Thanks for the vote for the ‘original’ “A Star is Born”, Greg. I’ve always loved Janet Gaynor and Fredrick March as Vicky and Norman but have felt out-numbered. We won’t even mention the later remake with all the hair! (My own favorite remake is “Sabrina” – although I think Humphrey Bogart and Harrison Ford are both too old for the Sabrina character, rebound or not.)

The Wizard of Oz was a remake of a shorter, silent version. That is the way to do a remake. Make it awesome. I would be fine with some horrible, lesser known movies being remade and made better. Do we really need a remake of Ferris Bueller’s Day Off? No thanks. The first one was fine. Do we really need remakes of every 70′s and 80′s horror movie? Indeed, we do not. Remake a horrible, forgotten piece of crap, and make it better.

And for the record, on the whole, remakes are generally worse than sequels. There have been more good sequels than good remakes (at least in the last 30 years or so).

Since Ben-Hur, there’s been the Oscar winning The Departed, a remake of Andrew Lau and Alan Mak’s Infernal Affairs.

Martin Scorsese has more films that are remakes than many people realize, including Gangs of New York and best of all, Age of Innocence.

Greg, I’ve been wanting to see “Sorcerer” for quite some time now, but the only DVD I can find is a 1.33:1 version (not sure if it is Pan & Scan or Open frame, but I’m not keen on either). Is there a legitimate version out there? NetFlix (though my Canadian NetFlix doesn’t have it, at least it would be nice to know a widescreen version of the film is out there)? Or have you just seen it projected? I’m even more keen to see it now. And it also has a Tangerine Dream score too, doesn’t it? Dammit!

How does Wilder’s 1974 version of “The Front Page” stack up to the 1931 version? I liked it fine enough, but it really does pale in comparison to “His Girl Friday” for me…

Duke, I don’t mind if they remake 70s and 80s horror films (let’s face it, as fun as some of them were, many of them aren’t exactly “classics”) and don’t much care how closely they follow the original story – just make them interesting. A pretty young cast with fake scares (enough with the cats jumping out of nowhere!) and jump scares (with no buildup of tension and that work only because the music suddenly blares) just doesn’t cut it. A good example of a recent horror remake was “The Crazies” – a reimagini…uh, I mean, a remake of Romero’s 1973 film. Solid acting, well paced, beautifully shot and based a great deal around the tension and dread of the situation.

missrhea, I really love Gaynor and March’s rapport in the movie and March’s commanding presence makes his downfall all the more tragic. I love it.

i find it interesting that old broadway plays get revived all the time and no one complains this much about it, but see it as an opportunity to see how different actors/directors/designers can re-imagine a production and bring something new to a familiar story. but remake a loved movie and fans of the original immediately tense up and grow cold to the idea that anyone can possibly replace their beloved stars/writers/directors/cinematographers. I used to be one of those fans who gritted my teeth at the idea of a remake. but then i thought about the above comparison and realized, i don’t really hate a remake because it’s a remake, i hate it because it’s a bad film, has weak acting, poor directorial vision, etc. and now I’ll gladly entertain a remake that attempts to bring something new to the table. if nothing else, comparing the failings of a remake can highlight what made the original so beloved, and shows what elements made it work well.

BTW– here is another remake that won best picture- Return of the King was also technically a remake, though the 1980 version was a tv film, I think it would still qualify as a previous version.

duke, I agree. I have a list of movies I was excited to see but they disappointed so I want them made again, and right this time.

Peter, saying Gangs of New York was a remake (I presume you’re talking about the 1938 version) is like saying Titanic was a remake of Lifeboat. From what I understand, the Scorsese film has practically nothing, outside of the title, to do with the book upon which it’s supposedly based.

I’ve never seen any other version of Age of Innocence but felt Scorsese’s was excellent.

A good example of a recent horror remake was “The Crazies” – a reimagini…uh, I mean, a remake of Romero’s 1973 film. Solid acting, well paced, beautifully shot and based a great deal around the tension and dread of the situation.

That was a close one… watch your language. I never saw the remake, I’ll give it a look now.

