[After a brisk nap]

Originally Posted by Ninth

Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

It always is...

[After a brisk nap]

Originally Posted by Ninth

The story of Jacket is not really what's interesting in this movie. It's more the atmosphere that's compelling, and the way the mystery unfolds itself (the narration).
Plus, Snarky mentioned an happy ending... Didn't seem very happy to me.

Spoiler:

The guy dies. The girl gets a better life.

I guess that's not exactly unhappy, but...

Well, the atmosphere is subjective, of course. I found the whole asylum setting very tired (sub-12 Monkeys), and completely lacking in tension.

As for the ending, that's at least debatable:

Spoiler:

I took it as that he managed to travel into the future for good (which is why he was so keen to be put into the jacket as he was dying), and in that sense survived his own death. I agree that it's ambiguous, barely, but even if he's really dead I think it's a pretty happy ending. And of course, the hero who accepts his predestined death to improve the lives of others is a staple of the time-traveling genre.

[squarejawhero]

I loved The Jacket. Suprisingly touching - and the ending was a real suprise. Broke with the formula in a way which... well, I'm suprised isn't done more often. Actually, some time ago I also saw The Manchurian Candidate. That was an effective horror dressed up as a thriller - The Jacket reminds me of it.

[Kolzig]

Originally Posted by RIDance

Oops. Can you tell I didn't like the movie? Nothing about it stuck in my mind. Now that I'm thinking about it none of Brody's movies have tickled my fancy. The Dummy was especially AWFUL.

Well what about The Pianist? Or the upcoming King Kong?

[Melanie68]

Originally Posted by Kolzig

Well what about The Pianist?

I believe he has a nice Oscar for that role.

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by Melanie68

I believe he has a nice Oscar for that role.

While I admire Brody's acting in that particular flick, don't associate the communal back-patting that is the Academy Awards with quality ...

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

Actually, some time ago I also saw The Manchurian Candidate. That was an effective horror dressed up as a thriller...

Did you see the REAL movie by John Frankenheimer starring Frank Sinatra, Janet Leigh, and Angela Lansbury? Or the inferior Jonathan Demme remake with Denzel Washington, Liev Shreiber, and Meryl Streep?

Originally Posted by RLacey

While I admire Brody's acting in that particular flick, don't associate the communal back-patting that is the Academy Awards with quality ...

True and true, I must admit. Brody was exceptional in The Pianist, as you've all pretty much said, but at the same time the Oscars are a big celebrity circle jerk. Don't get me wrong, I love to watch them. My mother still throws an "Oscar Party" every year (is it just me or is that just an excuse to throw another party?). I really enjoy the Oscars and I like seeing stuff win that DESERVES to win, like Brody did that year, but overall the Oscars do not really celebrate quality as much as they like to think.

[RIDance]

Originally Posted by Kolzig

Well what about The Pianist? Or the upcoming King Kong?

Yeaaaa... I don't want to sound mean but I didn't really like that movie either. I didn't like The Village either... and Oxygen was soooo boring. Those are the only popular ones I can think of. I do think he's an adorable man though- he did a brilliant job acting in The Pianist- I just didn't like the movie I guess (no offense). Oh yea, and King Kong is not my kind of movie- I will probably never watch it.

[squarejawhero]

@Once - snob. The remake. Seriously, how is it inferior? The remake is a solid film on its own without knowledge of the original. In fact, its damn frightening.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Snarky

It always is...

Just in case you didn't notice (I can't really infer that from your answer), I was quoting your sig.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by RIDance

Oh yea, that's right. Wasn't Ewan McGregor in that? He was also in a movie called The Island with Scarlet Johanson(sp?) that isn't out on DVD yet. That was really good. It has a twist and a mystery- much better thank The Jacket. Have you seen it?

No, and no. I wanted to see it, though, it just didn't happen.

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

@Once - snob. The remake. Seriously, how is it inferior? The remake is a solid film on its own without knowledge of the original. In fact, its damn frightening.

But have you seen the original? I may be a film snob in some respects, but believe me, I can say when a remake is better than the original. For instance, the 1939 Wizard of Oz is superior to all four versions made prior. The 1941 version of The Maltese Falcon starring Humphrey Bogart is better than the one made ten years earlier. The 1959 Ben-Hur starring Charlton Heston is the definitive version of that film, even though the 1925 silent version is quite good. Also, I'm convinced that Peter Jackson's King Kong stands a damn good chance of topping the 1933 King Kong (and should easily trounce the 1976 version). Most snobs wouldn't make that last comment and you know it.

