Then and Now

Who Am I To Judge?

Most of us love to watch movies. I have always considered myself a fan, but as the years went on, I thought I just might promote myself to “enthusiast.” This is a made up and unofficial title, but it is a better way to describe my level interest in the details of filmmaking. Even with all that interest however, I never actually made a real effort to critique films. I just liked what I liked and left it at that, never really getting to the bottom of the how’s and the whys. I realize now, after attempting to compare and contrast six sets of original films and their remakes, that the life of a film critic is not as enviable as I might have once thought.

My task was simple one. Watch twelve films and compare the original version to its remake. And while the movie watching was simple, I did not realize how the act of seriously examining the positive and negatives in each film would alter how I view movies. In creating my list I had tried to select films that I had never seen before. It was tough but with one exception, The Departed, I was able to select all never-before-seen-by-myself-movies. This helped me enter into each comparison as fresh as possible, reducing the unavoidable bias and preconceived notions we have of films, to a minimum.

Comparing the films was only part of the idea, I also wanted to try and answer a couple of questions: which film was better (strictly from my point of view, of course) and was it necessary to remake it? From film match-up to film match-up, those answers varied, as you might guess. What was always the case however, was how difficult it is to judge films. When you watch a movie strictly for entertainment reasons you allow yourself to enjoy the movie without picking it apart, something that cannot be avoided when you need to review the movie. What I found out at some point was that all of these films, the great ones all the way down to the ones I wished I never watched, had good and bad points. It is not a simple matter of saying this one is good or this one is bad, since those labels are subjective terms. Even so, what we can do is look at the bones of the work, all the parts that make up the finished product. Does the film have the qualities that are present in the films we all consider to be exceptional films? Does it have a smart, engaging plot or does it operate on autopilot? Does it have characters we can relate to and care about or are the characters shallow caricatures? These are just a couple of examples, but without some of these key components it might be fair to label a movie as bad. However, even if all these key components are absent, there is still one big factor to consider, personal taste.

There are times you may know that mechanically a film is bottom of the barrel, but you still love it. We all have what people like to call “guilty pleasures,” when it comes to movies. Personally, no mater what people say, I can’t help but like Night at the Roxbury. A completely stupid movie with very little redeeming value, but if I am always entertained by that movie, is it still bad? Here lies the main problem with film critique and on a philosophical level, the question of whether we or not we even need film critics.

Over the course of my quest I started to see that the only real value in film criticism is mutual taste. That is to say, if individual cannot determine for you what is good or bad (since you have your own personal taste), the only thing left is film recommendations based on a history of shared opinion of films. Therefore, the only good film critic is one that shares your personal taste in films. If you normally agree that certain films are good, you can safely take that critic’s recommendation to go out and spend your hard earned money on that new Hollywood blockbuster. Having come to this conclusion, I started to wonder about the distinction between film review and film critique. Perhaps film review is simply a way to summarize and recommend a film to a reader, while film critique is the place where discussion about the technical and emotional aspects of movie making can be discussed.

All these points, undoubtedly, have been discussed at length by people who are much more knowledgeable on the subject of film than I, but in attempting this quest, I have been given a glimpse into the act of film study. That has opened my eyes to what actually goes into doing responsible, fair film reviews.

The bigger names in film critique need to watch practically every movie that goes into theaters. After my attempt at film critique , I have sympathy for them. Part of that is sympathy is for the fact that they need to sit through movies like, Life As We Know It or Saw 3D; just a couple of examples of poorly reviewed movies. Life is short, and that is one of the truest clichés there is. To spend almost two hours of one’s life trying to find the redeeming qualities of the latest Katherine Heigl movie must be painful, on many different levels. My heart goes out to them, but I also have to keep in mind that some people out there actually enjoy that latest Katherine Heigl flick, as hard as that is to believe.

This is where the rest of my sympathy lies. As a professional, you would have the difficult task of finding and describing the positive aspects of a movie you despise. Because you had a job to do, you would find the reasons why someone that actually enjoys that type of movie, should go see it. I experienced just a touch of that challenge in my own quest as I tried to review and compare films without my personal feelings getting in the way. It is for others to judge how successful I was in that attempt. Feel free to be a critic yourself, go ahead and judge my ability to judge. It’s not so easy, is it?

The Experiment's End

As you might have noticed I finished up my experiment this past weekend, Halloween as it turned out. Is it fitting that I finished this little task on a scary day like Halloween? Well, not really, I actually enjoyed the experience and I plan to do more of the same in the future. For now though, I will recap a bit, this first movie match-up experience, before moving on to another.

I went into the experiment with some definite ideas on how I would react to the films I was going to watch. Across the board I assumed that I would either like or find the originals to be acceptable and I would hate the remakes. I figured that, if a movie was going to be considered for a remake than it had to be good enough to warrant a remake. For the most part, this was true. With a couple of exceptions, the originals were good movies and held up well over time. When it comes to those exceptions, one could argue that it was just my personal feelings that made them less than worthy for remaking, but thats the beauty if movies, they can cause almost endless discussion.

So, I determined in my infinite wisdom that these original films were worthy of remakes, what else did I find? As it turned out, of the movies I watched, not every remake was a disaster. That was another preconceived notion I had going in, that all the remakes would be pointless cash grabs. I did count, however, that only one film seemed to me, to be an improvement over the original. That was the case for The Departed. In all other cases, the remakes were at best, only equal to the original. The rest were those pointless cash grabs I mentioned earlier. I have to say though, with the exception of Disturbia and The Amityville Horror, the rest of the remakes had, if examined close enough, something to offer.

So what does this all amount to? Hopefully I caused someone (anyone? Bueller...Bueller...) to take a look at this blog and think a bit more deeply about the films on the list. Perhaps caused them to discuss with others, their own thoughts. Because if nothing else, all film criticism aside, one of the greatest things about films is our desire and need to discuss them. Good or bad, there is almost always something you can say about a movie you just watched. Some argument in favor of why you think it was worthwhile.

If nothing else, this experiment did shed light on a act that, for me, I had previously only superficially considered: the act of film critique. When you look closely at any film you can better see the motivations of the people that put it together. What were they trying to do here? Did they pull it off? Was it entertaining? All very important questions to ask yourself when trying to criticize a film. When we watch movies with just entertainment purposes we can let all of that go, but to watch a movie with the intention of criticizing it, you need to keep those questions at the front of your mind.

As I mentioned earlier, I plan to continue to match-up movies from time to time. I know I plan to catch Let Me In on DVD as soon as I can. This is a remake of a foreign film called, Let the Right One In and from what I have heard, the remake is quite good. We'll see about that...

The Match-Up and it's Effects

Recently, I was asked to try and quantify some effect my movie match-up experiment has made on my daily life. That's a hard one. I realized that I rarely go to see movies in the theater, so my experiment didn't cause me to dig into my pockets for movie money. Like many people these days, I used Netflix to watch to movies on my list. Again, this didn't really effect me too much since, with some careful planning, I was always provided the next movie on my list. Did it have any effect? Yes, but only in a more philosophical way.

What's most valuable thing to every one of us? No, not money, and shame on you if you answered that way. The correct answer is TIME. Out of my typical week I probably watch 1 movie a week. Sadly. There are times of the year that the number goes up quite a bit, but for now I rarely get the chance. The way this experiment was planned out, I needed to watch 4 movies a week, and that is not even counting the time I required to write the blog content. Which, I hate to say, doesn't coming flowing out of me in a rush. So, this means that I had to increase my movie watching by 4 times! And at about 2 hours a piece, my typical 2 hours a week of movie viewing turned into 8 hours a week. Also, you can figure about 30 minutes per movie to write about them (and sadly that's a generous time estimate.) So, we are really looking at 10 hours a week.