Bob, I first saw Sorcerer at a college showing of it. Sadly, there are no good copies of it to my knowledge available on DVD. I rented it from Netflix to watch it again before writing this and was dismayed to receive the full screen version (which is hilarious, by the way. It says “Modified to fit your screen” and, yet, since I was watching on a widescreen, it didn’t!). Hopefully Friedkin will oversee a proper transfer of this movie at some point. If I were you, I’d wait. It’s a tremendous movie, no need to ruin the first impression with such a bad transfer. By the way, it appeared open frame to me, no blurred moving back and forth to constantly re-center.

Gene, the difference for me would be that a theatrical performance lives on only in the memory of those who saw it. If someone produces the 417th revival of A Streetcar Named Desire and it either sucks or succeeds, there is no way for people to say, “Here, now let’s watch Jessica Tandy and Marlon Brando on this very same stage, live, in front of us.” There can be videotapes of productions, but the actual live-in-front-of-an-audience experience can never be preserved except in memory.

A movie, on the other hand, is never watched live. It is preserved on film and so, I think, people wonder why remake something’s that’s already there, available for all to see?

That said, I obviously agree with you about the remake simply being a new way to look at the movie, which is why I close the piece as I did. If someone can make it even better, why not? If they can’t, it just preserves the original in all its greatness even more.

Broadway productions are seen by a much smaller percentage of the public than movies. And if there’s a new production of a show that first ran in 1956, the percentage of living people that have seen that show is even smaller.

I have been wanting to watch the new version of The Crazies. I have heard that it is better than the original, but I want to watch the original first. Another remake, coming out this month, that I actually do want to see is Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark. The original was the subject of a recent post. Of course, I have never seen the original and it was a TV movie, so this may have a good chance of being better.

Well, yeah, Scorsese took the title and inspiration from the same literary source. Still, I’d love to check out James Cruze’s film, with a screenplay that included contributions from a young Samuel Fuller.

TCM showed the first film version of Age of Innocence which was basically a film version of the play taken from the Wharton novel. Irene Dunne was the star. Try as I might, twice, I couldn’t watch more than half an hour.

A newish phenomena is Japanese remakes of Hollywood films, with new versions of Ghost and Sideways, as well as a Japanese sequel to Paranormal Activity.

Greg, we have something in common. My dad took me to see Sorcerer on the weekend that it opened in 1977, and the two other people who were in the theater with us were all blown away. What a wonderful film that was so resoundingly ignored. It’s a shame because it was made to be seen in a theater with the soundtrack blasting. The acting (especially Bruno Ganz and the always great Roy Scheider), cinematography, editing, and (especially) the score by Tangerine Dream were all excellent. And I agree that I enjoyed it more than The Wages of Fear, which is saying a great deal.

One more remake that outdid the original was The Ten Commandmants. Cecil B. DeMille’s work was just made for Technicolor and Cinemascope. While the original was a technical achievement for its time, it just can’t hold a scarab to the remake, with Heston great as Moses and Yul even better as Ramses. We always borrow this from the library to watch with the kids around Passover time, since I hate the commercial interruptions on the television broadcast, and my kids are too young to stay up until the end.

As for remakes which should never have been made, at the top of the list is the usually awesome Gus Van Sant’s Psycho. To this day, I think it was all a very large and expensive practical joke on Gus’s part.

Well, yeah, Scorsese took the title and inspiration from the same literary source. Still, I’d love to check out James Cruze’s film, with a screenplay that included contributions from a young Samuel Fuller.

I had no idea Sam Fuller contributed to that. I don’t even think there’s a copy available of the ’38 version but I’d love to see it.

And I imagine I’ll hate Ghost no matter who makes it.

Demme’s remake of The Manchurian Candidate is actually pretty great, and it’s a setup that reflects a specific political climate so closely that changing it around for changing times actually makes a fair amount of sense.

I think the automatic ‘ecchh’ association for remakes in general is that, as with sequels, the appeal of them for studios is that it means already charted territory- it’s a movie they can bank on without ever seeing it. Which, in turn, means that there’s often no real reason actually to make it _good_. Nearly all the Platinum Dunes horror movie remakes that have been coming out for the last few years- the new Nightmare on Elm Street, the new Friday the 13th, the new Texas Chainsaw Massacre, etc.- fit that description. They’re product, not movies, and nobody making them cares about them in the least.

