Now THAT'S How a Giant Gorilla is Supposed to Look

King Kong (2005)

Jackson didn't just beef up the graphics in this one--the characters, the plot line, even the run time was jumbo sized in this epic remake of GARGANTUAN proportions.

What Rocked

This movie, in my opinion, succeeded in doing what every remake is supposed to do. First, it fulfilled our need for the bigger, badder special effects. The first Kong was just shouting, "Please make me better some day!" And Jackson did. The effects were incredible. Kong was perfect. I honestly cannot imagine someone doing it better someday. I think the quest for a better Kong is now complete.
Second, it playfully added pieces of the original to show its respects. Father of the Bride did this well; Psycho did not. The references to the original were subtle, but lovely. My favorite was the scene in the beginning where Denham (Black) and Preston (Hanks) were discussing possible actresses for the movie. The dialogue went something like this:

Preston: "She'd have to fit a size 4."
Denham: "Fay's a size 4." <~~~ original Ann Darrow
Preston: "Yes, but she's doing a movie
with RKO." <~~~~~original production company
Denham: "Cooper. I should have known" <~~~~~ original director
Love it. Its like they were filming the same movie at the same time!
Next positive remake trait, it took what the original did and amplified it. Darrow, Denham, and Driscoll were all given more layers and more of a story. We were even given more characters that we could become attached too, especially little Jimmy. I was rootin' for that kid the whole way; thank God they didn't kill him off. Kong was even beefed up. In the first film he fought off one t-rex. In this film he didn't fight off one...not two...but THREE toothy devils. That is one badass monkey.
That brings me to my favorite part of this film: the relationship between Kong and Anne. When I read the review of the first one that mentioned people crying, I envied their responses. Jackson's film got me there. He made Kong more than just a monster. He humanized him through the playful and emotional scenes with Anne. Naomi Watts did an excellent job, by the way. Lovely and loveable. I cared for both of them deeply, which made the movie's climactic end much more powerful for me.

What Blew

Most of my complaints are really nit-picky. While I do give major props for Jack Black's performance--I was surprised to see him have so much control-- I could not decide how I felt about his character. Was he a good guy or a bad guy? It seems that his actions were pretty bad, but his attitude made him not so dark. The ambiguity frustrated me. The natives were terrifying. As soon as they came into the movie, the entire mood dipped sharply down. It was a very abrupt shift--I would say too abrupt--from "yay we're on a boat!" to crashing waves, head bashing, and voodoo chants. I thought I had flipped over to some horror flick that I would never watch intentionally (I'm a big chicken).
They put the damn spiders back in. Not only that, they added giant worms, giant cockroaches, giant millipedes....ugh ::shiver::. I'm not gonna lie....I fast-forwarded it a bit. I just couldn't handle it, and I think the whole thing could have been skipped.
Fast-forwarding may have helped this movie more than once. It is over 3 hours long....that is too long. Very few movies are still good 2.5 hours into it, and I always prefer it when they keep it short. They achieved a LOT in this movie; I mean the plot was always a vast one. But I think they could have cut many of the scenes just a little so that the movie would not have been so damn long. For goodness sake the first one was only like 100 minutes and this one took that long just to get to Skull Island.

What Others Thought

• Oscar finally gave Kong his crown-- three actually. All for the technical stuff, though.
• RottenTomatoes dialed down its monkey-loving, giving only an 83% to Jackson's film: "Peter Jackson’s dream project is as good as event movies get; King Kong is visually spectacular and emotionally resonant." It sounds like they agree with me, just not as enthusiastically. (BTW I peeked at the '76 version's score and it only got a 48%--so I guess I didn't miss much.)
• I think Stephanie Zacharek encapsulated my feelings well: "But good things do come in big packages. The trick for any filmmaker is to find the small movie within the big one, which is exactly what Peter Jackson does in King Kong." Jackson certainly found the delicacies--especially in the relationships--in the big picture and brought them to the foreground masterfully.
  
• I liked Paul Clinton's sentiments: "In a word, Jackson's "King Kong," is spectacular, awesome, phenomenal and breathtaking. OK, so I can't boil it down to one word." Very cute.
  
• Time Magazine's remarks sting--but they do have a point: "And our response to the ape's doom, once touched by authentic tragedy, is now marked by relief that this wretchedly excessive movie is finally over." Yeah, the length really hurt the film.
  

In sum, the movie was a visual and emotional masterpiece--but could have been condensed for better impact.

What Else You Should Know

Excellent news for all those who miss the up-close-and-personal interaction with the hairy man himself. Growing up in Florida, I always LOVED the King Kong ride at Universal Studios. I had the script memorized; it was my dream to one day work that ride myself. Alas, the ride was closed to make room for newer, more exciting rides (aka The Mummy which BTW I just found out is also a remake; man they really are everywhere...) But Peter Jackson just announced at comic-con that the big guy IS going to be returning to the California Universal Studios:

"In the new attraction, Jackson said the tram will drive onto a motion-simulator base inside a darkened soundstage surrounded by eight Cinerama screens that envelop riders with a wraparound view of Skull Island, according to Ain’t It Cool News."

