Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 159
  1. #61
    Super Moderator Country: UK batman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    27,595
    Liked
    255 times
    name='Lord Lionheart']There's also an old TV version with Peter Cushing. I downloaded it but yet to watch it so the jury is still out


    It's the best of the three IMHO.

  2. #62
    Senior Member moonfleet's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,659
    Liked
    144 times
    name='batman']Nope .... I like them both and Soderbergh's is more accessible for non-Tarkovsky fans.


    If you say something is unaccessible, then it stays unaccessible.I'm not really found of russian cinema, but Tarkosky's "Solaris" is far better than the Soderbergh's.Because it's "deep" philosophicaly (and religiously....even I don't enjoy religious views). You can't avoid comparing it to "2001". Personaly, I'd rather "Solaris", Kubrick is sometimes too "cold intellectual" for me.

    In fact, I discovered it one month ago.

    I thought Ingmar Bergman was "just an intellectual" or a Woody Allen reference, but his films are full of sensuality, humor and violence, just lovely.

    Best.

    M.

  3. #63
    Super Moderator Country: UK batman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    27,595
    Liked
    255 times
    I didn't say Tarkovsky's Solaris was inaccesible, I said that, for people who don't generally like Tarkovsky's intense style of film making, the Soderbergh film is more accessible, by which I mean that it doesn't require the same degree of mental effort to enjoy it. A completely different meaning to that that which you imply.



    Also, if something is inaccessible, it doesn't have to stay that way. A greater understanding of the content of the story and the motivations of the characters can lead to that inaccessability being reduced and/or removed.



    Just because a film is more philosophical it isn't necessarily 'better', just different. The Soderbergh version is both intelligent and entertaining and is not a lesser film than the original, just different. I think many people see the entertainment factor of a film as not worthy of inclusion in such a debate, but IMHO they are wrong. A shortish film with a higher entertainment factor can be just as philosophical as any 4hr bum number.



    I have enjoyed Bergman's films for many years.

  4. #64
    Senior Member moonfleet's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,659
    Liked
    144 times
    name='batman']I didn't say Tarkovsky's Solaris was inaccesible, I said that, for people who don't generally like Tarkovsky's intense style of film making, the Soderbergh film is more accessible, by which I mean that it doesn't require the same degree of mental effort to enjoy it. A completely different meaning to that that which you imply.



    Also, if something is inaccessible, it doesn't have to stay that way. A greater understanding of the content of the story and the motivations of the characters can lead to that inaccessability being reduced and/or removed.



    Just because a film is more philosophical it isn't necessarily 'better', just different. The Soderbergh version is both intelligent and entertaining and is not a lesser film than the original, just different. I think many people see the entertainment factor of a film as not worthy of inclusion in such a debate, but IMHO they are wrong. A shortish film with a higher entertainment factor can be just as philosophical as any 4hr bum number.



    I have enjoyed Bergman's films for many years.


    I agree that you can find philosophical meanings in Z movies ( no joke, I really enjoy it), just to add that I'd rather Soderbergh's "Kafka" than "Solaris"

    M.

  5. #65
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    321
    Liked
    0 times
    Has anyone seen the 1930 version of Outward Bound? I'd like to know a non-professional's opinion of it versus the 1944 Between Two Worlds. I can, of course, check out this on IMDb, but I don't always necessarily agree with their remarks.



    I have not seen the '30 version--was it more accurate, as to the play? I thought the last (?) remake was superb--John Garfield, Faye Emerson, George Coulourais (pardon the spelling), and the first-class 'lady' whom Sydney Greenstreet banished to a lonely castle.



    Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. was very active throughout the 1930s, but he was quite young when he played the suicide in Outward Bound--twenty-two or so. He was very self-deprecating in The Salad Days. On the surface, it looked like he had it all--misnamed the 'Crown Prince of Hollywood.' In fact, his father never seemed to want to have much to do with him. I guess Doug Senior couldn't picture having a grown son and probably felt challenged by his only son. Doug Junior was probably more British than most British, and I encourage anyone to read his biography. It's too bad one of our presidents (Truman or Eisenhower--or even Kennedy) didn't appoint him as Ambassador to the Court of St. James's.

  6. #66
    Senior Member Country: England
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,920
    Liked
    2 times
    of course everyone knows that the recent version of bedazzled starring liz hurley is far superior to the original 1967 version starring pete and dud .......not ! actually ive never seen the remake ,only read the reviews ,is it any good ?its on tv sometime this week .

  7. #67
    Super Moderator Country: UK batman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    27,595
    Liked
    255 times
    name='davidb']of course everyone knows that the recent version of bedazzled starring liz hurley is far superior to the original 1967 version starring pete and dud .......not ! actually ive never seen the remake ,only read the reviews ,is it any good ?its on tv sometime this week .


    It's crap, but I am not a fan of the original either.

  8. #68
    Senior Member Country: UK
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    355
    Liked
    0 times
    Well for me the ultimate remake, so much better than the original was John Carpenter's The Thing (1982), Hawk's version was just too silly (there's fun to be had in that) and was a pretty poor sci-fi of the 50's. Carpenter's version is a far closer rendition to the book and the ending is a classic open ended what's going to happen next....



    I also very much prefer the 1978 version of The Invasion of the Body Snatchers , Kaufman's version cashes in on mistrust in modern society which makes it's paranoia a far more eerie: creepy crawly type of film rather than Siegel's tame but memorable red scare take.



    I'd also go along with DePalma's Scarface being a better take than the 1932 version and I like the 1953 version of The House of Wax better than it's predecessor of Mystery of the House of Wax from 1933 and someone should remake 'Catch 22' and do the book the justice it deserves.