On the other hand, you have something like Cronenberg’s the Fly, the 70s remake of Body Snatchers, the aforementioned The Thing, etc. The names were probably fairly marketable- I’m guessing the originals were all on regular rotation on TV in the 70s and 80s- but their creators were really interested in seeing what they could do with those premises, and all three reflect the director’s personal style immensely. If a remake does that, it might not be a great movie (Tim Burton doesn’t have much luck with them) but it won’t have the stink of ‘ecchh, remake’ when you watch it.

Fred, I bought the soundtrack to Sorcerer way back when and then updated it on CD once it was available. It’s a great score with a lot more on the CD than is heard in the movie.

I’m glad to see there are others who like Sorcerer so much because it got a truly bad rap. In Europe, it was released without the opening character stories! No one knew what was going on when the movie started and, worst of all, the audiences didn’t get what the two men showing up at the end meant! Friedkin was furious, as well he should have been. It’s a superb movie, powerful, bleak and disturbing and so beautifully shot. It’s a crime that there isn’t a good copy of this movie available right now.

I love The Ten Commandments remake, too. One of these days I’ll get around to putting it on my “Land Before CGI” list because its effects are just phenomenal.

“Gene, the difference for me would be that a theatrical performance lives on only in the memory of those who saw it. If someone produces the 417th revival of A Streetcar Named Desire and it either sucks or succeeds, there is no way for people to say, “Here, now let’s watch Jessica Tandy and Marlon Brando on this very same stage, live, in front of us.” There can be videotapes of productions, but the actual live-in-front-of-an-audience experience can never be preserved except in memory.”

In the commentary for the Olivier Richard III, they actually mention that there were a fair number of Shakespeare scholars of the time who thought it a shame that Olivier’s performance had been filmed- the idea being that anyone who played Richard III, from then on, would have to compare his performance to that one. It’s a strange idea to a movie person- I think for us, anything lost forever is a tragedy- but it does make some sense.

Well, Tom, you may have just convinced me to finally give a look to Demme’s Manchurian Candidate remake but, damn, that original is a masterwork in my opinion and I’ll have a hard time keeping that out of my head while watching it.

You also mentioned not only one of my favorite remakes ever, but one of my favorite movies ever, the 1978 Philip Kaufmann version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. I love that movie. I’ve seen it a lot and it never gets old. A shining example of exactly how to do a remake, and a remake of a beloved original, no less!

greg

yeah definitely agree the analogy i made is a limited one regarding theatrical revivals vs. cinema remakes. as you say, the previous stage productions exist only in memory; that is probably one of the key reasons some folks are reticent to embrace a remake- in that sense it is more like the world of art- the market is limited for an artist who wants to re-make the sistine chapel or mona lisa, as the result is merely a copy; like the remake of psycho, a shot-for-shot reenactment of an established masterpiece.
While we can on some level appreciate the ability of an artist to replicate what another has done, the fact that it’s been done before diminishes our appreciation for the copy- the artist who created the original had the search and explore and wrestle with the techniques and problems involved in creating the original, and the copier only has to look and see what the first artist has already done and repeat it. and if he merely repeats what is already done, and brings nothing new to the table, his work IS kind of pointless.
there is an element missing in such copyings: the originality- one of the most treasured factors in evaluating art of any kind. when we see something that is new, astonishingly different from anything we’ve seen before, it shows a level of creativity in the artist that we can only marvel at. that is where the remakes that DO succeed must draw their strength from- adding something new to what has been established in the previous iteration- a new twist, a new perspective a new SOMETHING that makes a work fresh.

It’s a strange idea to a movie person- I think for us, anything lost forever is a tragedy- but it does make some sense.

Also, for those who are new to me here (I’ve talked about this a lot on Cinema Styles in previous years), I’m an actor and have had my performances videotaped. Since, when you’re on stage you’re not specifically acting for the camera, but rather, for an audience stretching back some fifty or sixty yards, the performances of plays captured on film never project 1/10th the power they do on stage.

if he merely repeats what is already done, and brings nothing new to the table, his work IS kind of pointless.
there is an element missing in such copyings: the originality- one of the most treasured factors in evaluating art of any kind.