We are all short on time and it felt even more painful to sit and watch a movie I knew I didn't like from the first 15 minutes, because I needed to review it for my experiment. I honestly have sympathy for professional film critics now. We are all short on time, that big clock hanging over our heads is always ticking away, and some things just aren't worth our valuable time. To think I was originally planning on reviewing a total of 30 movies! At an average length of 2 hours, I would have spent about 90 hours watching/reviewing them! That's 22.5 hours a week, or 3 hours a day! Ummm, no thank you.

The Amityville Horror (1979) vs The Amityville Horror (2005) - The Match-Up

Well, we are not going to be discussing extremely thought provoking subjects here. These two movies don't provoke that sort of response. They are just horror flicks, after all. I already admitted that I don't care about horror movies, but it's time for Halloween and it seemed like the thing to do. Even if I can't find much to love in these to films, that's OK, I'm actually just here to compare them. Comparison is comparison, even if you are comparing to pieces of coal.

Story-wise, the two films are pretty consistant in their situation. One family, one evil house scary stuff happening. Blah,blah,blah. There are some considerable changes in the in the remake though, and none of them are for the better.

First off, in the original we had the house as a character. A house that was inhabited by an evil presence, which we found out was generated by one particular evil man. However, it was pretty much a given that the idea was that the house over all was evil. In the remake we get a evil house acting out, but we also have the ghost of a little girl, Toby, who was killed the year before in the tragic murder of her family at the hands of her older brother. This makes for a confusing situation where you are not sure if the house is trying to get the main characters or is it Toby? We also are not sure if Toby is a evil presence or is just misunderstood. She seems pretty friendly to Chelsea, the family's young daughter. As I mentioned in the review of the 2005 version, I have a feeling that the Toby-ghost aspect was added in for the sole purpose of having more opportunity to flash images on the screen of a young dead girl in various representations of dead-ness. Movies like The Ring and others, have established a certain visual style for horror movies and this movie seemed to be borrowing that style. It could just be me, but that doesn't make a movie more frightening, just annoying.

Another differnce in the two films is the treatment of the father character going mad. In the original, it seemed to be a much more solitary experience. He would withdraw from the family and when he did interact with them he would lash out in frustration. With the remake's version of crazy dad, he seemed to be looking for reasons to torture the kids. There is a scene where he makes the oldest boy help him chop wood. In the most unsafe way you could chop wood. He forces the boy to hold the small pieces of wood with both hands for him to chop. If he wants to kill the kid, just chop the kid up. I'm being sarcastic, but it shows a difference between the two dads. In the original, father was sick and troubled and he eventual lost it completely, but there always was a sense that he knew that he was a kind man. In the remake, they have the father wandering the house finding ways to scare and abuse the kids throughout the whole story. You don't get a sense of him "losing" his mind, he is mental from almost the start. And this leads to the last bit about the differences in the father character. I explained that the original film ended somewhat abruptly. The "s" hits the fan, with the house falling down around them and you are ready for the father to chop up his family with an axe, but he comes to his senses are rescues his family from the house. I said that this must represent the events of the real family's account. In the remake however, they probably realized that is this is an anti-climactic way to finish a story, so they jazzed it up. In the remake, the father does his darnedest to kill that pesky family of his and fails, but not for lack of desire. This is a strange way to end it too. Even though they escape, how could any of those kids still live with that guy. Sure he was influenced by an evil house, but he also mentally tortured you for weeks and then tried REALLY hard to murder you with an axe. And he didn't stop trying because he came to his senses, he stopped because he fell off a roof. This seemed like it was trying to be more of a The Shining, ending but you would need to have the father die in the end for it to make any sense. Silly.

I have already admitted to hating horror movies, that might have colored my judgment of these two films, I'm pretty sure it has. It's hard to be objective when it comes to this genre. Like love stories. Which one was better? I would have to say, even with all it's flaws, I liked the 1979 version better. It had problems but I don't think that all of them were it's fault. Just unfortunate circumstances. It had a much higher creep factor than the remake, since it had to rely on creating a eerie feeling for the movie, over special effects. Did it need to be remade? This is another one I can say, that this is a definite, no. On paper it probably seemed to be a good idea to remake this one. We'll get more money and special effects to throw at it and we'll have a winner. That's probably what they thought. Ironically, it's is exactly what caused it to fail.

The Amityville Horror (2005) - The Mini-Review

Ugh. I shouldn't use that word in a written review, it is really just an exclamation, but it's what it was feeling when I was watching the 2005 remake of The Amityville Horror. I wasn't real impressed with the original, so I approached the remake with some optimism. A good sized budget with modern style and computer generated effects. What could be wrong with that? Turns out, a lot. Those things that should have been advantages were the main problem with the remake.

As before we see George and Kathy Lutz shopping for their dream home. They are hoping that finding the right home for their patchwork family will be the key to their happiness. That might have worked, but not with this house. There is something evil here and the family realizes it almost too late. Events unfold with much screaming and crying and we eventually see the family at wits end, ready to attack each other.

The family of the 2005 remake is subjected to similar progressing craziness as the family of the original, but the remake focuses more on the idea of a ghost of a murdered girl (Toby, the young girl that was murdered there a year before) as a plot point. We can't really tell what is going on from moment to moment. Is the girl's ghost harassing the family or is it the evil presence of the house? It seems like the evil house is driving the father crazy but the girl ghost is just being a prankster. Evil presences are cool and all, but how about giving us one to focus on?

This brings me to my main problem with this movie, the reliance on the special effects. The girl ghost, Toby, was a minor plot point in the original. Here she is one of the main evil elements and I feel like it was done for the sole purpose of providing more visual creepy moments on screen. More random moments of showing her hanging from nooses, covered in blood and general disturbing images. This makes the movie less about a ratcheting up of tension throughout the movie and more about visual gags to have the viewer jump at the right moments. The original had my things wrong with it, but it's lack of accesses to computers actually worked in it's favor.

This is a small gripe but it is more a problem with modern day moviemaking than anything else. Could we have MORE scenes of Ryan Reynolds with his shirt off? No, we probably couldn't, without it seeming silly. Hey, I respect all the working out he did around that time but it seemed obvious what they were doing there. And no topless scenes for all the guys? That's just unfair.

I try to find the best things in any of these movies but, to tell you the truth, I can't think of any right now for this movie. Save, possibly the performance of Chloe Moretz as Chelsea Lutz. Not an Oscar performance, but when child actors perform in an adequate way, it's impressive. Before I'm done, I can think of one nice thing about The Amityville Horror, it was a fairly brief 90 minutes. I thank you editor.

The Amityville Horror (1979) - The Mini-Review

I had seem bits and pieces of The Amityville Horror was I was a kid and my recollection was that there were a few spooky scenes but it wasn't the best movie ever. It was, however, one of the more well known "house-with-an-attitude-movies" of it's time.

The Amityville Horror is the story of Goerge and Kathy Lutz. Based on real events, by the way. Just married, they are looking for a nice home for their new family unit. George is a new father to Kathy's 3 children from her now deceased husband and this home might be just what they need to bring them all together. This house has a bad history, though. One year before, there was a multiple homicide. The previous family was shot while they were sleeping by their 23 year old son, who later told police that voices from the house made him do it. The house is roomy with a nice boathouse, so who cares if 5 people were killed there? That's what George and Kathy feel, but things begin to go bad for them as well. The first sign of trouble is a very unsuccessful attempt by the family priest to bless the house. As he is setting up his things to begin the blessing, he finds out that the family has a bit of a fly problem in one of their bedrooms. After getting swarmed by, what looks like all the flies that have ever lived, he is rushed out of the house by a demonic voice, "Getttt Ooooout!" He does as told. What follows is an escalating string of events that trouble the family and nearly drives the head of the household, George, crazy.

