Comments on: 10 Worst Updates of 1930s Classics http://blog.spout.com/2008/09/09/10-worst-updates-of-1930s-classics/ Daily coverage of what is truly interesting in the film world Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:39:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: mel johal http://blog.spout.com/2008/09/09/10-worst-updates-of-1930s-classics/#comment-114527 mel johal Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:58:36 +0000 http://blog.spout.com/?p=4824#comment-114527 There seems to bge very little original ideas in film today. Studios seem hell bent on making the fast buck. If sequels or prequels dont do this then there's always the remake. I would agree with many on this list. They seem to be divided between pre and during CGI. The 1980 Flash Gordon was a camp ballsy fun movie that did not tkae itself seriously (if it did - it would probably end up looking like David Lynch's Dune). I dispise the modern so called remake. I equally dispise the supposed movie version of the popular TV show (The Flintstones, Thunderbirds, The Avengers, Charlies Angels, and on and on and on). I despair that we will soon see remakes of "Network", "The Boys From Brazil", "Capricorn One" and "Marathon Man". Is anything left to pillage and plunder? Remakes There seems to bge very little original ideas in film today. Studios seem hell bent on making the fast buck. If sequels or prequels dont do this then there’s always the remake. I would agree with many on this list. They seem to be divided between pre and during CGI. The 1980 Flash Gordon was a camp ballsy fun movie that did not tkae itself seriously (if it did - it would probably end up looking like David Lynch’s Dune). I dispise the modern so called remake. I equally dispise the supposed movie version of the popular TV show (The Flintstones, Thunderbirds, The Avengers, Charlies Angels, and on and on and on). I despair that we will soon see remakes of “Network”, “The Boys From Brazil”, “Capricorn One” and “Marathon Man”. Is anything left to pillage and plunder?

Remakes

]]> By: limeymcfrog http://blog.spout.com/2008/09/09/10-worst-updates-of-1930s-classics/#comment-114016 limeymcfrog Fri, 12 Sep 2008 18:42:42 +0000 http://blog.spout.com/?p=4824#comment-114016 I'm not talking about the stop motion, that was quite good, espescially considering the time period. I'm talking about the Kong closeups that are quite obviously animatronic or large scale puppetry or something of that ilk. Whatever it is, it's a complete mess, but still not as much of a mess as the writing or acting. I’m not talking about the stop motion, that was quite good, espescially considering the time period. I’m talking about the Kong closeups that are quite obviously animatronic or large scale puppetry or something of that ilk. Whatever it is, it’s a complete mess, but still not as much of a mess as the writing or acting.

]]> By: Diego http://blog.spout.com/2008/09/09/10-worst-updates-of-1930s-classics/#comment-113988 Diego Fri, 12 Sep 2008 06:43:11 +0000 http://blog.spout.com/?p=4824#comment-113988 The '33 version of KING KONG effects weren't animatronics. Such technic wasn't created yet. Teey were made in stop-motion. Great movie! The 2005 version is a masterpiece. A homage to the original. Too long? Too much action? Peter Jackson made real scenes originally written for the '33 movie that never made out of the paper. TRANSFORMERS effects are really great, but I can't agree that creating believable living creatures is much easier than machines... KONG wins. P.S.: '76 KING KONG is crap! The ‘33 version of KING KONG effects weren’t animatronics. Such technic wasn’t created yet. Teey were made in stop-motion. Great movie!

The 2005 version is a masterpiece. A homage to the original. Too long? Too much action? Peter Jackson made real scenes originally written for the ‘33 movie that never made out of the paper.

TRANSFORMERS effects are really great, but I can’t agree that creating believable living creatures is much easier than machines… KONG wins.

P.S.: ‘76 KING KONG is crap!