Well said. And art exists in its own time as well. A shot for shot remake of Psycho misses the feel of the film as a commentary on postwar America and the fading dreams of those who never quite caught the same bus of prosperity as so many others. Just shooting it again, shot for shot, is like showing me photos someone took from the same exact vantage point as Ansel Adams. “So what?” would be all I could muster.

I didn’t care for the remake of The Manchurian Candidate. I love the original. While the remake was shiny and more “timely”, it lacked the unique vision of what made the original so, for lack of a better word, original. The new version might be a fine, serviceable espionage thriller for people who may have never seen the original, but suffers greatly in comparison. It has a feeling of “been there, done that” about it. And that’s not just because I have seen the original, but because it is so much like every other political thriller made these days.

While I thought the new Manchurian Candidate was nothing spectacular, the recent remake, The Taking of Pelham 123 was an atrocity. The original was gritty, tense and great. The remake was loud, “stylish”, ugly and lacking in every respect: a totally forgettable piece of nonsense.

One good, recent remake: 3:10 to Yuma. That was great.

From what I gather, Friedkin actually approves of the full-frame transfer of SORCERER that is currently on DVD, so I don’t know if an anamorphic one is in the future. I actually like both versions of the story, with the latter slightly ahead for the Tangerine Dream score (their best IMHO is the one for THIEF, one of my favorite films of the 80′s) but the photography of Clouzot’s version is still incredible.

As for other remakes, DeMille’s own remake of TEN COMMANDMENTS is vastly superior to the ’23 version, but I still prefer the ’25 BEN-HUR over the remake for two reasons-it is shorter and the chariot race actually seems closer to what a real chariot race in ancient Rome would have been like (also love those 2-strip Technicolor sequences). If you see the silent version with Carl Davis’ magnificent score, you might find yourself agreeing with me.

Van Sant’s PSYCHO? Another example of a film that should have all copies destroyed and the last one transferred to flammable nitrate and stored near a furnace, along with the remakes of LOST HORIZON, KING KONG (1976), both remakes of THE JAZZ SINGER and the ’76 version of A STAR IS BORN, the last if only for the “Oreos” number that Streisand does (which something tells me was the inspiration of the same kind of number Neil Diamond does in the aforementioned JAZZ SINGER remake)-peeeuuuuwww!

the recent remake, The Taking of Pelham 123 was an atrocity. The original was gritty, tense and great. The remake was loud, “stylish”, ugly and lacking in every respect: a totally forgettable piece of nonsense.

Another one I avoided. Hmmm… for someone writing a piece touting the greatness of several remakes, I sure do avoid a lot of them.

From what I gather, Friedkin actually approves of the full-frame transfer of SORCERER that is currently on DVD, so I don’t know if an anamorphic one is in the future.

Even if he does, as Kubrick did with the full-frame release of The Shining, a proper, and cleaned up, presentation of the film in its original form is sorely needed. This film is filled with visual power that needs to be seen, preferably in a theatre, but in a pinch, on a widescreen tv in the proper ratio.

And those nightclub sequences in both the 76 Star is Born and The Jazz Singer were embarrassing upon release (I know, I was there) but now, they look and feel downright appalling.

The Neil Diamond version of The Jazz Singer is amusingly awful, but it’s not like it’s in insult to some magnificent masterpiece- the ’27 version is pretty awful, as even Jolson and Raphaelson (who wrote the play) later agreed. It’s important for opening the sound floodgates, but that doesn’t actually make it _good_.

There’s your challenge, Hollywood: Make a good version of The Jazz Singer.

My vote for best original/remake combo, where I think both are great, would be The Searchers and The Missing.

Speaking of Pelham 123, there is a made for TV version that I thought was better than the most recent one but not as good as the original.

Greg, you made the key point in saying that when a film works, it refelcts something of its time. This can’t be recaptured in a remake, and usually the attempt to update can’t find an equivalent. The 1950s was obsessed with the notion of “Momism” and boys being too close to their mothers. Remember Dad in an apron in REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE? This feeds into Hitchcock’s PSYCHO. Norman Bates is crazy, but represents 1950s anxieties in a distorted way.

In 1962 the discovery of brainwashing in the Korean War was only a decade old. This idea was still very unsettling, something the general public might have heard of but hadn’t assimilated into their picture of what happens in the world. Thus the deeper power of Frankenheimer’s THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE.