Anyway, not only is the remake of The Manchurian Candidate pretty decent as remakes go, but even the original Manchurian Candidate was a flawed classic. There are some cheesy parts when viewed through today's eyes, and the remake is more relevant to the way things are in the present. At the same time, as cinema, the original is just a better movie. When the current events and issues that the remake deals with in a "scary" way become irrelevant down the road (as the original film's already have), we will only be able to compare the films on the merits of their acting, filmmaking, writing, etc. And the original wins that fight.

EDIT: Ok, ok...the acting is a toss up. It's tough to say the acting was better than Denzel Washington and Meryl Streep... Still, Angela Lansbury is just BRILLIANT in the original (I listed her as one of my favorite movie villains in the villain thread mag cooked up), and I suppose I do prefer her portrayal over Streep's. Also, how can anyone resist Old Blue Eyes in the starring role?

[seebaruk]

Saw the Manchurian Candidate this weekend, it was alright but I wasn't really in the mood for it. The idea is a pretty frightening one though. Also saw Sympathy for Mr Vengeance, good film although I don't think it quite had the overall impact of Oldboy.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

But have you seen the original? I may be a film snob in some respects, but believe me, I can say when a remake is better than the original.

What about Pointbreak and the Mel Gibson remake (where he plays this Porter guy... damn, I can't remember the title)?
I think I like the remake better, even though the original is great.

[Kolzig]

Originally Posted by RIDance

Yeaaaa... I don't want to sound mean but I didn't really like that movie either. I didn't like The Village either... and Oxygen was soooo boring. Those are the only popular ones I can think of. I do think he's an adorable man though- he did a brilliant job acting in The Pianist- I just didn't like the movie I guess (no offense).

Well, that's alright. I haven't yet seen The Pianist, but I've heard some good things about it and especially Mr. Brody.

Oh yea, and King Kong is not my kind of movie- I will probably never watch it.

Nooooooooooo! I will not accept this kind of talk.
You. Must. Watch. It.

Originally Posted by imdb.com

First "Review" of 'King Kong'

Newsweek writer Devin Gordon has written the first unofficial review of King Kong, after accepting an invitation from director Peter Jackson to see it in New Zealand. Gordon -- dare we say it? -- has gone ape over the movie, writing early in his article that it "is a surprisingly tender, even heartbreaking film," then, anticipating complaints about its three-hour length -- nearly twice that of the original -- he writes, "While Kong may be indulgent, it's not pretentious. And it's certainly never dull. Jackson has honored his favorite film in the best possible way: by recapturing its heart-pounding, escapist glee."

Oh yeah, and this was interesting too:

Japanese, Chinese Angry Over 'Geisha' Casting

Although it features an almost entirely Asian cast, Rob Marshall's Memoirs of a Geisha has evoked anger and calls for a boycott among some of those who have seen advance screenings of the film in Japan and China, Reuters reported today (Monday). According to the wire service, some Japanese are outraged that the leading roles in the film are played by Chinese actresses Ziyi Zhang and Gong Li and Chinese-Malaysian actress Michelle Yeoh. On the other hand, some Chinese are upset that Chinese film stars would favorably portray Japanese, who are still remembered for their brutal occupation of China in World War II. Reuters quoted one blogger as saying of Zhang, who plays the title role: "She's sold her soul and betrayed her country. Hacking her to death would not be good enough."

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by Ninth

What about Pointbreak and the Mel Gibson remake (where he plays this Porter guy... damn, I can't remember the title)?
I think I like the remake better, even though the original is great.

The remake is called Payback (the original in America is called Point Blank), and I think it's a close call there. I'm sure a decent case could be made that the remake is better. Though I do like John Boorman as a director and Lee Marvin as an actor quite a bit more than the combo of Brian Helgeland and Mel Gibson. Having said that, I also don't consider Point Blank to be one of Boorman's best films anyway. I'm partial to Deliverance and Excalibur I think...

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

The remake is called Payback (the original in America is called Point Blank), and I think it's a close call there. I'm sure a decent case could be made that the remake is better. Though I do like John Boorman as a director and Lee Marvin as an actor quite a bit more than the combo of Brian Helgeland and Mel Gibson. Having said that, I also don't consider Point Blank to be one of Boorman's best films anyway. I'm partial to Deliverance and Excalibur I think...

I think Mel Gibson has this "tired but stubborn" vibe that Lee Marvin, albeit more impressive on a whole, doesn't have, and this gives the remake a certain charm.