]]> By: Christian http://blog.spout.com/2008/09/09/10-worst-updates-of-1930s-classics/#comment-113980 Christian Fri, 12 Sep 2008 04:58:59 +0000 http://blog.spout.com/?p=4824#comment-113980 Sorely disappointing list. I saw this linked on IMDb and looked forward to seeing what films made the list. What a let-down. You immediately lost points, right off the bat, with #10 which was in no way a remake or an update. And then it just got worse and worse. The majority of the films on the list were, in fact, updates but not of 1930s films. They were updates of classic books, plays and comics. In most cases, the filmmakers weren't even thinking of the 1930s versions while making their version, they were thinking of the original source material. The list looks like it's just an excuse to bring up "The Women" and put "Mr. Deeds" at number 1. The rest was all filler which was merely and afterthought. Sorely disappointing list. I saw this linked on IMDb and looked forward to seeing what films made the list. What a let-down. You immediately lost points, right off the bat, with #10 which was in no way a remake or an update. And then it just got worse and worse. The majority of the films on the list were, in fact, updates but not of 1930s films. They were updates of classic books, plays and comics. In most cases, the filmmakers weren’t even thinking of the 1930s versions while making their version, they were thinking of the original source material. The list looks like it’s just an excuse to bring up “The Women” and put “Mr. Deeds” at number 1. The rest was all filler which was merely and afterthought.

]]> By: Damien http://blog.spout.com/2008/09/09/10-worst-updates-of-1930s-classics/#comment-113974 Damien Fri, 12 Sep 2008 04:32:02 +0000 http://blog.spout.com/?p=4824#comment-113974 Accepting change is not a big deal. King Kong was good honey.....Better check it again. Remakes jsut relive the old stuff.....if they've deviated, its called creativity. Agreed that certain stuff are ridiculous, but do not ignore certain good ones.....Check your books carefully. Hopefully...Peter doesnt give a kick in the arse..... Accepting change is not a big deal. King Kong was good honey…..Better check it again. Remakes jsut relive the old stuff…..if they’ve deviated, its called creativity. Agreed that certain stuff are ridiculous, but do not ignore certain good ones…..Check your books carefully. Hopefully…Peter doesnt give a kick in the arse…..

]]> By: Dickie http://blog.spout.com/2008/09/09/10-worst-updates-of-1930s-classics/#comment-113973 Dickie Fri, 12 Sep 2008 04:25:59 +0000 http://blog.spout.com/?p=4824#comment-113973 Jesus. Fucking. Christ. You're douchebaggery is unrivaled. Jesus. Fucking. Christ. You’re douchebaggery is unrivaled.

]]> By: Erik http://blog.spout.com/2008/09/09/10-worst-updates-of-1930s-classics/#comment-113972 Erik Fri, 12 Sep 2008 04:19:59 +0000 http://blog.spout.com/?p=4824#comment-113972 Oh, wait. I've jumped a few decades. Never mind. Oh, wait. I’ve jumped a few decades. Never mind.

]]> By: Erik http://blog.spout.com/2008/09/09/10-worst-updates-of-1930s-classics/#comment-113971 Erik Fri, 12 Sep 2008 04:12:40 +0000 http://blog.spout.com/?p=4824#comment-113971 I'm really surprised no one has yet to mention that horrid Gus Van Sant version of Psycho. I’m really surprised no one has yet to mention that horrid Gus Van Sant version of Psycho.

]]> By: Thomas http://blog.spout.com/2008/09/09/10-worst-updates-of-1930s-classics/#comment-113965 Thomas Fri, 12 Sep 2008 03:23:46 +0000 http://blog.spout.com/?p=4824#comment-113965 I just want to clarify what I posted earlier. Earlier I mentioned that some movies from the 30s were remade in the 40s and 50s, and I gave a few examples. I wasn't suggesting that those remakes were poor. My point was that remakes have been around for a long time now, not just in the past 20 or so years. By the way, the American version of Gaslight (1940s) is a remake of the 1940 British flick by the same name. Regarding "Shop Around the Corner", "In the Good Old Summertime", and "You've Got Mail", I really do feel that "In the Good Old Summertime" is the best of them all. I just want to clarify what I posted earlier.
Earlier I mentioned that some movies from the 30s were remade in the 40s and 50s, and I gave a few examples. I wasn’t suggesting that those remakes were poor. My point was that remakes have been around for a long time now, not just in the past 20 or so years. By the way, the American version of Gaslight (1940s) is a remake of the 1940 British flick by the same name.

Regarding “Shop Around the Corner”, “In the Good Old Summertime”, and “You’ve Got Mail”, I really do feel that “In the Good Old Summertime” is the best of them all.