One of the weirder remakes is THE UNFAITHFUL, Vincent Sherman’s remake of Wyler’s THE LETTER, itself a remake. Bette Davis as Leslie Crosbie is the ultimate unsympathetic sexual hypocrite and murderess. When Ann Sheridan plays the part, this is a sympathetic woman, more sinned against than sinning. THE UNFAITHFUL is probably better if you don’t know its source.

I agree with Tom. The ’27 version of The Jazz Singer is only considered a classic because of its importance as a landmark in sound recording for a film. It’s pretty bad. I also think the acting in All Quiet on the Western Front is pretty bad. Has anyone seen the remake of that? Does the remake have the cool shot of the hand hanging from the fence?

I saw “Sorcerer” on the big screen when it was first released and as I recall it looked really terrific. I knew vaguely that it was a remake of ‘some French film’ (foreign language films have never been my forte) but since I was too young to have seen it, I could enjoy the remake on its own terms. Unfortunately it got slaughtered by the press and disappeared without trace. A proper DVD transfer would be a godsend as well as a relief for the fans of this sadly neglected film.

Andrew, I never saw The Missing but I certainly love Tommy Lee Jones and Cate Blanchett. Honestly, that film wasn’t even on my radar, I’ll have to check it out.

Nor have I seen the remake of, either televised or theatrical, of The Taking of Pelham 123 but all this talk has me wanting to see the original again.

Kingrat, I love The Letter and consider it one of Wyler’s best. I feel like I’ve seen The Unfaithful, perhaps long ago without knowing it was a remake but I can’t be sure. Every time I get into discussions in comment sections I discover all over again how many movies there still are yet to see.

Also, I suppose, to a degree, all movies exist within their time so it is the task of the remake to adapt the story to its time and make it work there, which is why Van Sant’s Psycho failed because it was completely unadapted, except for color over black and white. Sorcerer does a good job of placing the story in the corrupt, financially desperate seventies. It totally feels right in 1977 and perhaps that’s what attracted Friedkin to remake it then.

Something like Network works brilliantly in 1976 as both satire and prophecy but if one were to remake it now it would seem like a straightforward telling of the current state of the television networks.

I also think the acting in All Quiet on the Western Front is pretty bad. Has anyone seen the remake of that? Does the remake have the cool shot of the hand hanging from the fence?

I saw the version for tv with Richard Thomas and Ernest Borgnine years ago. It was pretty good as I remember but nothing remarkable. The acting in the original suffers the same fate as all movie acting from 28 to 30, the dreaded early sound years. Foley work was practically non-existent, post-production dubbing was non-existent and most actors were unfamiliar with how to project themselves properly on camera and most directors had no idea how to pace dialogue without an audience present to provide vocal cues (very important to pacing in the theatre, for instance). But the visual power of the film, especially the dirt and filth of the art direction, overcomes the acting flaws.

CherieP, I can understand the press tearing it up in Europe, where the prints were incomplete but in the states it was presented properly and it’s excellence should have been obvious. Roger Ebert ranked it in his top ten for that year so at least it didn’t go totally unrecognized.

I recommend The Missing over either Pelham remake.

I think I mentioned to you in the past that Ransom (with Mel) is a remake. I really liked the original with Glenn Ford. You have to overlook how it treats the Mom as a helpless damsel (that whole reflevtion of its time thing you are spot on about) but I really like how was all shown from Dad’s perspective and you never see the bad guys. I belive the Glenn Ford was itself a remake of a TV drama but i have never seen that one.

Ransom is partly based on an Ed McBain book, King’s Ransom, which is also the source for Kurosawa’s High and Low- which is one of the best movies ever made, I think.

To join others who commented about “A Star is Born,” I vote with the original as my favorite! To re-imagine “A Star is Born” as a musical–then who else but Garland as Vicki Lester, and her great talent deserved such a comeback role. (Personally, though, I’d have rather seen Gene Kelly co-star as Garland’s hoofer/husband in decline.) The original movie certainly stuck closer to its title of “A Star is Born.” I rate the original version right up there with 1950′s “Sunset Blvd.” as a Hollywood exposé.

