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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)