You might think that this story might end up in the same place as The Shining, but it doesn't end with George attempting to kill his whole family. I did not read the book that chronicled the "real" events in Amityville, but I suspect the anti-climactic, and somewhat sudden, ending to the movie has a lot to do with the way the family's story ended in real life. I give the filmmaker credit for sticking to the actual events, but it made for a strange ending.

Even for 1979, this movie has a cheap look to it, and that is most likely due to the low budget and rushed nature. James Brolin (George) and Margot Kidder (Kathy) do pretty well with what they are given in the film, but there aren't too many Oscar opportunities here. Rod Stiger as the priest has some of the best acting moments as the faith-challenged-Father.

The Amityville Horror aspires to be great, and that is commendable. However, with it's low budget and less than top-notch approach, it results in a story with really interesting idea coming off as a horror-movie-of-the-week. Many people consider this film to be a "classic", I have a feeling that some movies are considered better than they actually were because of the nostalgia that we have for them. I agree that it is a "classic", but that is because it was simply one of the first "mean house" movies of it's time.

The Amityville Horror (1979) vs The Amityville Horror (2005)

For my final set of films I thought I would go with a horror remake set. We've got The Amityville Horror. I should say going in that I just don't care very much about horror movies. They bore me usually, and I have seen a handful of the very best and I feel like that's enough. Maybe these will change my mind? Maybe one or both of these could be considered one of those handful of horror masterpieces? Hmmm, let's hope.

Based on real events, The Amityville Horror is the story of Goerge and Kathy Lutz. A newly married couple who have scrimped and saved their money to buy a dream house, but that house has a deadly history.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078767/

It's a dream house beyond their means, why is it such a bargin? George and Katy Lutz will find out soon enough. Based on the actual events of a New England family, The Amityville Horror is a modern retelling of the 1979 classic.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0384806/

The In-Laws (1979) vs The In-Laws (1995) - The Match-Up

I have been trying to think of some really interesting things to say about these two movies. I'm coming up a little short. Of the movies I have watched so far, these did not illicit much of a reaction out of me. A middle-of-the-road buddy adventure tale is not something that gets you all inspired. However, there are some good and bad things to mention, and away we go.

When comparing the two versions we get the same basic storyline. There is an upcoming wedding, this necessitates the joining of two families, a tricky situation no matter who you are, but especially tricky if one of the parents is an international spy. One slight change in the family dynamic of the 1995 version was making the spy character a divorcee. This stands to reason, since the wife in the 1979 version seemed a bit clueless, how could she not know what profession he husband was in?

Also, the 1995 version changes things up a by making Michael Douglas more or less a James Bond type. This makes for more action set pieces, probably a calculated change for modern audiences who demand more action in their movies. That's not to say the original didn't have action but Peter Faulk's character was grounded a bit more in reality. I think this change was an unfortunate one. In working the script to include more over-the-top action set pieces it caused the plot to become a bit over-complicated. I couldn't really tell why the bad guys were after our main characters and I didn't care either. The focus of this type of movie should be the comedy. The 1995 version was trying to hard to be both an action movie and comedy and didn't really accomplish either. I wonder if the fact that True Lies came out in 1994 had an affect on this movie's action level. It's like the geeky little brother of True Lies.

One new element to the 1995 version was the addition of a closeted-homosexual character. I can't remember, was being gay a popular thing to have a laugh about in the 90s? I put it that way because this felt forced and seemed out of place in the movie. As if, somewhere in the process of writing the script a studio exec saw some other movie with a gay theme and said, "we need that in our movie!" I'll have to do a little research on that one.

So, which one was better? I like the original The In-Laws much more than the 1995 remake, the only problem (and not it's fault at all) you could say about the original was, when being reviewed from this perspective, it doesn't appear to be very special. But that is just a matter of many other movies using the same formula. You can't go wrong with Alan Arkin and Peter Faulk, though. And did it need a remake? This time I can definitively say, no. The 1995 remake seemed like a response to other hit films around the same time, like the aforementioned True Lies. It's a shame, because Albert Brooks is a genius and Michael Douglas is always money in the bank. Still though, if you ever consider watching a movie called The In-Laws, do yourself a favor and watch the 1979 version. You'll get a much more coherent and funny experience.

The In-Laws (1995) - The Mini-Review

*Cha-ching* That's the sound that many of the stars of The In-Laws heard when they received this script. This version does not do much to advance the genre of the buddy adventure, and it seemed like a payday for most of the cast. Let me describe it a bit, if you feel like listening, that is.

We open with Steve Tobias (Michael Douglas), a slightly over-the-hill James Bond type, and we are right in the middle of a dangerous spy-type thing. I could explain the details of the situation but that's not really necessary, Steve has something that the bad guys want but he has places to be, namely a dinner date with his son's soon to be in-laws. After a daring escape Steve makes his appointment, but just barely. This doesn't sit well with Jerry Pyser (Albert Brooks), a nervous podiatrist who is none to pleased to be giving away his daughter to the son of such a sketchy man. His opinion of Steve Tobais doesn't improve when he witnesses Steve beat down a thug in the men's room of the restaurant in which they are having their dinner date. The next day circumstances require that Steve intrude on Jerry's lecture at a local hospital. The FBI is after Steve and he can't be caught with the Macguffin (the thing that everyone wants to get in the movie.) Not very reluctantly, Steve plants it on Jerry as a diversion, resulting in jerry's involvement in a global spy-thing. Wackiness does ensue, of course. Taking Jerry and Steve on a country hopping adventure.

Look, this is not a great movie, it is very mediocre even with all the star power present. Albert Brooks is completely adequate as nervous Jerry and Michael Douglas seems to be having a blast with an action role. The rest of the cast does an admirable job as well. There isn't much to sink your teeth into here, however. It is very by-the-numbers and does not surprise you much.

Is it a bad movie? No, I would say it is a solid "O.K." I just wish they had tried a little harder to do something slightly different with the genre. As it is, the only reason to see this movie over the many others of it's type, would be if you were an especially interested in watching this group of actors go through this routine. One of those movies that would quite a good time waster if you were stuck on a plane.

The In-Laws (1979) - The Mini-Review

This is one of the movies on my list that I knew the least about before going in. I did know it existed and who the main actors were, but that's about it. As it turns out, that was just fine. I had no idea where I was going in this movie and that's refreshing.

The In-Laws starts out with a well orchestrated heist of an armored car, something I did not expect from a comedy. After deftly making off with not money, but plates for the printing of U.S. Treasury bills, the crooks meet with one of the main characters, Vince Ricardo (Peter Faulk.) He is the man behind the heist, apparently our main character is a thief. There's not much time for him to celebrate however, since his son is getting married in few days and he needs to be off to meet the new in-laws. Enter our other main character, Sheldon Kornpett (Alan Arkin.) He is a successful, yet high strung New York dentist. At dinner things seem just a little bit off to Sheldon, his daughter's soon to be father-in-law, Vince, is a strange bird. The next day Vince shows up at Sheldon's downtown office to ask a slight favor of him. See, he needs Shelly to go to his office and get something from his safe for him. Little does Sheldon know that this will be just the beginning of his involvement in a series of incredible and goofy predicaments.

With the exception of a dated look (it is a 30 year old somewhat low budget movie), The In-Laws holds up really well. The jokes are smart and Alan Arkin does a great job, as he always does playing his "Alan Arkin" character. My exposure to Peter Faulk prior to this was pretty much just the Columbo series, and even that is not something I was too familiar with. He was a great foil to Alan Arkin's character, and was decent as a semi-action star.

The plot is very basic, filled with constant mistaken identity gags but they never try to get overly complicated with the plot. This is a well established genre by now, the buddy adventure. Recent movies seemed to use this formular with slightly better results, Midnight Run with Robert DiNero comes to mind. That is not to say you should skip The In-Laws, it is a great ride and many of those more modern buddy adventure movies probably owe something to this movie. See it.

The In-Laws (1979) vs The In-Laws (2003) - The Introductions

With his daughter planning to marry, dentist Sheldon Kornpett is meeting Vince Ricardo, his daughter's soon to be father-in-law. Vince, a crazy character who seems to be more than he lets on, takes them on a wild ride.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079336/

His daughter is getting married. What could go wrong? How about finding out your daughter's future in-laws are international smugglers, that's what.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0314786/

Mr. Deeds Goes to Town vs Mr. Deeds - The Match-Up

While neither of these two movies would make it onto my short list of the greatest movies of all time, one at least, gets designated as a "movie that tickled me" and one gets forgotten real quick. Hmmm, I wonder which is which?

There aren't many story differences in the two movies, up to a point they are pretty much the same. Towards the end of both movies Mr. Deeds makes a plea, to those that would listen, to follow their hearts and to act on what is right not what is popular. How they arrive at this point really is not that important, it's the message.

One of the main differences in the two is the time period, obviously. Mr. Deeds Goes to Town was a depression era film. That had a large bearing on the story it told. When Mr. Deeds realizes the responsibility he now had in the acquisition of this fortune, he sets out to make changes and not just minor ones. After being involved in a nearly violent exchange with a desperate out of work farmer, Mr. Deeds realizes that something has to be done about the joblessness. He proposes a plan that will give farms to nearly fifty thousand americans. A plan that is not appreciated by the people around him that want a piece of his pie. In the re-make, Adam Sandler's Deeds, is also concerned with the workers. It this story it is much more simplified, however. His intention is simply to keep the current workers of his uncle's company employed by stopping a proposed dissolving of the company. While it is nice to see that the plight of the worker is kept for the re-make, you can see just how much affairs of it's time affected the focus of the original. There was a crisis in our country and it was at the heart of Mr. Deeds Goes to Town. Given the state of our economy in recent time, if the new version had been made just a few years ago, instead of 2002, perhaps it would have had a similar focus.

While the original was a comedy, it didn't rely on it's jokes to carry it. It was about more than just the odd Mr. Deeds. This is one of the issues with the remake. It's mostly a comedy based on Adam Sandler's version of Mr. Deeds, than anything else. In my particular case it was filled with jokes that were not really funny. And when that is your focus, there's a problem. I'm not going to nit-pick the jokes in detail, comedy is a subjective thing and this was not good in my opinion. It was either a case of poor writing or the actors not being inspired.

Overall, the remake does hit all the points it would want to hit in retelling the original. It's lighthearted, funny (not for me, but it was for most I suppose) and has a good message about how we should treat each other. That's why I don't want to bash the modern version of Mr. Deeds, it had good intentions. So, which one was better? For me, with it's more heartfelt message and easy approach to the comedy, Mr. Deeds Goes to Town is the more enjoyable film. And should it have been remade? This is a case where i would say, no. The original is very good and worth watching. However, given people's tendency to avoid black and white films and our need to see contemporary actors in our films, I understand the need to remake it. While the remake doesn't quite have the emotional impact of the original, it still has a good message at it's core and I don't see any reason to deny that to modern viewers.

Mr. Deeds - The Mini-Review

Well, where do I begin? To be honest I was prepared to hate this movie. I haven't liked much of Adam Sandler's work since Happy Gilmore and this was more of the same. And while I didn't hate this movie, it's not good either. I think I would have liked it a lot less if I hadn't seen the orignal first. Let me explain.

Just like the original, Mr. Deeds begins with the quaint town of Mandrake Falls. There, Longfellow Deeds lives a basic but happy life, in this case running a pizza restaurant. He is visited by some big city lawyers. His uncle has died unexpectedly, making Deeds (which he is referred to in this version) the sole heir to the empire his uncle has built. Like the the original movie before it, Deeds goes to the big city to see just what this all means, where he gets wrapped up in the petty motivations of everyone around him.

They stick pretty close to the original in this version, straying only occasionally to set up silly (and unfunny) comic moments. In the end, they forego an "insanity hearing" for Deeds in favor of a much more believable stock holder meeting, where a vote must be made, yes or no, to dissolve the business in the name of making a profit. In this case, Deeds argues more the value of dreams and the concept of happiness without money-grubbing than the benefit of being different. Even with these changes new scene is still admirable in it's intended message.

Mr. Deeds doesn't work for a number of reasons. It did have good intentions, you can see they have a love for the original, some of the original's best scenes are left intact here. But one of the major reasons it fails is that it decided to be a pure comedy. A comedy that isn't funny. This version lacks the heart that was present in the original and tries to fill that void with a large volume of jokes that never really pan out. Maybe the gags looked good on the page but didn't translate to the screen.

Can you blame the actors? Partially, while there were a plenty of good actors in this film, many of them seemed to be phoning this one in. The real reason has to be the writing, however.

Like I said, Mr. Deeds gets credit for the attempt but the recipe used to create the film just didn't work. I've argued that Adam Sandler has had free reign in his film to his detriment. This movie was populated by actors (and some characters) from the Adam Sandler "universe", and they just didn't get it done here. With a different cast and some funnier jokes, this could have been a much better.

Mr. Deeds Goes to Town - The Mini-Review

O.K., so it's not the most realistic movie I've seen. The characters are a bit cartoony but Mr. Deeds Goes to Town accomplishes what it's trying to do. At least it did for me.

Mr. Deeds Goes to Town opens with our titular character, Longfellow Deeds, receiving guests from the "big town." This group of lawyers have some surprising news for him; his uncle, who he barely knew has died, leaving Mr. Deeds the sole heir to his $20 million empire. Reluctantly, Mr. Deeds heads to the "Big City" to see where this ride takes him.

There he meets, not by accident, Babe Bennett. A fast talking tabloid journalist. Who, unknown to Mr. Deeds, has been given the assignment to get close to him for the purpose of getting juicy newspaper stories. Of course, Babe's motives are purely business at first but she can't help but fall in love with Mr. Deeds, the closer she gets to him. There are parties that want Mr. Deeds' fortune and will do everything they can to separate him from it. This leads to a silly (did this stuff actually happen back then) and quite public, sanity hearing. You see, the lawyers handling the estate of Mr. Deeds uncle have been trying all along to take it from him, and if they can just convince the public that the sweet and simple Mr. Deeds is crazy, they will get what they want.

This courtroom scene tries to put across some admirable concepts, Mr. Deeds argues that being kind and caring are traits that should be aspired to and being different is a good thing not something to be ashamed of. I appreciated the sentiment here but I don't think the writing was quite up to the job. It ended up being just a bit unbelievable.

I underestimated how much I was going to like Mr. Deeds Goes to Town. It looked simple and sappy, but that's why I liked it. It definitely seemed to be a movie of it's time. In his films, Capra (Director) was able to walk that line of over-the-top sentiment, as opposed to some modern directors that have tried to duplicate the skill but rarely succeed. It's a sweet, goofy movie but don't let it fool you, it has something to say.

Mr. Deeds Goes to Town vs Mr. Deeds - The Introductions

Next up we have Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, starring Gary Cooper and Mr. Deeds starring a favorite of our time, Adam Sandler. Let's see the details.

Longfellow Deeds is a simple man from a simple but charming town. When a rich uncle dies, Mr. Deeds is left in charge of his empire and $20 million dollars.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0027996/

Longfellow Deeds, known to his friends simply as "Deeds", is living a simple but happy life until he finds out an uncle he barely knew has made him a billionaire.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0280590/

An Interview for the cause

Recently, as part of the process of looking at the subject of movie re-makes and apparent worth (or non-worth), I did a little interview with a friend and fellow movie enthusiast. I'm going to post it here, we're at the halfway point in the viewing so it's seems appropriate.

The air is not quite as warm as it will be in another month, but you can feel the heat is coming. School is done for another year and we don’t have to think about that unpleasantness for a while. It is the third week of June, 1977 and there is a particular young man having a birthday this week. Along with gifts and cake, he will be treated to a movie. His choice, it is his birthday after all. There is a sci-fi movie that he has seen ads for, it looks really decent, maybe that one would be good? “My parents took me to the Oakbrook Theater to see Star Wars. I remember it clearly. We sat in the balcony, first row, and I was leaning as far forward as I could go, with my hands under my chin. I was completely blown away by the very first image. Still the best openings to a movie, ever. Talk about an impact.”

When I asked Mark Sievers, a friend and a former Blockbuster Video manager, about his earliest movie memories, he was not short on details. Like many people of his age, Star Wars had a great affect on him. It always seems a given, that when a person makes movies part of their work, they must be a fan. I wanted to get an idea how deep that impact ran.

“Well, growing up in Downers Grove, I had the Tivoli [a historic Illinois theater, that played second run films] right down the street. I practically lived there. I spent many Sunday afternoons seeing whatever was playing, I think that really helped me develop a wide taste in movies.” Afternoons spent absorbing whatever movie was playing helped him turn a pastime into lifelong love. He did admit that, over the years, his taste in movies changed somewhat with his personality, “I did like horror movies when I was younger but not so much now. I don’t know. They just aren’t scary any more; the real world is scary. I don’t need to escape to a scary movie when the real world is scary enough.”

It’s obvious that horror movies do not interest him now, what about the movies that still get a response out of him? I asked him what the last movie was that affected him is some significant way. Without much hesitation, “the most recent one that comes to mind is The Blind Side. That’s the one where the well-off family tries to do what they can for the kid that is basically homeless. It really got me choked up at times. The idea that there are people out there that would do that, go out of their way like that, it would be so easy to mind your own business. Most people would these days. The movie really worked for me.” Not as recent but even more loved, was one of his favorite movies; “Rudy. One of my top movies. This one got me emotional at times, too. It was just really inspirational. I know it’s a movie, and not pure fact but it is a movie that can push your buttons, and it doesn’t feel forced. I guess I see a trend here. I seem to like movies based on real events.”

I was starting to get a feel for where Mark was coming from as a movie fan and was wondering what he would think of a re-make of Rudy. “Hmmm, no. I wouldn’t want to see that. Maybe in thirty years. I don’t know. I just can’t see any reason to do it. But that’s a problem I have with Hollywood anyway, they like to do remakes instead of coming up with new ideas.”

As a follow up, I asked what he thought of movies as a whole today. Are they better or worse than he remembers them growing up? “Worse. Well, we just were talking about all the remakes. It’s obvious that movies are a business first. Just a way to make money. You really have to look at the smaller releases to see someone attempting to make something that is artistic.” He went on to say, “there are exceptions, Up was a huge movie and it was more than just a summer blockbuster. It had real heart. But really, it’s supply and demand. If we demand these monster summer movies Hollywood will keep supplying them, even if they are terrible.”

“To be fair, it’s not all Hollywood’s fault. A re-make is a good financial risk. You take a proven thing and try to repackage it. It’s too bad though.” In Mark’s opinion, this is a necessary evil for the movie business, but this gets away from the idea of movies as art. If there is nothing new brought to the film to make the movie more relatable to modern audiences other than a recasting of actors, then there is really no point in re-doing it. Rudy was well acted, had an adequate budget and did not rely on computer-generated special effects. Maybe it would be best to leave a movie like that alone.

An experience like seeing Star Wars for the first time is only possible from the perspective of a child. A child can see with fresh eyes and without bias. Almost everything is new to a child. I’ve often wondered if the day that I’m having might color the mindset I have going into a movie. It seems like that day in June was a special one for Mark. We bring much with us to the theater when we sit down to watch a movie. There are some basic things that are consistent with great movies, however. In trying to get down to the essence of what constitutes a great movie, Mark had this thought, “A movie needs three things to be good in my opinion: an original story, a good script and believable characters.” Based on these criteria it seems like a re-make is lacking the first component. Without that first component a well-executed Hollywood remake could, perhaps be entertaining, but try as it might it could never be original.

Sabrina vs Sabrina - The Match-Up

In a perfect world you could combine the best aspects of two films and create one master version. Hollywood has been trying to do this for a long time and they would have even more money in the bank if they could just find a way. I wish they could have found a way to do it in the case of Sabrina, independently they had aspects that I really liked, but let me down in other areas.

On the surface the films are the same, with only minor updates to the situations and plot to accomodate the more modern timeframe. None of these changes seem to negatively impact the film. You also may have your personal preferences for the actors involved, given my age, I gravitated to the modern version, but that's just me. In both films we get very solid acting, and the actors individually bring something to the parts.

There are a number of minor differences in the versions. The biggest one and the one that matters the most is the more contemporary treatment (in the 1995 remake) of the character, Sabrina. In the original she seemed to be a "thing", to be either possessed or not, by the lead male characters. We are shown a short segment in which Sabrina spends time in Paris attending culinary school. Growing as a person we assume, accumulating various life experiences in order to become an adult. However, upon her return home, all she seems to have learned is how to be more attractive to the opposite sex. Now, this is the point where I'm wondering if I'm having a generational disconnect. Is this type of character just indicative of the role that some women had at the time? I'm not sure, I would need to get opinions from various people of that era to be sure. What I know is, from a modern perspective, it makes for a extremely two-dimensional female lead character. We don't really understand why she is madly in love with David. And it only take a few days for her to forget about him and fall for his older brother.

In the 1995 re-make we are given more character development for Sabrina. Instead of culinary school, Sabrina is a fashion photographer's assistant. Through some efficiently constructed scenes, we see Sabrina getting a crash course on life and even manages to earn the respect of her co-workers. This isn't to say Sabrina returns home in this version, ready to take on the world, but you get the sense that events are not beyond her ability to follow. This is a pretty complicated difference in the two movies, but it is at the root of why they are so different to me.

Both Sabrina's have things to offer. The original, though a little dated in it's characterizations, has a warmth and charm that the remake could not achieve. The 1995 version was able to ground the characters in a bit more reality but came off as a by-the-numbers "Rom-com." Which one did I like more? I'd have to go with the 1995 version. I see the significance of the original, but the 1995 re-make edges out the original by a slight margin. Was it worth re-making? This is another case (like the comparison of Infernal Affairs and The Departed) where I'm going to say that it's a push. The re-make isn't really a huge improvement, but the modernizing of the female archetype makes it worth the effort.

Sabrina (1995) - The Mini-Review

I wasn't really looking forward to watching the 1995 re-make of Sabrina, the original was just not my cup of tea. I don't want to mislead you though, I'm not preparing to say I loved it, that would be lying. But there was more to sink my teeth into in this version and that's a good thing.

There are not many changes in the re-make of Sabrina, it's surprisingly faithful, but with a longer runtime and the conventions of modern filmmaking, we get better defined characters, with more understandable actions.

I'll say this right now, I rarely dislike watching Harrison Ford, so I have a bias there. If Harrison Ford appeared in the original Sabrina I might have liked it more, although, he would have be about ten years old, I think. Greg Kinnear does a nice job also, even if his role did seem a little scaled back. Julia Ormond is stunning and manages to bring more depth to the shallow character of Sabrina. That is thanks, in part, to the more fleshed out character moments. We still are not really sure why such a prize like Sabrina would pine away for David Larrabee, but this version does make Sabrina look a little more sensible. Along with the lead actors we get a very capable group of fine character actors, to round out the cast.

For the most part my sentiments for the previous version apply here as well, it is a pretty exact remake. Sabrina is a goofy little romance movie, that owes much to the genre films that came before it. It doesn't do much new but what it's doing is handled as well as you can expect.

To say I liked this newer Sabrina sounds like more of an endorsement than it really is. We are still talking about a romance here, and I have a hard time enjoying this type of movie. With the attempts to give more depth to the characters and explain why they are doing the things they are doing, I give Sydney Pollak (director, along with the writers of course) some credit. It ends up being rooted a bit more in reality, which is a positive for me (but a negative for others.) As a trade off, however, it seems to lose much of the charm of the original. Not a perfect deal but it worked for me in this case.

Sabrina (1954) - The Mini-Review

After watching the exceptional Rear Window, I was more than exited to watch another 1950's era film. Sabrina didn't have quite the same effect on me. To be specific, I didn't like it much. I tried to go into this with an open mind, Sabrina was a romance, and I generally avoid them like the plague. I will try to keep that fact in mind as I breakdown my thoughts about the film.

Let's start with the good, there is plenty of good here. The movie did deliver on it's promise of comedy. There were a good number of gags in the movie, from David's champagne glasses incident to the reoccurring theme of Linus putting his newfound miracle plastic through it's paces. There were some genuine laughs to be had here. I was also, quite amused (from the perspective of an older generation) by the fact that Linus was a bit of a tech guy. To establish just how devoted Linus is to his business, there is a scene in his limo in which he conducts the morning's tasks from the backseat. I didn't realize that car phones were even technically possible in 1954. I went and did some research, it looks like they amounted to glorified radios, but modern cell phones are just more glorified radios, I suppose.

If I didn't enjoy this movie, I in no way blame the performers. Everyone involved was on point. Humphrey Bogart was funnier than I ever saw him, William Holden was goofy in the right way and I can see why Audrey Hepburn was a darling of her time. The supporting cast was strong as well, serving up memorable characters even with minor rolls. Some of note are Larrabee the elder (who gets to deliver the enjoyable call back to the glass problem from earlier in the film), the rest of the staff of the house (which included, as it turns out, the actress that would later play Ms. Hathaway in the Beverly Hillbillies) and Linus's secretary. The movie didn't work for me on a more basic level, but it had mostly to do with the genre of the film.

I see Sabrina as a fairytale. I am pretty sure that's the point. Here is where I have a problem, it's just not a type of story I want to see made into a movie. Fairytales are designed to be simple tales. That doesn't allow for very good character development or complex motivations. I'm going to go into some detail about the characters and they way they act, when I compare the two Sabrina's, but more on that later. I can, however, see why people appreciate this movie. I think much of their love comes from either having seen Sabrina when it was new or having an affection for the genre that it is part of. Being in neither camp, it was hard for me to love but not hard to see why others loved it.

Sabrina vs Sabrina - The Introductions

No, you're not seeing double. This time I'm watch the orginal and remake version of Sabrina

Sabrina(1954) - A cinderella story in which a pitiful chauffer's daughter longs for the heart of a rich playboy, but in the end she may have been missing something that was right in front if her the whole time.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047437/

Sabrina (1995) - A modern retelling of the 1954 classic. An almost note for note remake of the original, plus Harrison Ford. How can you go wrong?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114319/

Rear Window vs Disturbia - The Match-Up

This really will not be a fair comparison. Rear Window is a Hollywood classic, way ahead of it's time and Disturbia was a targeted star vehicle. I guess Dreamworks, the producers of Disturbia, were not interested in going so far as to get the rights to film an official remake to Rear Window. That's what we have here however, with just enough changed to make it a different movie. Disturbia is going to be a prime example in my thesis that most Hollywood remakes are strictly money making ventures. But when you hold it up to the movie it was inspired by, you see just how short it falls.

In both films we have a main character trapped in his own home, Kale (Disturbia's protagonist) isn't very trapped to be honest, but let's not get hung up on the details. As I spoke about it my review of Disturbia, this really takes all the steam out of the situation. Kale is in danger at times but he can always fight, flee or evade in the tense situations. L.B. Jefferies, however, confined to his wheel chair in Rear Window, really puts the viewer smack dab in his shoes.

I was prepared to bring up sexuality as a topic before I even watched these movies, having only seen the previews. With a pool scene where our main character eyes his young female neighbor, I was ready to claim that Disturbia, being a modern movie was more risque than it's 50's counterpart, but I was mistaken. There were relatively little sexual overtones in the modern version, perhaps because it was a teen focused film. While not full of sex, Rear Window did have what would seem to be a good amount of sexual implications, if you account for the era it was made. The main character appreciates, on a regular basis, the dancing ballerina across the way he affectionately names, "Ms. Torso." Also, handled with some 1950's discretion, it is implied that towards the end of the film our male and female leads are intending to take their relationship to a more intimate place. While it didn't make one film better or worse than the other, that was a point I did notice.

Overall, there also was a seeming laziness in the plot structure of Disturbia. They let you know much too early in the movie that the creepy neighbor is, in fact, a serial killer (who by the way, lest I forget, has one of the most extensive and elaborate serial killer lairs you'll ever find beneath a suburban neighborhood.) Keeping us, and L.B. Jefferies guessing right until the last moments, creates a completely different sense of tension in Rear Window. In DisturbiaI felt like they cemented the idea of the neighbor serial killer early, so they could get to the exciting, action packed ending, much sooner. Which is a point in itself.

I'm assuming it is the current convention of Hollywood film making that no audience wants to see the hero of the movie powerless to resolve the situation he is in. In a move that is rarely seen these days, the main character of Rear Window is almost completely powerless when the bad guy comes to confront him. Jefferies does manage to slow down the killer just enough (using elements that are close at hand) to survive, with the help of his friends and the police. Can you imagine if a modern thriller starring Bruce Willis has him narrowly avoiding death thanks to the quick reaction of his wife or girlfriend. Somehow I don't think so.

There is nothing too offensive about Disturbia, it's just average filmmaking. There is a place in the movie world for films that are not culturally relevant or groundbreaking. Most of them are just that, with only a small percentage being original and innovative. Disturbia can be an enjoyable flick to some. Just do yourself a favor, if you watch Disturbia, make time to see Rear Window as well. It will be like having that healthy salad along with the fattening cheeseburger at lunch. Something good to balance out the bad stuff.

Disturbia - The Mini-Review

Disturbia is not a good movie. Well, it is pretty good in the, I-personally-never-made-a-movie-so-it-is-better-than-I-could-do, sense. I'm sure it's possible for someone to sit down, watch this movie and be entertained for a couple of hours, but we're just talking about my perspective. Doesn't it help to have the movie feature the always spectacular Shia LaBeouf, you might ask? No, it doesn't.

The movie opens with artificially emotional scene with Kale (Shia) and his father on a fishing trip. On the ride home there is a sudden and terrible car accident in which Kale loses his father. A year later we see an emotionally troubled Kale, lashing out at an "evil" spanish teacher, who for reasons the movie does not show, loves to harass Kale. This is all in service to establishing sympathy for our main character. How do we get him under house arrest but not have him be a nasty criminal? Well, he's misunderstood, of course. One of the main problems here is, unfortunate parental death aside, we don't have a likable main character. Kale is bratty and completely self centered. His mother lost her husband, but he makes life even more difficult fo her, nice kid.

This is all set-up to get to the main point, our main character a captive in his own home begins to watch his neighbors, for lack of anything better to do. After we get some incredibly brief and uninteresting observations of his neighbors, we get to the creepy guy, who is revealed (way too soon, in my opinion) to be a serial killer. The way this movie reveals the creepy neighbor's actions, we never have a doubt that he is a killer. Kind of a mistake compared to Rear Window. That movie had you wondering if it was all in the main character's mind, almost until the last few minutes of the movie.

Oh, and Kale he's a bit of a perv. It's surprising that the love interest in the movie, a new girl that just moved in next door, ends up falling for Kale, knowing he has been spying on her as she sun bathes, laying in bed and who knows what else. I guess with cell phone cameras, Youtube and the like, girls of her generation are flattered by peeping toms.

There's a lot to nit-pick here, but there's an overlying problem with the movie that they should have seen before it was done. We don't ever get a real sense that Kale is restricted to his home in any way. Sure, the police will come if he leaves his home but the main character in Rear Window was physically restricted to his home. There is much more tension possible in that situation. When the eventual confrontation comes with the serial killer, although the odds are against him, Kale at least has the ability to defend him self and even better, to take action. I have a feeling that these days, people would not want to see Shia LaBeouf stuck in a wheelchair, powerless as the killer comes to exact his revenge. We want our heroes to get in there and wipe the floor with the bad guy. Even if the bad guy, in every way out matches the puny Shia, our main character will get it done somehow.

I can't really recommend Disturbia, there's too much wrong with it and there is long list of movies that are shooting for the same thing and hit the mark much better. I suppose if you are under house arrest and in a wheel chair, with the t.v. remote just out of reach and Disturbia comes on, that's a perfect reason to watch.

Rear Window - The Mini-Review

Some of the points I'm going to bring up in my mini-review of Rear Window have been examined and discussed at great length by people with much more expertise than myself. I will not be the first one to notice them, but is the first time I will be writing about them, so I will go ahead and bring them up.

Let's get the first major point out of the way, it goes without saying, Alfred Hitchcock was way ahead of his time. Technically speaking, Rear Window is filmed in a way that was exceptional for it's time. Hitchcock's long takes and camera movement (among other things) established his visual style immediately. At first glance you can tell it's one of his movies. This is the review, so I'll get more into the technical aspects of the creation of the movie when I do the "Match-Up" with the re-imagined movie, Disturbia, but it has to be said that the way the movie is shot has much to do with it's greatness.

One of the boldest choices the movie makes it to confine the main character and as a result, the viewer, to a single room. At no point does Hitchcock venture outside the small 2 room apartment that wheelchair bound L.B. Jefferies occupies. We do get to see virtually everything that is going on around him but only from the vantage point of his picture window. This goes a long way towards immersing the viewer in the character's situation. When some of the movies more tense sequences play out, they are made all the more upsetting because of our limited view of the action. We are stuck across the courtyard in our wheelchair, after all. Preceding generations of directors have been using this "less is more" approach to visual storytelling, thanks in part, to Rear Window.

I'll probably say a couple more times in these reviews, my frame of reference for reviewing these older films is limited. There are some ideas I get from watching them that can only be backed up with more context. With that being said, the romantic subplot in this film seemed a little ahead of it's time, as well. Movies of this era seemed to have very simplistic romances. Male leads are strong and in control, female leads are beautiful and ripe for romancing. Often times we don't see why these two folk should get together, other than one is the current big male star and one is the latest Hollywood princess. Here, we get a little more depth to their interactions.

Rear Window is suspenseful, technically pleasing (as soon as you realize Hitchcock is placing you in that wheel chair along with James Stewart) and surprisingly funny. If you haven't experienced many Hitchcock films, think M Night Shyamalan, at least when he is on top of his game ,that is. Don't let Rear Window sit on your list of shame like I did for so long. It deserves to be seen, so you can realize it's influence on so much that came after it.

Rear Window vs Disturbia - The Introductions

Next up we have an "oldie-but-goodie" and what will probably be a "newie-and-badie." But I shouldn't be prejudiced. Maybe the new version could be half way decent? We'll see...

Rear Window (1954) - This Hitchcock movie has been on my list of shame (movies I know are classics but I still have not seen) for a while now, but now I will finally sit down and watch it. While recuperating from a recent accident, wheelchair bound L.B. Jefferies (Jimmy Stewart) gets more than he bargained for when he thinks he witnesses a murder.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047396/

Disturbia(2007) - An un-official remake of rear window, starring the always excellent Shia LaBeouf. Confined to his home on house arrest Kale (Shia) witnesses the mysterious actions of his neighbor, who he suspects is a serial killer.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0486822/

Infernal Affairs vs The Departed - The Match-up

My first Match-up. I've posted info on the films and then some mini-reviews. At this point I'm going to try to break down some of the major differences I found between the two films. Also, at the end I'll make my humble opinion known, which movie I liked more and was it worth the trouble? OK, onto the first Match-up.

One thing to say here from the start (which I found out after the fact) is that Infernal Affairs is a trilogy of films. Since I didn't watch all three, I can only make comparisons between Infernal Affairs and The Departed. I only mention this because, apparently some small character points from the trilogy made it into the single film remake. So, if you are well versed in the Infernal Affairs universe, forgive me.

Some of the differences I noticed can be chalked up to cultural norms, language and directorial vision. One thing I did realize in watching Infernal Affairs, was that given my lack of knowledge of the Hong Kong movie scene, the events were a little tough to understand at first. This movie has a large cast and if I don't have actors that are as recognizable as Leonardo DiCaprio or Jack Nicholson in the roles, it can be tough to follow. This is one thing that supports the idea of doing U.S. remakes of foreign films, but more on that as I look at the rest of the foreign films on my list.

One of the most broad differences I could see in the two versions was the level of violence. Which one did you think had more gratuitous violence? If you said The Departed you'd be right. I was a little surprised by that. It's not that I thought Hong Kong films were filled with violence (some might be but I don't know if the director in this case was making a choice to imply the violence more than show it), but I thought there would be more than I saw. Infernal Affairs had a much more reserved feeling to it, I won't go so far as saying the movie was more about the characters than the violence because although The Departed was much more violent, I thought it was more about the characters than Infernal Affairs. It's worth mentioning that The Departed was almost 45 minutes longer than it's counterpart. Which can go a long way towards fleshing out your characters.

When it comes to the violence, one scene in particular comes to mind, the two plot points were handled quite differently. I don't want to describe exactly what the scene was comprised of because it is a WTF moment in both movies. Let's just say that one of the main characters has an very "impactful" demise. The death of this character in Infernal Affairs was very emotional (well, it didn't play that way for me really. I saw what they were trying to do story-wise but I didn't care enough about the character to think the amount of emotion involved with his death was warranted) and drawn out. In The Departed the moment was punctuated more with gore than sadness. DeCaprio's character is quite affected by it, and it does make for a pretty intense scene. Scorcese did take the time to get us emotionally attached to the late character, so it worked for me, even if it was shorter. It did illustrate the difference in tone in the two movies, though. I'll mention the greater amount of humor in The Departed here as well, because I think it has a lot to do with the amount of violence. The Departed was almost a comedy at some points. I think this might just be a Scorsese thing, with a good amount of violence it helps to have moments of dark humor, it makes it more palatable for some reason. I wasn't offended by the level of violence, I'm not easily offended but when looking at the two movies side by side, it was noticeable.

Another difference I noted in the movies was the treatment of the character's love interests. Seems to me that in this case, one of the Hollywood gimmicks worked the opposite of they way I usually see it work. In Infernal Affairs, our two main characters had their own separate love interests (Bad Cop inside the SIU, had a perfect wife and the Good Cop gang infiltrator, had a love interest with a department mandated shrink). In The Departed, they combine the two female love interests into a single character. It does work in a economic sense, and creates an interesting plot device. The merged character, through some plot wrangling becomes the love interest of both characters, without their knowledge, of course. This adds another level of tension to the events, since as the viewer we know this is happening and the characters don't. Well, done. Even if it is a little too convenient.

I'm not sure if the expanded back story of the Crime Boss was a planned goal or if the role was expanded after they hired Jack Nicholson, but he had a much beefier story in the The Departed. As I said before, the remake came after the the trilogy, so there could have been much more Crime Boss character development in the U.S. version. But it was a welcome addition, we get some really chilling scenes with Nicholson slowly unraveling.

When comparing the two, these movies are really very close in their quality. Both are top notch and there wasn't too much changed in the U.S. version. To the first of the two main questions then: was it in need of a remake? The short answer? No. Infernal Affairs was a great movie on it's own, I couldn't find much wrong with it, if it was being remade right now I would definitely be asking why. So, which is better? Hmmm. This will be one of those situations where I have to be a little cheap and say it's basically a push. If you had seen Infernal Affairs first, that may well be your favorite. For me it's close, but with the american actors I love and the more relatable setting, The Departed is the one I prefer, but only by a slight margin. See, both. You will definitely be seeing a great film in Infernal Affairs.

The Departed - The Mini-Review

4 Academy awards in 2006, best picture, best director, best editing and best adapted screenplay. That might be enough to convince you that The Departed is a great movie, but I'll still get into some of the details, if you're not the type that is easily convinced.

Some people felt that The Departed was not Martin Scorsese's best film, myself included. I don't mean to say that this is not a good film, it is. I personally liked the Aviator more than this one but hey, that's not what we're talking about here.

The Departed opens with the introduction of Colin Sullivan, a young man of impressionable age. He's taken under the slimy wing of Frank Costello, an Irish mobster in Southie, Boston. The movie jumps to the police academy where we see Sulivan, who apparently has chosen to enter law enforcement, sort of. We are also introduced to Billy Costigan, another promising cadet, but Costigan has a questionable past. Because of this past (Costigan has family associated with organized crime), he is pulled out of the academy before graduation and convinced to become an undercover agent, intended for infiltrating Frank Costello's gang. After spending a time in prison on a fake assault charge, he has the proper history to make a believable hood. Meanwhile, Sullivan is promoted to the Special Investigations Unit created to take Costello's gang down. SIU has a problem though, it looks like they have a mole in their unit, placed there by Costello. How do they know this? Sullivan is that man and now he has informed Costello that his gang has a mole as well. Both men know they must reveal the other, but they have now idea how to do it.

Just like Infernal Affairs (the Hong Kong original this movie was based on), revealing too much of the plot of The Departed would be a diservice to those who have not seen it. There are a good number of changes between the two, which I will cover later. Some are for the good, while others might be for the worse. But, this is a superb film. It seems to me that there is some dislike for DeCaprio (Billy Costigan) out there but I don't see why. He is always a strong actor and he is very good here. Showing the stress that the life his character is living is convincing. Costigan believes hes a good man and knows he deserves to be living the sort of life that his counterpart (Sullivan) is living. All he wants is to be able to live out in the open, to be real after years of pretending.

As you can expect, Nicolson does a fine job as Frank Costello, mob boss. Over-the-top? The argument could probably be made here, depending on how much you like Nicolson, you might think there's a little overacting going on here. But I didn't mind, he's Jack.

The Departed deserves it's Oscars, if only because Scorsese has been robbed in other years. That idea aside, filled with amazing actors, a great plot (thanks to the writers of Infernal Affairs) and a well chosen soundtrack (a Scorsese staple), put The Departed on your shortlist of movies to see if you haven't already.

Infernal Affairs - The Mini-Review

Now this is a good way to start. The movies on my to-do-list are all well liked and while I had never heard of this film before this experiment, I hope the rest are just as good.

Infernal Affairs begins with Triad Crime Boss plotting the futures of a group of his young soldiers. They are meant to enter the police force and work in his interest, as moles. Two of these young men manage to excel at the academy. While Lau Kin-Ming is on the fast track, Chan Wing-Yan is expelled for reasons unknown.

As it turns out Yan has been selected by internal affairs for a deep undercover mission, inside the Triads. It will be his job to get the information the cops need to bring down the Triad. Yan begins losing himself to the life of crime, day by day, while his counterpart Ming is put in charge of a task force assembled to bring down the gang. What results is a cat and mouse game almost too complex to describe here, without risking spoiling some of the major plot points. Let's just say it gets complicated, but I mean that in a good way.

As an American filmgoer we are accustomed to a certain level of quality that other movie markets just can't seem to match, whatever the reasons. That is not the case here. Apparently Infernal Affairs was filled with top Hong Kong actors and it shows by the level of acting that is on display here. The performances could be considered somewhat restrained compared to our actors but that might have been a directing choice. I don't have enough context, in terms of seeing other films these actors have appeared in, to be a good judge of that.

Don't let the fact that the characters are not speaking English, keep you from watching this movie, it is highly recommended. If you're a person who already enjoys a foreign film every so often, then enjoy. I'm just sorry I missed this one when it came out.

Infernal Affairs vs The Departed - The Introductions

He we go with the first set of movies. For your edification I will include a link to IMDB, but I'll also write a few lines about what I know going in. Also, I'll include a trailer for you.
Infernal Affairs (2002) - A Story about two motivated young men working on opposite sides of the law, but they come from the same past. Considered to be one of the best products of Hong Kong cinema in recent times, this is a modern classic in it's homeland.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0338564/

The Departed (2006) - Filled with an all-star cast and directed by an American directing legend, "The Departed" won an oscar for Scorsese in 2006. An American retelling of the 2002 film "Infernal Affairs", this time set in Boston Massachusetts.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0407887/

OK, so what's the plan?

Here's the deal: I want to watch six movies and their remakes. The idea is to make some kind of sense of the Hollywood remake concept. Is it evil or something else?

I'll be blogging my observations as I go. A total of 12 movies, not so tough, right? What was tough was picking them. At first I thought I would just pick six of the best known movie remakes. However, that didn't seem like it would do me much good. I have seen at least one of the movies (either the original or the remake) in most of the popular remakes. So, I didn't see how I could be enlightened by movies I'm already familiar with.

I thought I had the answer by making my list out of half foreign films and half domestic films. Again, there were too many cases where I was familiar with one or both of the movies. So, after much consideration and regretful subtractions, I have come up with my list of films to watch. I think I've come up with my best possible list. I put above all else, the rule that says I can't have seen either film. What results is a pretty odd list of films, not the best movies ever made but none of them are total stinkers either.

Oh, and just for fun I'm going to watch horror movies for the last week of October.

The list is as follows, but the order could change. I'll be posting the movie I'll be watching before I watch it, and some brief info as well.

1. Infernal Affairs (2002) - The Departed (2006)

2. Rear Window (1954) - Disturbia (2007)

3. Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (1936) - Mr. Deeds (2002)

4. Sabrina (1954) - Sabrina (1995)

5. The In-Laws (1979) - The In-Laws (2003)

6. The Amityville Horror (1979) - The Amityville Horror (2005)

Rear Window (1954) - Disturbia (2007)

For the love of movies.

"Dollar signs.  They are a strong motivation, no doubt.  But can you make art and still generate those dollar signs? Some say that the 1970's was the last decade where purely artistic movies were cultivated by the studios.  These days it feels like we have a flood of remakes.  Whether it be movies or television series, Hollywood seems to be the best industry at recycling right now, and I don't mean paper.  Let's explore six films and then look at their modern day counterparts. Which is better, is it about art or money?"
Let's start here.  I'll be back here posting my progress on a regular basis to see if we can learn anything. If nothing else, it'll be fun!  The first pair of movies will be decided on soon.  I'll post before I begin.