I saw the Glenn Ford version a few years ago. It had a rather odd and abrupt ending if I remember correctly. I won’t spoil it in case someone hasn’t seen it but would like to. It was just like “That’s it?”

And I tried watching The Missing. I did not care for it. I was not aware that it was a remake of The Searchers or that it was even based on the same story. I didn’t get that from watching it. The Searchers is one of my top 5 favorite movies of all time and that movie wasn’t nearly as good.

Thanks for the reply. I saw the film in Australia and was in my late teens at the time. I’m sure your recollection is perfectly correct. Our local press in Sydney were not renowned for their aesthetic capabilities and the tabloids gave it a drubbing. Which print was made for distribution here I don’t know. I’m almost certain that I saw it in the first week of release but after that…poof! it was gone. I’m so glad this was only a local phenomenon and the film was better thought of in the U.S.!

Andrew, I remember you telling me about years ago, yes. I saw it myself on TCM years later and liked it a lot more than the remake.

Duke, I haven’t seen The Missing but I assume they have similar stories so could be considered a different take on the same story. Again, I haven’t seen it yet so I’ll let Andrew answer that.

Tom, yes, Kurosawa’s High and Low is a fantastic movie.

NCeddie – Gene Kelly would have made for a very interesting pairing! The musical dancer/singer star, full of himself and fading from the limelight against vulnerable Judy, singing her heart out despite it all. Yes, I can see that really working well.

Nevertheless, I’m glad to see so much love for the 1937 version. It’s not just my favorite of all the versions, but one of my favorite films of the thirties, period.

Our local press in Sydney were not renowned for their aesthetic capabilities and the tabloids gave it a drubbing.

Movie criticism in the mainstream media is an interesting thing. 95 percent of “critics” writing for papers and magazines are simply English and Journalism majors who, after getting work at the paper or magazine, are thrust into the film critic job. Jonathan Rosenbaum wrote about this years ago. He wrote about how a remarkably small number are actually cinephiles who love film, which is the opposite with bloggers online, all writing about film because of their love for it, not the money. As a result of so many non-cinephiles on the job, what would happen, and still happens today, which is why I don’t give much credence to a movie’s rating on Rotten Tomatoes, is that one or two big critics state a reaction to a movie and everyone else follows suit.

This generally happens with the higher profile yet confusing/mystifying/not-quite-mainstream movies like Sorcerer. So when Leslie Halliwell sees the mangled print and hates it, most of the press, not knowing what to think of the movie, go with the same reaction.

I wrote about this some time ago on Cinema Styles about Heaven’s Gate, where Ebert led the charge against the movie (which most people saw in a badly edited print) and it’s questionable from his review whether Ebert actually saw it or, at least, paid attention. But after the reviews out of New York (of the cut version) from Vincent Canby destroying it, everyone else fell in line.

Some stories speak to you and, for that reason, I can understand a director or actors wanting to sink their teeth into an already well-loved project. Sometimes it can be interesting and fun, such as comparing “One Sunday Afternoon” (musical) to “The Strawberry Blonde” to “One Sunday Afternoon” (original).

What irks me most are the remakes in name only that trade on familiarity and popularity such as “Cheaper by the Dozen” and “Yours, Mine and Ours”.

That’s how most remakes for summer audiences are. Just tired retreads looking to milk more money from the plot.

How about Pygmalion/My Fair Lady or Matchmaker/Hello Dolly!? In both of those cases I go with the non-musical original.

Patricia- you make a very good point. Both the Cheaper by the Dozen and Yours, Mine and Ours “remakes” were horrifically bad.

Duke, guess our reactions show how much of this is subjective. Caught The Missing by chance on cable with no advance knowledge other than it was a Tommy Lee jones flick and spent a good chunk of the movie with deja vu until I finally remembered the Searchers.

Funny about Ransom, the completely linear story telling in the older one was what appealed to me.

Speaking of dukes, I think I might put the True Grit remake ahhead of the original but I am very open to it being a case that it is as much due to the movies being a reflection of the styles of the times and that I saw the newer one on a wide screen.

