Remakes have been wildly popular for a while now. The horrible idea that Hollywood has is that when you run out of ideas you just run old ones out there again. Here is the real problem though: they try to remake the most popular ones, the classics. Now I understand the reasoning: money. You have a built in audience when you remake a popular movie. You also have built in frustration. Bottom line is remakes of great movies don't have the same effect. The new Planet of the Apes no matter how better the costumes and effects now just won't compare to the old one (anti-religious tones aside).
But there has in recent years been a few exceptions. Not exceptions to classics being remade, but exceptions to remakes topping their predecessors. A remake that helped show this was Dredd, a remake/reboot of the Judge Dredd movie. Someone understood that the Judge Dredd universe was grim and a movie of it should be true to the post-apocalyptic genre. The original movie, coming out in an era of comic book movies being childish and comic booklike (most notably the Batman series of the 90's) featured comic relief in the form of Rob Schneider and an emphasis on the actor of Dredd, Sylvester Stallone. The remake was much darker, serious and grim in nature. While essentially a violent shooter film, early on it developed a situation where the viewer literally goes "How are they gonna get out of this?" Coupled with great performances by Karl Urban (an actor who has been gaining more appreciation by me in recent years by his acting variety) and Lena Headey (known for her role as Cercei Lannister in Game of Thrones). Dredd might best be described as a reboot in that it retained only the basic framework of the original (setting, main character, etc.) while feeling no need to retain the original script/story. But in this regard that was why it is a reboot that worked. It fixed the severe flaws of its original (which in this case was an entire rewrite and change in movie genre). But it recognized that Judge Dredd was a good character for big screen. This is the basis for which I would like to propose some more reboots: movies that have some serious flaw in them but for one reason or another could be excellent if a remake was well done.
I will say this only once: Beware of Spoilers!
1. Pearl Harbor: Simply put, get Michael Bay as far away from this movie as possible, and have him take Ben Affleck with him. Bay doesn't seem to understand the concept of such historical fiction. He overshadowed the actual event of Pearl Harbor with a weird and yet simplistic love story. Kate Beckinsale's character all too easily changes her feelings from Affleck to Harnett, who kind of sleazily plays a bit off her grief. But before you can really realize that Affleck is back in the picture way too quickly, and some half done rivalry is never really settled and only truly finds resolution by killing one of the characters in a very cliche self sacrificial fashion. Coming out within years of some great World War II films like Saving Private Ryan and Enemy at the Gate this movie comes unbelievably short. Too add insult to injury this came out on the heels of 9/11, a disastrous attack being compared to Pearl Harbor, yet this film barely lets one rest in the grief of the climactic event and moves quickly to striking back. To top all its failures off, the movie was three hours long. But Pearl Harbor is an event that could provide for an emotional, action packed film. World War II movies done well are exceptionally powerful. We simply need a movie that will focus more on the event of Pearl Harbor itself and less on some crappy love triangle. Matt Stone and Trey Parker put in best in their song in Team America:
I miss you more than Michael Bay missed the mark
When he made Pearl Harbor
I miss you more than that movie missed the point
And that's an awful lot girl
And now, now you've gone away
And all I'm trying to say is
Pearl Harbor sucked, and I miss you
I need you like Ben Affleck needs acting school
He was terrible in that film
I need you like Cuba Gooding needed a bigger part
He's way better than Ben Affleck
And now all I can think about is your smile
and that sh***y movie too
Pearl Harbor sucked and I miss you
3. A Knight's Tale: Are we over Heath Ledger enough to remake this film? Now I should say that Knight's Tale is actually a pretty good movie. It basically quite impressively pulls off a modern sports movie in a medieval setting. Additionally, as the title suggests, it has a fun twist of Chaucer to it, who is a character in the film itself. Suggesting this as essentially another piece of the Canterbury Tales (and has a moment to explain some of the characters who get a negative story in the tales). It simply is a good idea and a solid script. Additionally, the characters played pretty well to their parts. So why remake this film? The main reason is there was one significant flaw that diminished the quality of the movie quite a bit, and that was the design choice to give everything a modern spin. From the modern music and dance styles to modern dress and hair styles, for a script that remarkably pulls off a medieval adaptation these choices constantly kept pulling us out of the atmosphere into some modern world, or what we moderns would want the middle ages to be like, or what we would act like if we were there. That unnecessarily lightened the style of the film and took away from it having the truly unique feel it could have possessed. Instead it looked more like a teen movie parents wouldn't mind watching but no one feels the need to see again.