So if you want to meet Kong yourself, time to go West.
For those of us stuck home because of budget restraints--damn economy keeping me from giant apes-- Jackson ALSO recently announced a prequel to the movie. Woot woot! Kong Lives!

It was Beauty Killed the Beast

King Kong (1933)

Who wouldn't love that face? That big hairy creature made its debut to a screaming audience in 1933. It was groundbreaking in special effects and is as legendary as its primate lead.

What Rocked

I was really impressed with this film. Going in I expected to be laughing my ass off at the cheesy acting and cheesier special effects. I'll admit, every close up of Kong's face made me chuckle, but the fight scenes were not half bad. And they were long fight scenes! That is something I really don't understand in big action flicks today-- they spend all this money on CGI and explosions so that the audience can enjoy 4 seconds of hardcore monster v. monster battle. But the '33 audience got to see Kong wrestle T-rex, Little Foot, and a flippin' pterodactyl--not to mention his assault on the unsuspecting train car-- for a good portion of the movie.
Kong may have looked like a silly ape, but they took great care to make him natural. His behaviors were very gorilla-like. And watch the scene on the Empire State Building at the end carefully and you can see even see his hair being blown by the wind. It showed great attention to detail.
I thought the pace of the film was very good; it jumped right into the action. And I really loved Fay Wray. She was the perfect blend of bravery and sweetness and played the damsel in the distress exquisitely. If only they didn't make her scream quite so often...

What Blew

I won't waste my time criticizing the overture, even though for a modern audience it is just torture (thank God for fast forwarding). Nor will I spend too much time talking about the incredible amount of sexism in the beginning of the film-- "all women are a nuisance." The girl was a sweet, penny-less dear who didn't ask for anything and they still all gave her a hard time. Such crap. And her romance...love the development on that one. Anyone who complains about Edward and Bella falling in love too fast need to watch this couple. One second he hates all women the next he's laying down his best lines on her-- "Uh...yeah...well...I guess I love you." Swear to God that is near verbatim. I think the monkey did a better job wooing her.
My GOD were the deaths in this thing brutal! It was so unexpected. IMDB puts the body count at 40, and they did not go easy. Granted it is nothing compared to the slasher films of today, but still watching 10 men fall into a deep crevasse and hit the bottom--ouch. Apparently I was spared the worst of it though, as a violent scene was cut after the Production Code was enforced in 1934 :

"It was a graphic scene following Kong shaking four sailors off the log bridge, causing them to fall into a ravine where they were eaten alive by giant spiders. At the preview screening, audience members screamed and either left the theatre or talked about the grisly sequence throughout the subsequent scenes, disrupting the film. Said the film's producer, Meriam C. Cooper, 'It stopped the picture cold, so the next day back at the studio, I took it out myself.'"

Yeah, I think the film was good giant-spider-free.

What Others Thought

• How Kong didn't win any Oscars...I don't know. But it has won a couple other lesser awards.
• Holy crap. I didn't know RottenTomatoes gave out 100% ratings. They must have really loved it: "King Kong explores the soul of a monster -- making audiences scream and cry throughout the film -- in large part due to Kong's breakthrough special effects." Well I didn't cry, but I do respect those special effects.
• Newsweek named it the 47th greatest movie all time.
• King of Critics (Ebert) conveyed of Kong: "Even allowing for its slow start, wooden acting and wall-to-wall screaming, there is something ageless and primeval about King Kong that still somehow works." He didn't agree with my belief that the film had good pace, but didn't completely bash it.
• Though James Berardinelli feels that today's technology dwarfs the original, he still has plenty of praise: "Still, in watching these old black-and-white images which were assembled with craftsmanship and care long before computers made this stuff easy, it's impossible not to feel some sense of awe at what was accomplished those many years ago. In many ways, Kong is still king." Amen to that.
  

A marvel in its time and still commands great respect today-- I think that that is a great compliment for a sci-fi flick from the 30's.

What Else You Should Know

There have been multiple attempts at Kong films. In 1976 there was a remake starring Jeff Bridges and introducing Jessica Lange. Because of time constraints I decided to skip this one and jump right into Peter Jackson's version. But the '76 one looks decent. The trailer shows they changed the story a bit and Kong looks...well a little better than the first one...but I can't wait to see what Jackson was able to do in his film.

Still asking myself WHY?

I think the winner is pretty obvious so I won't bother with a drum roll. Hitchcock's version was so good Van Sant really had nothing to improve upon.

Psycho (1960) wins hands down.

Differences That Mattered

• Nice try Vincey. He looked slim, but still didn't capture that same essence that made Norman Bates so freaking creepy. I think Vaughn is too straight-forward to be able to keep his insanity a secret. It just didn't work for me and I feel that if I hadn't known the ending I would have picked up on his craziness right away.
  