I loved the True Grit remake by the Coen brothers. I thought it was just terrific and while I would say the portrayal of Rooster by Wayne/Bridges were both excellent/equal, the portrayals of Mattie and LeBoeuf by Hailee Steinfeld and Matt Damon far outdid the work of Kim Darby and Glenn Campbell in the original. It was one of my favorite movies of last year.

I think the remakes of A Star is Born ’76 and The Jazz Singer ’80 should be destoryed for no other reason than they besmirch the careers of two very gifted singer-songwriters (Kris Kristofersson in the former and Neil Diamond in the latter). They may count as the worst thing either singer ever did.

I think your point about movie reviewers and the rush to judgment against Sorcerer and Heaven’s Gate is well stated. Back in the late 80s and early 90s, I used to go to press screenings with a now-deceased friend who was a member of the NYC press corps. I remember watching a pre-release screening of American Me when a famous New York based film critic arrived one hour late, just in time for the prison rape scene. The next day he issued a scathing review of the film for its violence and debauchery without context (of course he didn’t have “context” b/c he missed the first hour which set up the entire scene). The same thing would happen at other screenings where critics would fall asleep, leave in the middle to go take a dump, start chatting with the critic next to them, etc. It’s a pretty sad situation of which most of the public is unfortunately unaware.

Greg,
I agree with you about True Grit. Just not sure with the supporting cast, how much was the actors and how much was the acting style of the times.

About critics:

I think one of the reasons it’s always so interesting to read Pauline Kael reviews, even though I rarely agree with her, is that she was consistently (and sometimes aggressively) uninterested in the critical mainstream- her opinions are always her own, and she can always defend them in a consistent way- and she was always passionately in love with the movies, which you could see in her writing, and therefore always actually watched the damn movies before deciding what she thought.

My favorite example of this is with Stop Making Sense, the Talking Heads concert movie- Kael absolutely raved about it, in spite of being unfamiliar with Talking Heads as a band, while John Simon walked out because he couldn’t imagine taking a “rock & roll” movie seriously and then made fun of Kael for bothering to take notes.

Fred – How shameful. If a critic shows up an hour late he shouldn’t bother. By the way, I should state that Roger Ebert is a true film lover but in the Heaven’s Gate review, he has several glaring errors about the movie that point to either not seeing it (falling asleep, maybe?) or not paying attention at all (talking with someone, going to the bathroom, etc.). It’s a shame because there are so many film lovers online now reviewing movies and engaging readers for free while others get paid for hack work.

Andrew, I should amend that to say I thought Kim Darby was very good but Steinfeld was simply magnificent. Campbell just wasn’t very good in the role.

Tom, John Simon’s a mean-spirited putz. I have a feeling that the critic Fred is referring to is John Simon. It certainly fits (Fred, you don’t have to say).

While I agree that Matt Damon’s acting was much better than Glen Campbell’s acting, Kim Darby played the character as more self righteous and more domineering. She played the part as someone you might imagine a father could entrust such difficult tasks with. Hailee Steinfeld was very good too, but played the part more realistically, more like a teenager girl who only occasionally lets off at the mouth. The two syles were very different, but I prefer Darby’s portrayal. And as the Duke/Dude debate goes: The Duke beats The Dude hands down. Jeff Bridges’s character voice seemed to go in and out every now and then. His voice seemed to be the most intimidating part of him, while the Duke intimidates just by walking into a room. That is not to say that Jeff Bridges wasn’t good, just that John Wayne was much better.

Carpenter’s “The Thing” wasn’t a remake of Hawks’ “The Thing From Another World.” It was a reinterpretation of the original source material, John W. Campbell’s novella “Who Goes There?” Carpenter’s version is far more faithful to the original story (made possible by the far more sophisticated special effects of the 80s) and shares only the isolated, arctic setting with the Hawks film.
“The Wages of Fear” was made at the height of postwar French existentialism and might as well have been scripted by Sartre. I loved it for its gut-churning suspense, but tired quickly of the heavy-handed existential dialogue (“I always wondered what was behind that fence, mon ami.” “”I looked once. There was nothing behind the fence, mon vieux.”) If Clouzot had tried to give the film anything but a dumb, meaningless, depressing ending, he probably would have had his French citizenship revoked.

duke, I definitely see John Wayne as such a unique and towering figure in Hollywood history that I can’t even think about comparing someone’s performance as the same character to one of his. I choose to think of both Bridges and Wayne giving great performances. I didn’t notice Bridges voice going in and out, though. Anyway, I thought he was excellent but I think I found Steinfeld’s performance better than you did. I saw her as level-headed and focused, which would also be qualities one would look for when entrusting a young girl with responsibility. But, again, I thought Darby was very good, too.