As for Boorman, well, I haven't seen many of his movies, but I really really loved The Tailor of Panama. The ending helped, though, because I felt it was perfect.

[After a brisk nap]

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

But have you seen the original? I may be a film snob in some respects, but believe me, I can say when a remake is better than the original. For instance, the 1939 Wizard of Oz is superior to all four versions made prior. The 1941 version of The Maltese Falcon starring Humphrey Bogart is better than the one made ten years earlier. The 1959 Ben-Hur starring Charlton Heston is the definitive version of that film, even though the 1925 silent version is quite good. Also, I'm convinced that Peter Jackson's King Kong stands a damn good chance of topping the 1933 King Kong (and should easily trounce the 1976 version). Most snobs wouldn't make that last comment and you know it.

How about The Thing From Another World vs. The Thing? La Jetée vs. 12 Monkeys? The Fly vs. The Fly? Yojimbo vs. A Fistful of Dollars? Spoorloos vs. The Vanishing?

Anyway, not only is the remake of The Manchurian Candidate pretty decent as remakes go, but even the original Manchurian Candidate was a flawed classic. There are some cheesy parts when viewed through today's eyes, and the remake is more relevant to the way things are in the present. At the same time, as cinema, the original is just a better movie. When the current events and issues that the remake deals with in a "scary" way become irrelevant down the road (as the original film's already have), we will only be able to compare the films on the merits of their acting, filmmaking, writing, etc. And the original wins that fight.

EDIT: Ok, ok...the acting is a toss up. It's tough to say the acting was better than Denzel Washington and Meryl Streep... Still, Angela Lansbury is just BRILLIANT in the original (I listed her as one of my favorite movie villains in the villain thread mag cooked up), and I suppose I do prefer her portrayal over Streep's. Also, how can anyone resist Old Blue Eyes in the starring role?

I think the two come out pretty even. Laurence Harvey and Liev Schreiber are both excellent in their part. I don't care much for either Sinatra's or Washington's efforts, and Streep and Lansbury both walk a fine line between brilliant and awful. The romantic interest (I forget the name) is better in the original, but I think playing up the crazed veteran schtick works well for the remake. Also, I prefer the plotting in the remake:

Spoiler:

Making Ben Marco the assassin is more interesting (and makes more sense) than having it be Raymond Shaw.

On the other hand, the satire is sharper in the original, where in the remake it relies too much on Haliburton=Cold War China intertextuality. In my opinion, it's a tie.

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by Snarky

How about The Thing From Another World vs. The Thing? La Jetée vs. 12 Monkeys? The Fly vs. The Fly? Yojimbo vs. A Fistful of Dollars? Spoorloos vs. The Vanishing?

Don't care about The Thing From Another World vs. The Thing. Neither is a masterpiece, but the remake was certainly more exciting and had some very cool effects. La Jetée vs. 12 Monkeys is almost an unfair comparison... The former is a short (28 minutes I believe) and 12 Monkeys is a feature length story. Both had good directors with their own visions. For The Fly, I'll take the Cronenberg version any day. Yojimbo is NO CONTEST. It's much, much better than A Fistful of Dollars, though Leone would go on to make some amazing films. Also Spoorloos is much better than that TRASH American remake, The Vanishing. The happy ending and typical Hollywood thriller climax reeked of bullshit.

[After a brisk nap]

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

Don't care about The Thing From Another World vs. The Thing. Neither is a masterpiece, but the remake was certainly more exciting and had some very cool effects.

It's also the best thing John Carpenter ever did, or is likely to do.

La Jetée vs. 12 Monkeys is almost an unfair comparison...

It wouldn't be fun otherwise.

Yojimbo is NO CONTEST. It's much, much better than A Fistful of Dollars, though Leone would go on to make some amazing films.

Yojimbo ain't that great, either. Kurosawa made plenty of much better movies.

Also Spoorloos is much better than that TRASH American remake, The Vanishing. The happy ending and typical Hollywood thriller climax reeked of bullshit.

Well, duh. That was what you might call a joke.

This is all pretty conventional stuff. I don't think you'd have to turn in your film snob membership card for holding that Bogart is the ultimate Sam Spade, or Charlton Heston Ben-Hur. And acclaiming Peter Jackson is so trendy these days that I think a fair number of elitists are being swept up. (Besides, real snobs don't rate the original that highly, anyway.)

I don't get what the fuss is all about, though. All the clips so far have looked terribly computer-generated. And I could just about excuse a three-hour bloat in the Lord of the Rings movies, but for King Kong?!