]]> By: Brian http://blog.spout.com/2008/09/09/10-worst-updates-of-1930s-classics/#comment-113964 Brian Fri, 12 Sep 2008 03:18:52 +0000 http://blog.spout.com/?p=4824#comment-113964 I agree with a few of your choices, except for Kong and Frankenstein. The reasons for Kong have already been explained by several others. Frankenstein, besides being more of a reinterpretation than a remake, features one of the best Deniro performances of the last 20 years, in my opinion (of course, that's not really saying much). He brough a level of pathos previously not seen in the creature. The scenes in the farmhouse are heartbreaking. Also, loved his ultimatum to Frankenstein later ("if I can't have a wedding night, I'll be with you on yours.") To say what you said about his performance leads me to believe you either haven't seen it since you were a kid or you haven't seen it period. Otherwise, keep up the good work. I agree with a few of your choices, except for Kong and Frankenstein. The reasons for Kong have already been explained by several others. Frankenstein, besides being more of a reinterpretation than a remake, features one of the best Deniro performances of the last 20 years, in my opinion (of course, that’s not really saying much). He brough a level of pathos previously not seen in the creature. The scenes in the farmhouse are heartbreaking. Also, loved his ultimatum to Frankenstein later (”if I can’t have a wedding night, I’ll be with you on yours.”) To say what you said about his performance leads me to believe you either haven’t seen it since you were a kid or you haven’t seen it period.

Otherwise, keep up the good work.

]]> By: Tom http://blog.spout.com/2008/09/09/10-worst-updates-of-1930s-classics/#comment-113961 Tom Fri, 12 Sep 2008 03:11:47 +0000 http://blog.spout.com/?p=4824#comment-113961 I have to agree with Juan Carlo that I have issues. Even the 1976 version of Kong has grown on me as placing a lens on the search for fame in the disco generation, and I thought that Jackson made an better than decent homage film in 2005. Comparing the two "Mummy"s may be like comparing apples and oranges: the earlier was a horror film, the latter was more of an action/adventure film. It gets to the same core of the "Alien" vs. "Aliens" argument: its all a matter of what type of film you like: the original of you prefer horror, the latter if you prefer action, though both accomplish what they set out to do quite well. While I'm not a huge Eddie Murphy fan, and would not rank "The Distinguished Gentleman" as his best work, I thought it was pretty good for what it wanted to accomplish. The remake of Frankenstein, while not as easy to watch because it is a far deeper film than the original, is an excellent film. While historically, it may not hold a place in the collective imagination as the first, it is in every other way a superior film. If these are the worst 1930s remakes, then my take is that Hollywood has done a halfway decent job of doing what they normally screw up. I have to agree with Juan Carlo that I have issues. Even the 1976 version of Kong has grown on me as placing a lens on the search for fame in the disco generation, and I thought that Jackson made an better than decent homage film in 2005.

Comparing the two “Mummy”s may be like comparing apples and oranges: the earlier was a horror film, the latter was more of an action/adventure film. It gets to the same core of the “Alien” vs. “Aliens” argument: its all a matter of what type of film you like: the original of you prefer horror, the latter if you prefer action, though both accomplish what they set out to do quite well.

While I’m not a huge Eddie Murphy fan, and would not rank “The Distinguished Gentleman” as his best work, I thought it was pretty good for what it wanted to accomplish.

The remake of Frankenstein, while not as easy to watch because it is a far deeper film than the original, is an excellent film. While historically, it may not hold a place in the collective imagination as the first, it is in every other way a superior film.

If these are the worst 1930s remakes, then my take is that Hollywood has done a halfway decent job of doing what they normally screw up.