When I saw the Diamond JAZZ SINGER when it came out (mostly out of curiosity-both early versions are pretty awful; at least the ’27 version has May McAvoy [sigh]) and I remember a friend turning to me after Olivier disowns Diamond and parodying the dialogue: “I haff…no son! I haff…no career!!”

As for the Streisand A STAR IS BORN, my friends dragged me to it and even paid my admission. I honestly do not remember doing this, but one of my friends says that every once in a while I would mutter “This is a piece of s***!” As for the Garland version, it is beautifully made and the songs and performances are wonderful, but stretching out the story to 3 hours still seems self-indulgent. Supposedly Cary Grant was the first choice for the role that Mason played-would have been interesting seeing Grant play against type and even die…The ’37 version will always be my fave, if only for Wellman’s nice use of 3-strip Technicolor and a great cast.

John, the John Carpenter version indeed follows “Who Goes There” much closer and is a favorite sci-fi of mine from the eighties. So, yes, maybe it’s not an exact remake of the Hawks’ film but both draw from the same source work, even if one, the original, doesn’t follow it all that much. I will say, I love them both. Just like Body Snatchers, both versions work extremely well.

If Clouzot had tried to give the film anything but a dumb, meaningless, depressing ending, he probably would have had his French citizenship revoked.

I just wish he’d gone for anything other than truck dancing.

Jeff, a perverse part of me wants to watch the 76 Star is Born and 80 Jazz Singer again, just to recall how bad they are. My favorite moment (if you can call it that) from the 76 Star is Born is when she’s at the piano singing one of her songs (maybe Evergreen, I can’t remember) and Kristofferson starts to sing along and utterly mangles the note at which point she says, only because it’s in the script, “I didn’t think anyone could hit that note,” and I thought, “But he didn’t!”

Those of you who don’t care for the Streisand STAR IS BORN will appreciate the British critic who called it A BORE IS STARRED.

Tim Burton’s “vision” of “Batman” & ” Planet of the Apes”. As if the original movies of “Planet of the Apes” weren’t distrubing enough!

That’s about right.

I forgot to mention Michael Mann’s “Last of the Mohicans,” a remake superior in most respects to the earlier interpretations.

It might be worth distinguishing between remakes and two works that draw on the same source, though it’s hard to do so. I mean, is Disney’s Aladdin a remake of The Thief of Baghdad?

John Maddox Roberts- You are so right. The Michael Mann version is tops, despite the thrown in romance. That line though, “I will find you! No matter what!” is often repeated among some of my friends.

Tom- There are so many similarities between those. I think Disney sampled some of the story of The Thief of Baghdad (or The Thief of Bagdad as I believe the Fairbanks version is titled) in addition to taking from the original story of Aladdin. But, was The Thief of Baghdad taken somewhat from the original story of Aladdin from The Arabian Knights? No man can say.

Tom, it’s true – a remake implies remaking an original screenplay whereas many films are made from the same book or play. Still, I consider them all remakes for the sake of argument here. For instance, if someone made a new version of The Godfather, aside from thinking them insane, I’d consider it a remake rather than another version of the book. I think that’s generally the case when the source material isn’t nearly as well known as the film. When it is, like the works of Shakespeare, a new production simply seems like a new riff on the play. Or a new production of Pride and Prejudice, Dracula, or Huckleberry Finn.

What is interesting to me is that people did not bring up that SORCERER destroyed Friedkin. He was riding high after THE EXORCIST and THE FRENCH CONNECTION and was much hated due to his arrogance. He thought SORCERER would be another huge hit; He rejected Steve McQueen as star because the actor insisted that the filming be done in the United States. He badly miscalculated how the film would be received.

I saw SORCERER 20 years ago after borrowing it from someone who is no longer a friend of mine. I bought WAGES OF FEAR about a half dozen years ago and prefer it.