• So Van Sant spent all this time and energy making all these minute details match the original...and then he goes and adds the most ridiculous and unnecessary things. The masturbating, the weird clips...why? It's like let's take this masterpiece and then smear poo on certain pieces. I just do not understand it. At all.

I think Ken Marks at the New Yorker had the perfect question: "If the original did not exist, would this picture be worth seeing?" If we didn't have the marvelous original to hold this one up against, would this be appreciated more? Or would Van Sant's changes blur the genius of the plot? I guess we'll never know, and I'm glad for that.

Check in. Unpack. Relax. Take a shower.

Psycho (1998 Version)

Hmmm. Not a fan.

What Rocked

From the opening credits, this movie did a ridiculously good job at mimicking the tiniest details of Hitchcock's film. The dialogue, the sets, even the exact motions of Norman when he is cleaning up the body were identical to the original. Gus Van Sant must have watched the original four million times to get the details so perfectly. It was neat to watch--at first. I'll get more into that later.
Yay for sound mixing! In our modern movie world we now have better technology and new skills to make the sound in movies more realistic and effective. This movie still used the suspenseful EEE EEE EEE EEE, but they were able to incorporate plenty of background noise and such into the "lighter" scenes so that I didn't have that same "omg that's enough" feeling that I did with the first one.
I liked the idea of making Sam a cowboy (although cowboy Sam and the motel reminded me too much of Fool For Love-- and brought back some awful memories of film class...). I also liked the sister better. Julianne Moore is a respectable actress I think--no Cate Blanchette, but still good. I think her character had a nice edge to her which made her more interesting.
The gore, though more graphic than in the original, was still not nearly as awful as I thought it would be. The shower scene actually looked much more realistic than the first one (yay for there being more than 3 drops of blood after being stabbed like a dozen times!). Even the cuts on the P.I.'s face weren't enough to bother my overly-squeemish self.
I think the film had a much faster pace than the original, which is good because there is no point in dragging it out when the secret is already spoiled (even Hitchcock wouldn't be able to hide the ending of a remake...or would he?)

What Blew

I appreciate the care and precision used to recreate the smallest details of Hitchcock's world...BUT WHY? Why remake a movie and do it exactly the same way, with a few added--and unnecessarily disturbing-- traits? I was not surprised that there was more nudity. Welcome to modern movies. And I did not mind seeing Vigo Mortenson's tushie one little bit. But the masturbating scene? Really? Like it wasn't enough that Norman was a dirty little peeping tom--he also has to molest himself in order to get a strong effect. Have we really become that desensitized to perversion?
For the real WTF moment--William H. Macy's death. So he gets sliced in the face...and falls down the stairs. But wait... WTF are those little snippets of scenes before he falls? Even when Anne Heche was being brutalized there were images of like a storm or something, but those didn't bother me so much. When Macy dies there's a naked woman in a mask...and then a cow on a street....WTF?! The trailer for the movie (which is in the special features of the DVD, but I can't seem to find it online anywhere) seems to say that those images are in Norman's mind, but the movie makes no such connection.

What Others Thought

• No Oscar nods for this one...but it did win two Razzies...ouch.
• RottenTomatoes offers a brutal 36%, saying "Van Sant's pointless remake neither improves or illuminates Hitchcock's original."
• Peter Brunette of Film.com captures my sentiments exactly: "So much of Van Sant's 'new' version of the classic remains the same that you sit there shaking your head, mumbling, why, oh, why?" I don't know, Pete. I just don't know.
  
• Another had-to-put quotes, this time from the Washington Post: "This Psycho seems a little nuts." Doesn't say much, but it made me giggle.
  
• The New York Times seemed to enjoy it: "It remains the most structurally elegant and sneakily playful of thrillers. At least some things never change."

For the most part, people felt this remake was a waste of time. Why fix what ain't broke, I guess?

What Else You Should Know

According to the behind the scenes stuff on the DVD, Van Sant was so crazy meticulous about the details that he even stuck in any errors from the first film, such as doors being opened without being unlocked and stuff. I suggest watching the special features for this one. I think they were more enjoyable than the film.

A Boy's Best Friend is His Mother.

Psycho (1960 Version)

I know I promised you monkeys, but I felt like going bananas instead. HardeeharHar. I have never seen either of the Psycho movies so I really wanted to have this battle. I can tell you right now...if you have never seen or heard anything about this movie (which I HIGHLY doubt) go watch it right now. Stop reading this because I will ruin it for you and GO. For those of us still around, here's what I thought:

What Rocked

I was not expecting to enjoy this movie. For one thing, I am not a horror buff. You may have picked up on my aversion to blood and violence from my review of The Departed. Secondly, I have seen so many older movies that have been RAVED about time and time again and then I see them and walk away thinking, that was it? So my expectations were low.
Oh. My. God. This movie was fantastic! It was so much more risque than I thought was allowed (I didn't realize Hitchcock intentionally made the movie in black and white even though colored films were being made at that time). The suspense was incredible. I finally got to see where infamous "EEE EEE EEE EEE EEE" music that has been used and reused in movies and television shows was born. I'm rambling... let me start from the beginning.
This was a classic tale of why good girls should stay good-- and avoid spooky motels. We have Marion who, other than fornicating with her boyfriend in sleazy motels whenever she can, is a wholesome girl. Then she decides to steal from her job and runaway. Dun dun dun. Hitchcock did a great job of capturing that feeling of guilt and adrenaline during Marion's flee from Phoenix. She sees her boss, she gets followed by a cop, all these little things that put guilty little knots in your stomach.
Then we meet Norman. He is a perfectly standup guy at first. Adorably innocent even. But things get weirder and weirder--his mother screaming up at the house, stuffed birds all over his parlor, and that conversation about mental institutions...yeah, he's a creeper. But if I had not known the ending before seeing the film--damn Universal Studios Alfred Hitchock Show wrecking my life-- I would never have been able to see it coming. Never.
Proof that I would have been scared shitless-- I jumped like a rabbit when the "mother" killed the private investigator. Didn't know that was gonna happen. And that MUSIC. Ugh. Slayed me. Pun intended.
The gore was not over the top. Thank you Mr. Hitchcock for knowing that horror movies don't need to be graphic to scare the pants of someone.

What Blew

The music was a major factor in the success of this film. At the same time, however, it was a bit much at times. During those crucial scenes--the murders, the discoveries, etc.-- sure, blast us away. But there were just normal scenes where the music seemed a bit overpowering. There was no subtlety used in this movie; it was EEE EEE EEE or nothing.

What Others Thought

• Psycho was nominated for 4 gold guys-- but best actor wasn't one of them! That image (shown above) deserves an Oscar on its own!
• Rave reviews from RottenTomatoes. They gave it a 98% and bowed down in awe: "Infamous for its shower scene, but immortal for its contribution to the horror genre. Because Psycho was filmed with tact, grace, and art, Hitchcock didn't just create modern horror, he validated it." Doesn't get much better than that.
  
• I love this quote from Mary Elizabeth Williams from Salon.com: "All those who still get a chill every time they step into a hotel shower, say aye. That, you see, is the power of Psycho." I know I won't be showering carelessly for a while.
  
• Not everyone seems to be as enamored as us though. Bosley Crowther of the New York Times writes:"[Hitchcock's] denouement falls quite flat for us. But the acting is fair." I bet he still freaks out in the shower at motels though.

The world loves their Hitchcock. The American Film Institute (AFI) puts it at the very top of it's 100 Years...100 Thrills list. This is one classic film that I feel deserves its limelight.


What Else You Should Know

There are dozens of fun little trivia notes about this movie on IMDB. Go read them! Some of my favorites are:

• "The blood was Bosco chocolate syrup."

• "The stabbing scene in the shower is reported to have taken seven days to shoot using 70 different camera angles but only lasts 45 seconds in the movie."

• "In the novel, the character of "Marion" was "Mary" Crane. The name was changed because the studio legal department found that two real people named Mary Crane lived in Phoenix, Arizona."

• "Marion's white 1957 Ford sedan is the same car (owned by Universal) that the Cleaver family drove on "Leave It to Beaver" (1957)."

• And all of the ones about how Hitchcock tried to keep it a secret. He was the man.

The reviews of the remake are not so good. But I am an avid Vince Vaughn fan. Let's see how the big, burly man did as a mother-obsessed psycho.

A Difficult Battle...

I am really torn over the FOB battle. One one hand, I clearly enjoyed Martin's version more (hello, look at the lists of rocked vs. blew). But my sense of fairness seems jilted. Had I been around in the 50s I most likely would have loved the Tracy movie. For its time, it is superb. Really I want to pay it its due respect.

In the end though...
this is my blog....
so...I declare the winner...
and the winner is...

Father of the Bride
(1991 Version)

Differences That Mattered

• Franck.
  
• Continuity of the humor throughout the movie, all the way up till the end.
  
• The non-differences--meaning the remakes ability to use the whatever recycled bits of the original that it could. That shows it really honored the first one I think.
  
• Sorry, but I connected so well with the culture of the second film and could not connect hardly at all with the first. That is not the movie's fault, but it is the truth.
  

I really am feeling guilty over this ruling. What do you guys think? Am I being close-minded in counting out the original just because of its outdated values? Are the critics right?


Another battle over. More to come. Shall it be Apes or Giant Gorillas? We shall see.

He's One Wild and Crazy Guy

Father of the Bride (1991 Version)

Steve Martin, Diane Keaton, and Martin Short team up to take Tracy, Bennet, and Taylor's comedy into the 20th century. Tagline: "Love is wonderful. Until it Happens to Your Daughter."