]]> By: Scott http://blog.spout.com/2008/09/09/10-worst-updates-of-1930s-classics/#comment-113959 Scott Fri, 12 Sep 2008 02:57:01 +0000 http://blog.spout.com/?p=4824#comment-113959 One other thing, Michael Bay's special effects are not by any means bad (I can't believe some have said that but so be it.) So, please just drop that as well. Transformers (very entertaining popcorn flick) had the best special effects last year. This Michael Bay hate is just getting old on the net. He's an action director & there is nothing wrong with that. He creates entertaining films. correction: I meant "How" instead of "I" The Wizard Of Oz: "I" can anyone say “The Return To Oz” is better? seriously, this just show why films today have decreased in quality. One other thing, Michael Bay’s special effects are not by any means bad (I can’t believe some have said that but so be it.) So, please just drop that as well. Transformers (very entertaining popcorn flick) had the best special effects last year. This Michael Bay hate is just getting old on the net. He’s an action director & there is nothing wrong with that. He creates entertaining films.

correction: I meant “How” instead of “I”
The Wizard Of Oz: “I” can anyone say “The Return To Oz” is better? seriously, this just show why films today have decreased in quality.

]]> By: Scott http://blog.spout.com/2008/09/09/10-worst-updates-of-1930s-classics/#comment-113958 Scott Fri, 12 Sep 2008 02:46:44 +0000 http://blog.spout.com/?p=4824#comment-113958 Ricardo Rodriguez: You are out right a total jackass let alone completely ill-advised on your statement. Just because your not born in that era you can't have passion for that era only for the era you live in? Dude, you have to be the most stupid little shit on earth. How uneducated are you? Martin: you say Frank Capra movies are generally terrible? your calling classics such as "It's A Wonderful LIfe", "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington", "His Girl Friday", "Mr. Deeds Goes To Town", & many others terrible? Either your some stupid ass teenager who doesn't know his ass from his face or you don't know thing one about films. Which is it? either way your stupid to begin with...seriously dude, your blessed idiot. Please don't ever talk about movies again. Your credibility went right out the door. (Ricardo Rodriguez that goes the same for you too.) Complainers of King Kong 2005: First off, fansboys having nothing to do about liking King Kong 2005 edition (the majority liked the film). I'm outright laughing at the comments people are saying such as "it has cartoonish/awful effects", "it's to long." "It has to much action" blah blah blah...You people are just complete dumbasses on films. Period! Cartoonish/awful effects? what are you smoking? watch the damn Sci-Fi channel if you want horrific effects seriously. Your very much short-sighted on this matter. It's to long? here's an idea, you should broaden you short minded attention spans morons. What you can't concentrate that long? does it hurt your little minds? Seriously, if you can't take long movies then save us the trouble & don't see them because not everyone wants a 90 min. flicks of those stupid spoofs of "Disaster Movies" or "Epic Movies". I honestly can't believe someone said it has to much action? are you serious? Talk about the definition of a total ironic dumbass comment. This article: Personally, I agree with most of it, if not all these remakes are out right bad except for King Kong 2005 (where it does out do all of the previous King Kong films. The original gets credit though for what it did in it's time.) & The Mummy (new) . The (new) Mummy film is totally different & really can't compare the old from the new on this particular comparison. It's like comparing apples & oranges. The Wizard Of Oz: I can anyone say "The Return To Oz" is better? seriously, this just show why films today have decreased in quality. I swear some of the most stupid individuals must be on this message board. Ricardo Rodriguez: You are out right a total jackass let alone completely ill-advised on your statement. Just because your not born in that era you can’t have passion for that era only for the era you live in? Dude, you have to be the most stupid little shit on earth. How uneducated are you?

Martin: you say Frank Capra movies are generally terrible? your calling classics such as “It’s A Wonderful LIfe”, “Mr. Smith Goes To Washington”, “His Girl Friday”, “Mr. Deeds Goes To Town”, & many others terrible? Either your some stupid ass teenager who doesn’t know his ass from his face or you don’t know thing one about films. Which is it? either way your stupid to begin with…seriously dude, your blessed idiot. Please don’t ever talk about movies again. Your credibility went right out the door. (Ricardo Rodriguez that goes the same for you too.)

Complainers of King Kong 2005: First off, fansboys having nothing to do about liking King Kong 2005 edition (the majority liked the film). I’m outright laughing at the comments people are saying such as “it has cartoonish/awful effects”, “it’s to long.” “It has to much action” blah blah blah…You people are just complete dumbasses on films. Period! Cartoonish/awful effects? what are you smoking? watch the damn Sci-Fi channel if you want horrific effects seriously. Your very much short-sighted on this matter. It’s to long? here’s an idea, you should broaden you short minded attention spans morons. What you can’t concentrate that long? does it hurt your little minds? Seriously, if you can’t take long movies then save us the trouble & don’t see them because not everyone wants a 90 min. flicks of those stupid spoofs of “Disaster Movies” or “Epic Movies”. I honestly can’t believe someone said it has to much action? are you serious? Talk about the definition of a total ironic dumbass comment.