4. Hart's War: This is another war movie that just did not deliver. The overall premise of the movie is quite good, dealing with the issue of African American Officers coming into a POW camp and the tensions that causes, and the main character, Lt. Hart who for various reasons is rather isolated in relation to both officers and enlisted men is shoved in the middle of the affair. The general strokes of the movie therefore are worth keeping. But the characters in the film were way too type cast that it didn't allow for adequate mystery or character development. In addition the cast while including some good names (most notably Bruce Willis) simply did not seem to have chemistry. There were also some directing and cinematography issues that limited this film. Though in a prison camp, it just didn't feel much like that. A rewrite that adds more threat to the situation, deeper characters, more development of racial tensions, and some genuine emotional moments coupled with a director who can make the decisions on set necessary to foster that atmosphere would make this more than a value bin movie.
5. Spiderwick Chronicles: If ever there was a movie that might benefit from the current trend of splitting a film into multiple movies, this might be it. Although that trend typically takes a single book and splits it into multiple movies, this film did the opposite of taking a series of books and condensing it into a single movie. It's scary sometimes to think Miramax wanted to do that with Lord of the Rings, and I thank my lucky stars Pete Jackson not only found a different studio to back a multiple movie project, but one that actually let him go from two movies to three (too bad he was aloud to do that with the Hobbit). But back on point. I've never read the books of the Spiderwick Chronicles, but the movie was actually pretty decent. But it suffered two main problems: the story condensed to a single film (too much happens in too little time) and Nickelodeon's control. It was a Nickelodeon movie and that showed in the effects especially, which just sort of made it too kiddy of a movie. This film could have had a wider appeal had it's story been taken more seriously and spread out which would build the drama towards the final portion, and by giving it a more teen fantasy genre look. By condensing it all together it has this air of Cat in the Hat to it in how it seems the whole house falls into chaos while mom is at work. But for a movie that had some good (and some bad) design choices on creatures, an interesting story, and fun adventure it simply could have been a better product than what was produced.
6. Spiderman 3: Now on one hand you can't just remake a sequel right? Well, it seems at least Bryan Singer sort of found a way to do that with X-Men 3 in relation to the new X-Men movie coming out this year. But also because the Spiderman universe has undergone a reboot, there is an opportunity for the new series to avoid the mistake that Spiderman 3 suffered. The biggest mistake was giving Venom only 10 minutes of airtime, and to top it off, he was a secondary villain. Any reader of the Spiderman comics knew there were two main villains for Spiderman: Venom and the Kingpin. One never appeared in the movies, and Venom who was sort of Spiderman's evil twin if you will was perhaps his most popular villain. I think they were right to save him for the final Spiderman movie (think of how disappointing Bane was in Dark Knight Rises after a phenomenal Joker character was already used in The Dark Knight), and maybe part of the problem is Tobey Maguire indicating he was done with the franchise that made them cram Venom in just so we saw him, but it did him no justice. He never really was developed as the top villain. Especially since he appears with another villain, and the Hobgoblin (played by James Franco) has to have a change of heart to help. It was pure garbage. Not too mention the other villain whose name I can't even remember (Mr. Sandman?) was a joke with some sympathetic backstory, and of course had to be the one to have really shot Peter Parker's uncle. The new Spiderman series ought give Venom his due screen time, and let him be the legitimate arch-villain of Spiderman. On a side note, I read somewhere rumblings that the new series might include another top villain of the series: Carnage (think venom suit, but with blades and a psychopath wearing it). Although if that's true I do wonder how they will portray him well while maintaining any rating less than R. It will take some tricky directing. The Spiderman series both old and new have been underwhelming in their overall choices of villains, they need to step it up and taking the key villain and making it his movie is the way to do that.
8. In the Name of the King A Dungeon Siege Tale: This is actually the movie that inspired this entire blog. From the moment I saw it I thought "someone needs to remake this film". Simply put, if Peter Jackson had done this movie it would probably be pure awesome. Never have I a seen a movie where I felt costume, casting, and directing absolutely ruined a great film. There simply was some bad visioning in bringing this story to life. The overall tale is unique enough yet grounded enough in modern fantasy to appeal. But several actors just looked like they had no business being in this film, including its star Jason Statham. Sorry, but keep him in car chases and shootouts, not on horseback with sword fights. But perhaps nothing defines the casting mistakes quite like Ray Liotta as a sorcerer. What the heck is Ray Liotta doing in a fantasy film? Additionally, some of the creature costumes and presentation looked like a cross between monkeys and puddies from Power Rangers. Respectable names mattered more than a respectable product, but this movie has all the makings of being good. Of all the films here, this one would require the least amount of work on the script/story itself to be good, it would simply be about how it is put to screen. Which in my view makes it the top candidate for an excellent remake.
9. Eragon: If number 8 is best suited for a remake, perhaps number 9 is the remake that has to happen and is best suited to succeed. Like In the Name of the King, this movie does not need too much. I think timing more than anything doomed Eragon. I never even heard of it hitting theaters or knew anything about it when I first bought the film how many years ago. Now most people acquainted with fantasy novels are well aware of this series. Stores with only a small space dedicated to book sales offer this one, I see it on people's shelves at home. There was definitely some hype in the final two books when they reached the shelves. It seems that the series became a movie a bit too soon, and thus failed in the box office. There were some flaws, also notably in casting. While I applauded their choice to go with an unknown, Ed Speleers was a rather bad hero. He had this pretty boy look to him that simply did not make him relatable and did not mesh well with the character's personality. John Malkovich is also a wonder. Kind of like Ray Liotta, you make a funny face at the very thought of him in a dragon movie. Although he wasn't altogether horrible. This movie needs better timing, a slightly better budget, and a better cast. With those, it could finally jumpstart the Eragon series into film as this one killed the franchise before it ever really got off the ground. Right now it stands as a nice B movie, but the books have the popularity and general story structure, however cliche to make it a blockbuster.10. Six Days, Seven Nights: Like the Judge Dredd movie, this movie needs a genre shift. What we got was Romantic Comedy, what it needs is serious drama. The overall plot story of a snobby woman crashing on a remote island with a past his prime, grumpy and at the same time overly flirtatious pilot while her fiance is back on the getaway she flew away from trying to organize a rescue crew is not a bad story. It essentially has two good plots running together, the organized rescue and the efforts to both survive and get found. Both of which, done seriously, could make for a very powerful drama. But instead we got Harrison Ford reaching down Anne Heche's pants, David Schwimmer cheating on his fiance partway into the rescue efforts and then over-dramatizing his guilt, and pirates with guns chasing Ford and Heche around the island. As far as romantic comedies go it went well. Heche and Ford played a good anti-chemistry turned to love, Schwimmer's betrayal let her off the hook for connecting with Ford, and there were plenty of good lines in the movie, including what might be my favorite Harrison Ford line ever at the end of this video:
As a romantic comedy it worked, but there is enough of a real story here to make a powerful film. Think castaway if Tom Hanks had someone he did not like (but had some sexual tension with) instead of a volleyball. To truly deal with an uncomfortable dynamic of being trapped on an island with someone and rely on each other and trust each other (and without trust inevitably meaning romance) with limited resources and then to follow a serious rescue, that could be a good and emotional movie, not just an entertaining one. Real sacrifice and a likely chance of death or suffering to where the audience literally doesn't know how it's going to end is what this film needs.
So that's my list. Also by way of a note, I thought I would mention I can think of two classics that had successful remakes: Scarface and Dances With Wolves. Scarface was so many years removed, so different, and so iconic in the niche of drug/ganster movies in its own right, it rightly was cautious in how much of the original it borrowed to use the old story but yet create an entirely new one. Dances with Wolves' remake was brilliant because they didn't use the same title or setting, and added a bunch of visuals. I'm talking of course about Avatar. You cannot watch that movie and tell me it's not exactly the same as Dances With Wolves once you take away the effects. There is a reason before the movie was even released the South Park creators poked fun at it, essentially calling it "Dances with Smurfs" (for which a South Park episode gets its name). Ok, maybe it is not a remake per se, maybe he just stole/recycled the story, but in the end when the whole plot is that similar isn't that all it is, a remake? Recycling/repackaging the story with a new cast, setting, and characters, but still really telling the same story. It was so similar the movie still had the same overtones/moral of how horrible westerners are to natives because we want/feel entitled to their land while we are at the same time horribly out of touch from it.
Anyways, faithful readers keep an eye out for some more pointless movie lists coming.
No comments:
Post a Comment