What Rocked

The scene opens to a destroyed house, half full glasses and plates of picked over food are thrown across a table, confetti and other party decorations litter the floor, and we see a man sitting in an armchair surveying the damage. Begin George Banks' monologue.
Sound familiar? This movie did an excellent job at taking the parts that really worked from the first film and sneaking them into this one. The daughter's perfume as a gift from her lover in the beginning, the scene with the coats where Mr. Banks sees his advice is no longer the one that matters, even the race through the house to at least kiss the bride is exactly from the original. Those little details worked then and they work just as well, if not even better, now. Updates included hyphenated last names for the new couple; a strong, feminist, college and career set daughter rather than a young sheltered one who just lives at home waiting to move into her husband's house; and a whopping $250/head for the wedding (instead of the $3.75 in the original).
Martin in this movie was the voice of the American father. It wasn't just the financial woes and the paranoia over the young horndog after his daughter...The scene with the hotdog buns at the market could have been hand-picked from the minds of any American. Martin was relatable and lovable, with Keaton a wonderful compliment to his zany behavior.
My number one favorite thing about this movie: Franck Eggelhoffer. The accent. The gestures. Perfection. He was the missing piece, the key to keeping those final scenes from losing its oomph. I genuinely looked forward to every second he was on the screen. The "chipper chicken" scene is so good, I had to rewind to watch it again.

What Blew

Well, I couldn't find much that blew. Was the story cliche? Yes. Was it pretty one-dimensional. Sure. It was still a lot of fun though so I don't mind it all that much. My one small complaint is that the play-by-play voice overs by Martin were sometimes unnecessary and took away from the scenes, case in point the bar scene at the end where George is giving advice to his soon to be son-in-law. But even that is not that big of a deal.
Sorry this review is pretty one sided, but don't worry! The experts all had plenty to say....

What Others Thought

• Well Oscar didn't offer any nods but the film was nominated for a few...lesser...awards...
• RottenTomatoes didn't have share in my affection either, giving it a 71% rating.
• Scott Weinberg of DVDtalk.com seems to be a moderate fan of the film: "while Father of the Bride is basically not much more than a fluffy little valentine of a movie, there's still some actual warmth and wit underneath the "been there, seen that, nice wedding" exterior."
• Don Wilmott spares no feelings in his comments about the film: "It’s really hard to feel too terribly sorry for the uptight George Banks when he bitches and moans about the ever-rising costs of his daughter’s wedding in Father of the Bride. After all, he lives in overstuffed opulence in a Pasadena mini-mansion, runs his own company, drives an antique sports car, has a perfect and gainfully employed wife, and two perfect kids. Is the wedding cake outrageously expensive? Get over it, George." Obviously the film explores a bit more than just the financial cost of the wedding. Dig a little deeper there Mr. Film Critic.
  
• Janet Maslin agrees with me about success of taking the best from the original and making it new: "The screenplay represents recycling at its best. The material has been successfully refurbished with new jokes and new attitudes, but the earlier film's most memorable moments have been preserved"
• The Boston Globe praises Steve Martin--and nothing else: "Martin is lots of friendly fun, proving once again that he is an actor with untapped range and style. Without him, the movie would deflate."

To sum up-- most critics seem to believe the film was a lot of fluff, without any substance worth discussing. But what's wrong with good ol' lighthearted comedy?

What Else You Should Know

The sequel (yes there was a sequel to this remake, ha!) is also very funny. Check it out.

Hear Those Wedding Bells?

Father of The Bride (1950 Version)

While the rest of us may hear birds chirping, children laughing, and romantic music playing, fathers of the brides often hear only one thing at weddings: Cha-Ching! In this wonderfully written comedy starring a very young and beautiful Elizabeth Taylor (the bride, Kay Banks) , a frugle and defeated Spencer Tracey (FOB, Stanley Banks), and a charming Joan Bennet (MOB, Ellie Banks), we get a view into the circus of weddings from the 1950s, a circus of course that has only been increased in size and cost in recent years.

What Rocked

The scene opens to a destroyed house, half full glasses and plates of picked over food are thrown across a table, confetti and other party decorations litter the floor, and we see a man sitting in an armchair surveying the damage. Begin Stanley Banks' monologue.
What a way to open a movie.
Tracey was my favorite part of the film. He didn't have the slapstick or physical comedy that most of the funny men of today had. Instead he portrayed a sophisticated and strong man who unexpectedly loses it a bit when his only daughter suddenly decides to get married. His witty quips, though few, gave me quite a few laughs. "Only two syllables from banks to bankruptcy!"
If nothing else the film definitely served as an interesting telescope through time. Here we see husband and wife in separate beds, disillusioned daughters who don't even know what their fiance's jobs are ("Well, I don't know, Pops, he makes something. Does it really matter what it is?"), and weddings that cost $3.75/head and are considered grossly OVERPRICED! I think Mr. Banks would drop dead on the spot if he heard today's numbers...

What Blew

While old black and white films don't usually bother me, I did begin to lost interest in this one about halfway through. Not to put down the b&w's because there are dozens, maybe hundreds, of them that could pulverize a lot of the crap out there today--but they do have to have something special to compete with the colored, computer enhanced, gigantic budget movies of today.
Father of the Bride started off really well, they had me hooked on Bank's struggle to keep up with the bullet train of the wedding plans, but then it faded. The funny lines and incidents seemed to come up less and less. I got distracted and couldn't really find my way back into the movie.
And I know this is a movie from the 1950s and times were different, but it is still hard for me-- a daughter of the age of equality (kinda)-- to stomach movies, shows, books, etc. where women are held in the bonds of a strongly patriarchal world. Guys are strong and get all the pleasure, girls are weak and do the dishes. It hit me right in the beginning when Stanley gives his opening monologue and says something to the effect of "If the boys are all over your daughter, you worry that she won't pick the best one and if they are not then you worry what's wrong with her." After all, nothing is worse than a daughter who doesn't wed, right?

What Others Thought

• The film was nominated for 3 gold men, including Best Picture and Best Actor
• RottenTomatoes gives it a whopping 94% rating.
  
• A film critic from yester-year seems to agree that the end suffered: "[the director] permits the wedding rehearsal sequence to play too long, lessening the comedic effect"
• Janet Maslin of the New York Times sums up the movie pretty well: "Vincente Minnelli's 1950 "Father of the Bride" is an affectionate reminder of the days when parties required stiff protocol, suburban life was martini-filled and gracious, a majority of one's college classmates were likely to be married and a father was truly a patriarch, valiantly meeting the fiscal and emotional needs of everyone in his household." Maslin certainly seems to prefer the original to the remake where "condoms and seat belts and running shoes are part of the world." Sounds like someone may be clinging to the past a bit...

Well, other than the one guy who agreed with my comment about the tapered ending, it seems the critics really liked the original. A nod from both Oscar and RottenTomatoes definitely means it is a success.

What Else You Should Know

Pay attention when we meet the Dunstons. Do you recognize the mother's voice? The actress's name is Billie Burke, and if you're like me you will surprised to see this woman come down from her bubble. :)


After watching that I think Robert DeNiro's Meet the Parents' character would be a better match at Tracy's outrageous paranoia, but let's see how funnyman Steve Martin did.

And the winner is...

After watching both films and reflecting on their qualities my vote for the winner of this battle of the remakes is......

INFERNAL AFFAIRS

It was a tough fight, but in the end the Hong Kong film's strategic mastery of genuine suspense gave it the edge over Scorsese's butch and brutal mobster movie.

Differences That Mattered

• The bad moles in each film had very different internal struggles. Lau's character had to decide which side he really wanted to be on: the good guy's or the bad. Damon's character had to deal with going against his father figure...but his actions always seemed pretty self-interested. He was bad to the core, but not in a good way. I preferred Lau's struggle with good vs. evil more because it went deeper into his psyche than just a guy who has to screw over anyone to get what he wants.
  
• Guns, explosion, death, gore... yes so many people live for that crap but look at what Infernal Affairs was able to create with like less than 15 minutes of gunfights. The story was what was important; it didn't need shock value to make it great-- it just was great.
• The ending. I really should just leave it at that. Infernal Affairs left the door open for two successful sequels, while still wrapping up the lose ends of the first movie. After The Departed I am left with questions-- questions that I don't feel I was prepared to answer for myself.
  
• Okay one small victory to The Departed... I thoroughly enjoyed that they took all the little fragments of the female characters in Infernal Affairs and combined them together into Farmiga's character. The love triangle added to that serendipitous feeling that engulfed the events of the movie and gave The Departed the one thing I felt was really lacking in Infernal Affairs-- at least one full female character.

So that's it for this battle. I am still hammering out where I want to go next. Perhaps put Spencer Tracy up against Steve Martin in a little who was the best Father of the Bride... or should we stick with Wahlberg beating up bad guys and tryout the battle of the Italian Jobs.

Stay tuned to find out.

America's Try: The Departed

The Departed

Martin Scorsese is a legend in the movie world, and he rarely disappoints. The Departed takes the Chinese moles of Infernal Affairs and turns them into Boston rats. As was expected in an American gangster movie, there's plenty of guns, blood, and stars to make this a blockbuster favorite.


What Happened

The Boston crime syndicate is being run by ruthless and cocky mobster Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson). To help keep his butt out of jail, Costello puts one of his guys, Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon), into the police force. Playing the same game, Sergeant Queenan (Martin Sheen) places a cop with a checkered past, Billy Costigan (Leo DiCaprio) into the gangsters realm to get hard evidence that could finally put the scum away for good. Eventually both sides realize they have traitors among them and it becomes a race to see who can find the rat first. (Sounds about the same as Infernal Affairs, but on the other side of the world)


What Rocked

Well there certainly were gunfights in this one! And THANK YOU Mr. Scorsese for letting some of the guys walk away with wounds, rather than letting bullets fly like a swarm of bees without one flippin sting. More importantly, the acting in the movie was very well done. There was a crazy amount of actors in this film--Vera Farmiga, Martin Sheen, Mark Wahlberg, and Alec Baldwin all shared captivating supporting roles to the works of the big three of the flick. DiCaprio was on his A-game, bringing the his character to the very edge of a psychotic break and keeping us there, holding our breath throughout most of the film. Damon...well, I'll be honest that I've never been a fan of his work (Team America really ruined my perception of him), but he did a convincing job as an aggressive, but somehow still charming mobster in disguise. Wahlberg was over-the-top with his character, but I loved it. These are the roles he needs to be playing. He is so much better at the crazy-gonna-kick-your-ass-any-second guy than the soft, brainy but weak dude. Nicholson was...well classic Nicholson. Offensive, graphic, and wonderfully demented.
The character relationships were also really well developed. I liked the father-son dynamic between Costello and Sullivan. The love triangle with Farmiga's character also added an interesting flavor to the film.

What Blew

I really think they were trying to imitate the cinematic achievements that made the original so fantastic...but failed. There were several scenes with swooping camera movements that were highly unnecessary and seemed out of place since they were not prevalent throughout the entire film. But, hey, I guess they tried. I'll never understand why so much bloodshed is needed in these movies. Yes, it is gruesome world that these characters are living in but you can show us that without blowing their brains against the wall every other second (Infernal Affairs certainly proved that). I found myself less on the edge of my seat and more curled up ready to shield my eyes from the next gun blast. Then there's the ending...(SPOILER ALERT BTW, don't read on if you don't want anything ruined for yourself) because this is a remake I knew Costigan was gonna die and I was okay with that. But killing Sullivan too?! Did they really have to? Granted, Sullivan did not have the same "good side" show through as Ming did, but I still could have done without the King Lear ending. Plus with everyone dead how can they make a sequel (which Infernal Affairs did quite successfully--twice) And WHY did Dignam even shoot him? Did he figure it out? Did Madolyn show him whatever it was that was in the damn envelope that Costigan gave her (which we never got to hear of again)? Was the baby Costigan's? I know we are supposed to use our imagination to fill in the gaps, but come on...I want some follow-up here!

What Others Thought

• The Departed won plenty of awards, among them Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay, and Scorsese' long overdue award for Best Director.
• Roger Ebert offers it a 4 star rating.
• RottenTomatoes gives it a 92% rating, promising "The Departed is a thoroughly engrossing gangster drama with the gritty authenticity and soupy morality that has infused director Martin Scorceses past triumphs."
• TheMovieBlog puts it at number 43 on their list of the Top 100 Films of All Time (Infernal Affairs was number 40).
  

What Else You Should Know

The parallels between the two films are easily seen. Some of the best scenes in The Departed came straight from Infernal Affairs-- the sudden and dramatic roof dumping of the sergeant's body, the phone ringing in the end, revealing the bad guy's guy double-crossing him, even the shocking second mole within the police department. All those brilliant ideas, and so little credit. When it came time for The Departed to win its Oscar, the voiceover guy said it was a remake of the "Japanese film Infernal Affairs." Come on Oscar, check your facts!

Original Greatness: Infernal Affairs

INFERNAL AFFAIRS

It's mole vs. mole in this riveting crime thriller starring four of China's most popular actors: Andy Lau, Tony Leung Chiu-Wai, Anthony Wong, and Eric Tsang. I'm not gonna lie-- none of those names ring a bell with me, but their acting in this movie was impeccable so I may seek them out in other films.


What Happened

Lau plays Ming, a corrupt cop serving as a mole within the department in order to leak information to Triad boss leader Sam (Tsang). The cops have their own mole withing the Triads, Yan (Chiu-Wai), who has been buried in the crime realm for ten years and is ready to get out and back to a straight life. Throughout the film lines of good and evil are blurred, as the two lead characters fight to uncover one another's identities while staying afloar in their own undercover worlds. Lau and Chiu-Wai's perfomances are so compelling that the audience feels torn over which agent we want to win. Will Ming stay loyal to his crime boss or has he become too content with his life on the right side of the law? Will Yan ever be able to ensnare Sam and get back to his real life? Will they ever discover one another's true identities?! You'll have to watch to find out.

What Rocked

It was really refreshing to see a crime thriller that didn't center on crazy gunfights and explosions (sorry fellas). Instead, this movie was pumped by intense suspense. Right up until the final scene, the movie twists and turns so you have no clue what is going to happen or who you should be cheering for. It kept me on the edge of my seat and there was more than one occasion where I literally gasped from surprise (not an easy accomplishment since I am usually the queen of seeing what's coming). The cinematography was also fantastic. The shots were clear and fluid and didn't distract from the action of the film.

What Blew

The female characters may as well been completely cut from the film. The small slips of the love interests of both Ming and Yan were hardly enough to even mention-- though I did enjoy the parallel of Ming's fiance's novel about a man with multiple personalities who can't decide if he wants to be a good guy or a bad guy. Classic irony. Love it.

What Others Thought

• Infernal Affairs has won a horde of awards including Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Actor at the Hong Kong Film Awards.
  
• RottenTomatoes gives it a whopping 95% rating, declaring it "Smart and engrossing, this is one of Hong Kong's better cop thrillers." 95% is a difficult rating to get from this usually stingy, but highly reputable site.
  