    Simon

  9. #69
    Super Moderator Country: England
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    4,804
    Liked
    7 times
    The 1939 The Four Feathers has to be the greatest ....and it was something like the fourth version...

  10. #70
    Super Moderator Country: UK batman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    27,595
    Liked
    255 times
    name='penfold']The 1939 The Four Feathers has to be the greatest ....and it was something like the fourth version...


    And none of the subsequent versions can match it either.

  11. #71
    Senior Member Country: UK
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    355
    Liked
    0 times
    I was trying to think of some British remakes of films that seemed better; quite hard when you get down to it. Obvious ones like David Lean's Great Expectations is the definitve cinematic version of the Dicken's novel and towers over the US 1934 version, which is bland. The same I think can be said for his version of Oliver Twist, even though I do quite like the one with Lon Chaney in. How about Hamlet, I've seen a few and Olivers seems the most impressive?



    Simon

  12. #72
    GRAEME
    Guest
    I may be a pointless stick in the mud here - but please!



    David Lean's Great Expectations (or anybody else's, if it comes to that!) is NOT A REMAKE.



    It is a new version of an original novel.



    A remake is when you take an older movie and.. er.. re-make it.



    Any film based on a play or a book etc is not (necessarily - some are such as some Frankenstien films) a remake of an earlier version if it is an entirely original version of the sourse material.

  13. #73
    Senior Member Country: UK
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    355
    Liked
    0 times
    name='GRAEME']I may be a pointless stick in the mud here - but please!



    David Lean's Great Expectations (or anybody else's, if it comes to that!) is NOT A REMAKE.



    It is a new version of an original novel.



    A remake is when you take an older movie and.. er.. re-make it.



    Any film based on a play or a book etc is not (necessarily - some are such as some Frankenstien films) a remake of an earlier version if it is an entirely original version of the sourse material.


    I knew someone would find me saying Lean's Great Expectations was a remake an anethema to themselves.



    Should we discount all adapted screenplays then? Are only original screenplays eligible as fodder for remakes?



    Simon

  14. #74
    GRAEME
    Guest
    name='Third Man']I knew someone would find me saying Lean's Great Expectations was a remake an anethema to themselves.



    Should we discount all adapted screenplays then? Are only original screenplays eligible as fodder for remakes?



    Simon


    IMO Yes! Except under very special circumstances where the first film is clearly the sourse rather than the original novel, for example.



    Huston's Maltese Falcon is an adaptation of Hammett's novel - not a remake of Satan Met a Lady!

  15. #75
    Senior Member Country: Scotland
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    520
    Liked
    0 times
    I don't think there's anything very silly about the Howard Hawks/Christian Nyby THING. It's certainly not a poor sci-fi film of the 50s, it stands head and shoulders above most other SF of that period. And there's nothing in it as silly as Kurt Russell pouring booze in his talking chess computer.

    The 50s version obviously doesn't have the special effects technology Carpenter had. But it's completely consistent and logical and intelligent with its own story. Whereas in the Carpenter, when they decide to take blood samples of the men, they use the same needle, thus potentially contaminating every sample! A minor flaw, perhaps, but exactly the kind you don't find in the 50s version.



    The sequels that beat the originals are usually ones that return to a source novel or play. Here Carpenter was helped by going back to the original short story, but I still don't think he "wins" -- but he certainly makes a good, radically different film.



    The 1970s THREE MUSKETEERS films are the best version of Dumas, imho.

  16. #76
    Senior Member Country: UK
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    355
    Liked
    0 times
    name='D Cairns']I don't think there's anything very silly about the Howard Hawks/Christian Nyby THING. It's certainly not a poor sci-fi film of the 50s, it stands head and shoulders above most other SF of that period.


    I'm finding this very silly..







    I know I'm probably in the minority when I say I think Hawks' The Thing From Another World is a poor sc-fi but for me it's a tin-pot work distinctly let down by the wooden characters and stiff dialogue with the coup de grace coming in the form of the appearance of Nyby.



    However the film does manage some good moments of tension and paranoia but it's all too short lived:Carpenter does it much better and with a superb haunting synthed-out Ennio Morricone score to boot which permeates the tension and paranoia out in insidious oodles.



    I know allot of critics panned this version but this is truly a cult film where the audience spoke for it rather than the columnists.



    Simon

  17. #77
    GRAEME
    Guest
    name='Third Man']I'm finding this very silly..







    I know I'm probably in the minority when I say I think Hawks' The Thing From Another World is a poor sc-fi but for me it's a tin-pot work distinctly let down by the wooden characters and stiff dialogue with the coup de grace coming in the form of the appearance of Nyby.




    Nyby? He was the "credited director". The Thing as pictured was played by James Arness.

  18. #78
    Senior Member Country: UK
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    355
    Liked
    0 times
    name='GRAEME']Nyby? He was the "credited director". The Thing as pictured was played by James Arness.


    Thanks, I figure people know what I meant.



    Simon

  19. #79
    GRAEME
    Guest
    name='Third Man']Thanks, I figure people know what I meant.



    Simon


    Yeah, right.

  20. #80
    Senior Member Country: UK
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    355
    Liked
    0 times
    name='graeme']yeah, right.




    troll alert!!!

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Remakes that you WANT to see
    By Scorpio in forum General Film Chat
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 09-11-11, 10:56 PM
  2. RKO Remakes
    By orpheum in forum General Film Chat
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-10-09, 06:58 PM
  3. General - Remakes Of Older Films
    By Ambrosia in forum General Film Chat
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 25-06-07, 12:46 PM
  4. Remakes and DVD
    By Carmel in forum British Films and Chat
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-04-07, 06:24 PM
  5. If not remakes, then - ?
    By ChristineCB in forum General Film Chat
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 14-03-07, 11:46 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts