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/