• TheMovieBlogs's senior editor John calls it his "favorite cop film of all time." More of his ravings on this film include: "Brilliantly written, fantastic performances, superbly orchestrated conflict... man, there just aren't enough great things I can say about this movie." And don't forget, they have "The Official Home of Correct Movie Opinions."
• A somewhat wish-washy John Ralske from AMC offers this conflicting pearl: "Beautifully shot, well acted and tightly edited, the film is a flawed, but acceptably psychologically taut and genuinely suspenseful portrait of two violent men struggling with their own worth as they work to ingratiate themselves to those they are duty-bound to destroy." Why he calls it flawed in the midst of so much praise...I don't know.
  
• ILoveHKFilms.com also offers an ambiguous review, ordering us to "Forget fresh, inspired plotlines or startling thematic originality; this is simply a well-made, familiar storyline with all the big stars appearing in the same movie at the same time." I'm honestly not sure if he is mocking the movie or praising it... something to ponder I suppose.
  

What Else You Should Know

Obviously is is a foreign film so dubbing or subtitles are both included on the DVD. I tried to use both and found myself utterly confused. The subtitles are apparently direct translations whereas the dubbing keeps it closer, I believe, to what the actors are trying to capture in the scenes. In other words, what I was reading was NOT what I was hearing. So use the English dubbing and save yourself the headache. Btw, the dubbing was really well done. Very clear, loud, and matched the lip movements as perfectly as possible. Bravo.




So The Departed has some pretty big shoes to fill. Stay tuned to see how the American version holds up to the original.

Round Two. *Ding*

To remake or not to remake....What was the question?

Before I dive into the the film watching fun I want to go ahead and set up my initial opinion on remakes. My opinion will undoubtedly evolve as my quest continues and by the end it will hopefully be much sturdier than it is now--because right now I have mixed emotions.

One one hand...
I HATE the repetition in movies today. Like I said in my first post, I am always ready for something new, something I haven't seen before. Making money off someone else's past flop (or success) also seems pretty wrong. A lot of people today share this view. In his terribly one-sided blog "Why Movie Remakes and Sequels Suck" Jonathan Marine somewhat eloquently complains that

"Remakes limit the the potential quality with no regard for the actual product and total regard for its marketability."

Why would anyone support such a greedy and unimaginative practice?

Well, I have to believe in my heart of hearts that there are producers, writers, and actors out there who truly just want to take something that once had potential--but perhaps didn't have the technology or resources--and do it right. Not to mention, think how many great films we would never have been able to enjoy if people never remade movies! Scarface, Father of the Bride, Cape Fear, The Ring!

So for now my opinion stands at Yea for remakes. Let's see how that changes after the first round.

First to duke it out will be Hong Kong's Infernal Affairs and Oscar Winner The Departed. Let the gunfire begin!

Welcome to the battle...

Movies-- An industry. An art. My love.

Like many people, movies are my favorite escape from the troubles of the world. Few thrills compare to getting lost in the great romances of the silver sceen or watching Bruce Willis kick the crap out of bad guys or Jim Carrey use his zany humor to get out of another strange debacle.

But my love of movies has recently begun to struggle with my need for something new. After three years of working in a business that allows me to rent and watch a plethora of movies, I've begun to doubt Hollywood's ability to produce new quality work. Nowadays great movies come along once in a dozen and that wouldn't be so bad--if the other eleven weren't so predictable, improbable, or just all around a waste of time. With a shortage of great new ideas coming out, the Entertainment Industry is falling back on the old idea of taking something old and making it new. That means remakes. Hundreds of remakes have already been produced in years past, but more are definitely to come. One source claims there are currently 55 remakes in the works. 55.

This sudden surge of revamping old ideas has sprung to life an old battle. Should movies even be remade? Is it just a way of cashing in on the past successes of others? Or does the idea of taking something old and bringing it into today's world hold enough creative integrity to be respected?

We've all seen remakes-- Journey to the Center of the Earth, The Day the Earth Stood Still, and War of the Worlds are just a few popular ones to come out pretty recently. There are some movies that most people probably have no idea even are remakes because the originals are either far in the past or from a different country. Did you know that The Departed is a remake of a movie from Hong Kong called Infernal Affairs? How about that Guess Who (Bernie Mac and Ashton Kutcher comedy) is a flipped remake of Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (Sidney Poitier, Katherine Hepburn, and Spencer Tracey's controversial film from 1967). If you are under the age of 25 chances are you have no clue who Sidney Poitier even is...sigh.

Some remakes flop. Some remakes soar. Opinions on this don't always agree.

So I'm going to put the movies in the ring to see which was better: the original or the remake. By comparing the them hopefully I can come closer to answering the remake riddle and deciding what makes remakes work and what makes them fail.

If you're thinking, "Who are you to name a winner in these battles of new vs. old?" well please don't be put off. I don't claim to be the Official Home of Correct Movie Opinions (that's TheMovieBlog's job). I'm just a college student who loves movies and is trying to enlighten herself on a recurring trend in the movie making business. So please share your knowledge with me as much as you'd like-- and don't be hurt if I disagree.