them). But not these two, that would be too much.
A final example comes from literature. I can understand that when a book is being made into a movie, you have to cut some corners in order to fit a several hundred page book into 2 hours of screenplay, but what's not acceptable is to change the story, alter the characters and remove all resemblence to the original work. And that's what's been done to the Bourne series.
I'm not a huge fan of Robert Ludlum's, I find his work all the same and that he just changes a few things in each book. But not the Bourne series, they were by far his best work.
I can understand the changing of the era, because Carlos the Jackal is in prison and there has to be a modern day villain. But what I don't like that if you watch the movie there's not one single thing that reminds you of the book, not one. And what pissed me off was that someone (I don't remember if it was Damon or Doug Liman the director) actually bragged about it during an interview.
Like I said before, I admire originality and authenticity, so that remake thing's never worked with me before and probably never will.
A.G
Saturday 16 April 2011
Revolution, Change, and Movies
Today I won't be talking about movies, not directly anyway. Since my country and everything in it has been changing, and what I'm about to talk about has been one of the things I've wanted to see change ever since I became the movie freak that I am. I'm talking about the movie censorship in Egypt.
The issue has been bugging me for years, and it has ruined several movie going experiences for me, and sometimes even prevented them altogether as I didn't want a movie to be cut in half so I'd avoid seeing it in the thearters and wait for a DVD release.
But no more, today I'm going to talk about it, it's time to "Let the critic in me out" to quote a dear friend, who acutally inspired this article as our last movie going experience "Hall Pass" and how much it sucked because of censorship was just the last straw. Mizo, this is for you, bro.
The Egyptian censorship agency has been a nightmare for years, in the name of upholding the morals of the Egyptian society they've mutilated hundreds of movies both in theaters and when shown on TV. Movies end up not making sense, crucial plot moments suddenly disappear, and the movie just suddenly stops making sense.
Hell, sometimes they even cut out the cuss words and even the dialogue is screwed. I can understand altering the subtitles a bit to hide such words to those who don't understand the language, but if you already do then there's no point in hiding the words because you'll end up just pissing the viewer off.
I've actually discussed the issue with several people and the opinions varied greatly. Naturally, there were some who agreed and some who didn't. That's life and I respect that. What I don't respect or even accept is the reasons that some of those who disagreed with me cited for their opinion. One opinion stood out the most (It's one I got more than once, especially by people who are an extra bit religious) is that I'm a pervert and I just want to see some nudity and sex scenes. I won't comment on that in here.
I won't keep telling arguments I had with people, but since everything's changing in Egypt, I really hope that the censorship issue is resolved. And in my humble, amateur opinion I even have a few suggestions.
As for movie theaters, controlling the age of those who go in to watch a movie has been ridiculous so far. I have to point out that there were some "Adults Only" movies shown, but those were cheap horror movies and that doesn't count, and even in those I'd see kids no moere than 10 years old sitting and watching. So the solution is simple. Stronger controls on theaters and paying attention to who buys those tickets and who's entering going in is a simple solution to the problem. After all, we do pay money to see the movies.
As for the TV part, if you want to uphold the morals of the Egyptian society, fine. Just do it a little more tastefully. The editor has to be someone who understands what's to go and what's to stay because what's been going on so far is nothing short of mutilation, which is frankly something I cannot live with, and that's why it's been almost 2 years since I've seen a movie on television.
Like I said, a lot of things are changing, and I know that this particular item is far down on the list, I just hope that some day I could go to the theater to see some movie like "Hall Pass" or "American Pie" and know that I won't be coming out after 10 minutes.
A.G
The issue has been bugging me for years, and it has ruined several movie going experiences for me, and sometimes even prevented them altogether as I didn't want a movie to be cut in half so I'd avoid seeing it in the thearters and wait for a DVD release.
But no more, today I'm going to talk about it, it's time to "Let the critic in me out" to quote a dear friend, who acutally inspired this article as our last movie going experience "Hall Pass" and how much it sucked because of censorship was just the last straw. Mizo, this is for you, bro.
The Egyptian censorship agency has been a nightmare for years, in the name of upholding the morals of the Egyptian society they've mutilated hundreds of movies both in theaters and when shown on TV. Movies end up not making sense, crucial plot moments suddenly disappear, and the movie just suddenly stops making sense.
Hell, sometimes they even cut out the cuss words and even the dialogue is screwed. I can understand altering the subtitles a bit to hide such words to those who don't understand the language, but if you already do then there's no point in hiding the words because you'll end up just pissing the viewer off.
I've actually discussed the issue with several people and the opinions varied greatly. Naturally, there were some who agreed and some who didn't. That's life and I respect that. What I don't respect or even accept is the reasons that some of those who disagreed with me cited for their opinion. One opinion stood out the most (It's one I got more than once, especially by people who are an extra bit religious) is that I'm a pervert and I just want to see some nudity and sex scenes. I won't comment on that in here.
I won't keep telling arguments I had with people, but since everything's changing in Egypt, I really hope that the censorship issue is resolved. And in my humble, amateur opinion I even have a few suggestions.
As for movie theaters, controlling the age of those who go in to watch a movie has been ridiculous so far. I have to point out that there were some "Adults Only" movies shown, but those were cheap horror movies and that doesn't count, and even in those I'd see kids no moere than 10 years old sitting and watching. So the solution is simple. Stronger controls on theaters and paying attention to who buys those tickets and who's entering going in is a simple solution to the problem. After all, we do pay money to see the movies.
As for the TV part, if you want to uphold the morals of the Egyptian society, fine. Just do it a little more tastefully. The editor has to be someone who understands what's to go and what's to stay because what's been going on so far is nothing short of mutilation, which is frankly something I cannot live with, and that's why it's been almost 2 years since I've seen a movie on television.
Like I said, a lot of things are changing, and I know that this particular item is far down on the list, I just hope that some day I could go to the theater to see some movie like "Hall Pass" or "American Pie" and know that I won't be coming out after 10 minutes.
A.G
Friday 15 April 2011
12 Angry Men. A Complexly Simple, Simply Complex Masterpiece.
For the first article I write I really was torn between several movies, all of which I love and have seen at least a dozen times and all are considered ever lasting classics of the industry.
But I have to admit that I chose 12 Angry men to be my first just as a simple tribute, a gesture from an insignificant fan to a legend whose name will always be remembered and whose work will be idolised by everyone ever hoping to be something in the movie world. I'm talking of course about Sidney Lumet who passed away just a few days ago.
That movie is among the few that shatter the myth that a movie has to be expensive and visually impressive in order to be a success, we're talking about a movie that takes place in a single room with a dozen people talking for two hours, but in those two hours you're taken into a wild journey of conflicting emotions and there are quite a few gasps involved.
It starts really simple, it's a courthouse, the camera takes a tour around the building until it reaches a specific courtroom where a judge is giving his final remarks to the jury that this is a murder case, and that in their hands lies the fate of a young boy who'll either get executed for murdering his father, or will walk away free as a bird. He reminds them that they can only vote unanimously yes or no, there can't be anything else except complete consensus on either the boy's guilty or not guilty. That is when we move to the room where we shall remain for the rest of the movie.
The jurors are in the room, they start shaking hands, makin small talk, just breaking the ice. One of the things that I really like is that there are no names used at all in that movie, not one single name whether it's for a juror or even the defendant, we find out a couple of names in the final few seconds of the movie, but it doesn't really matter, does it??
Anyway, they start by reviewing the case facts, and to all of them it seems like what's called "An open and shut case". meaning that all the facts are clear and that there's little room for debate or any dispute of the facts.
That's when Juror # 8 (Played by the legendary Henry Fonda) starts to talk, all of them are in a hurry to vote guilty and get out, there's a man who wants to get back to his family, another who has tickets to a ball game and they're all ready to vote and eager to go.
He calmly states his opinion that he honestly doesn't know whether the boy's guilty or not, and he's not willing to send a young boy to his death that easily. And that's when the movie really starts to heat up.
I won't give any more away, but as the debate heats up, you'll find that each juror is judging the boy not based on the facts of the case, but rather on his own view of life, youth, and parenthood. The debate keeps going on in that way as juror # 8 keeps gaining votes, losing them again, and so on.
The movie ends, of course, in one of two ways, and I won't say which. I'd rather you watch it and see for yourselves. But it is a movie that will blow your mind and I hope will give you a new perspective on movies.
The movie of course is starring Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Ed Begley, and Jack Warden. All real heavyweight actors and they will amaze you with their performance. It was nominated for 3 Oscars and is ranked 7th on the imdb Top 250 movie list.
Here's the link for the movie http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/
I hope you enjoyed my blabbering and until next time.
A.G
But I have to admit that I chose 12 Angry men to be my first just as a simple tribute, a gesture from an insignificant fan to a legend whose name will always be remembered and whose work will be idolised by everyone ever hoping to be something in the movie world. I'm talking of course about Sidney Lumet who passed away just a few days ago.
That movie is among the few that shatter the myth that a movie has to be expensive and visually impressive in order to be a success, we're talking about a movie that takes place in a single room with a dozen people talking for two hours, but in those two hours you're taken into a wild journey of conflicting emotions and there are quite a few gasps involved.
It starts really simple, it's a courthouse, the camera takes a tour around the building until it reaches a specific courtroom where a judge is giving his final remarks to the jury that this is a murder case, and that in their hands lies the fate of a young boy who'll either get executed for murdering his father, or will walk away free as a bird. He reminds them that they can only vote unanimously yes or no, there can't be anything else except complete consensus on either the boy's guilty or not guilty. That is when we move to the room where we shall remain for the rest of the movie.
The jurors are in the room, they start shaking hands, makin small talk, just breaking the ice. One of the things that I really like is that there are no names used at all in that movie, not one single name whether it's for a juror or even the defendant, we find out a couple of names in the final few seconds of the movie, but it doesn't really matter, does it??
Anyway, they start by reviewing the case facts, and to all of them it seems like what's called "An open and shut case". meaning that all the facts are clear and that there's little room for debate or any dispute of the facts.
That's when Juror # 8 (Played by the legendary Henry Fonda) starts to talk, all of them are in a hurry to vote guilty and get out, there's a man who wants to get back to his family, another who has tickets to a ball game and they're all ready to vote and eager to go.
He calmly states his opinion that he honestly doesn't know whether the boy's guilty or not, and he's not willing to send a young boy to his death that easily. And that's when the movie really starts to heat up.
I won't give any more away, but as the debate heats up, you'll find that each juror is judging the boy not based on the facts of the case, but rather on his own view of life, youth, and parenthood. The debate keeps going on in that way as juror # 8 keeps gaining votes, losing them again, and so on.
The movie ends, of course, in one of two ways, and I won't say which. I'd rather you watch it and see for yourselves. But it is a movie that will blow your mind and I hope will give you a new perspective on movies.
The movie of course is starring Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Ed Begley, and Jack Warden. All real heavyweight actors and they will amaze you with their performance. It was nominated for 3 Oscars and is ranked 7th on the imdb Top 250 movie list.
Here's the link for the movie http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/
I hope you enjoyed my blabbering and until next time.
A.G
Just an intro.
I really don't know where to start, but I figured that every movie has to have an intro. Getting to know who are the people you're gonna be staring at for the next couple of hours. So here goes.
I started this blog simply because I love movies (Obvious, I know) but it's also a way of expressing just how much.
In that post I won't be reviewing anything, and neither will I do so in the coming posts. My aim is not to criticise. But simply to share with others and try to show them and introduce them to the thing I love the most in my life.
It's been pointed out to me more than once that I get a strange sparkle in my eyes whenever I'm talking about movies and actors, and I thought I may just try and explain to people why.
I will try to the best of my humble abilities to take you folks on journeys exploring the past, present, and future of this century old industry and how it plays a vital role in each of our lives, even if we don't notice sometimes.
I started this blog simply because I love movies (Obvious, I know) but it's also a way of expressing just how much.
In that post I won't be reviewing anything, and neither will I do so in the coming posts. My aim is not to criticise. But simply to share with others and try to show them and introduce them to the thing I love the most in my life.
It's been pointed out to me more than once that I get a strange sparkle in my eyes whenever I'm talking about movies and actors, and I thought I may just try and explain to people why.
I will try to the best of my humble abilities to take you folks on journeys exploring the past, present, and future of this century old industry and how it plays a vital role in each of our lives, even if we don't notice sometimes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)