This article: Personally, I agree with most of it, if not all these remakes are out right bad except for King Kong 2005 (where it does out do all of the previous King Kong films. The original gets credit though for what it did in it’s time.) & The Mummy (new) . The (new) Mummy film is totally different & really can’t compare the old from the new on this particular comparison. It’s like comparing apples & oranges.

The Wizard Of Oz: I can anyone say “The Return To Oz” is better? seriously, this just show why films today have decreased in quality.

I swear some of the most stupid individuals must be on this message board.

]]> By: m j brandon http://blog.spout.com/2008/09/09/10-worst-updates-of-1930s-classics/#comment-113956 m j brandon Fri, 12 Sep 2008 02:45:43 +0000 http://blog.spout.com/?p=4824#comment-113956 i have seen all 3 versions of king kong dozs of times the 30s version was great with the effects of the time, then the 70s version had the best effects of the time, then jacksons one also with great effects which were the best of the time, i unlike most love the 70s version the best, i watch movies to have a good time and thats it, if you do that you will enjoy s movies how they are meant to be enjoyed , rather like a crutic watch it to find mistakes, why go to a movie if thats the case? i have seen all 3 versions of king kong dozs of times the 30s version was great with the effects of the time, then the 70s version had the best effects of the time, then jacksons one also with great effects which were the best of the time, i unlike most love the 70s version the best, i watch movies to have a good time and thats it, if you do that you will enjoy s movies how they are meant to be enjoyed , rather like a crutic watch it to find mistakes, why go to a movie if thats the case?

]]> By: Thomas http://blog.spout.com/2008/09/09/10-worst-updates-of-1930s-classics/#comment-113955 Thomas Fri, 12 Sep 2008 02:36:12 +0000 http://blog.spout.com/?p=4824#comment-113955 Actually, "You've Got Mail" is not the only remake of "Shop Around the Corner". There is another remake - the 1940s musical "In the Good Old Summertime", starring Judy Garland and Van Johnson. All three are based on a play. (source: IMDb and the credits for the movies) What about movies made in the 1930s and remade in the 40s or 50s? Some examples include: -In the Good Old Summertime (mentioned above) -Little Women -The Maltese Falcon (how many folks know that the version with Bogart is a remake?) -The Man Who Knew Too Much (Hitchcock remade HIS OWN MOVIE in the 50s. The original is from the 30s) I am curious about one thing - if the remake weren't made, just how interested would folks be in the original versions? I'm just curious. Actually, “You’ve Got Mail” is not the only remake of “Shop Around the Corner”. There is another remake - the 1940s musical “In the Good Old Summertime”, starring Judy Garland and Van Johnson. All three are based on a play. (source: IMDb and the credits for the movies)

What about movies made in the 1930s and remade in the 40s or 50s?
Some examples include:
-In the Good Old Summertime (mentioned above)
-Little Women
-The Maltese Falcon (how many folks know that the version with Bogart is a remake?)
-The Man Who Knew Too Much (Hitchcock remade HIS OWN MOVIE in the 50s. The original is from the 30s)

I am curious about one thing - if the remake weren’t made, just how interested would folks be in the original versions? I’m just curious.

]]> By: John http://blog.spout.com/2008/09/09/10-worst-updates-of-1930s-classics/#comment-113954 John Fri, 12 Sep 2008 02:27:31 +0000 http://blog.spout.com/?p=4824#comment-113954 You are absurdly off the mark in your appraisal of Peter Jackson's King Kong. Jackson righted a terrible wrong by allowing us to dispense with the atrocious 1976 Kong, easily one of the very worst major studio releases of that calender year. Jackson's Kong was a loving and reverent tribute to the '33 Kong and aside from the bronto stampede the CG effects were spectacular. Naomi Watts delivered an Oscar caliber performance and Andy Serkis' motion capture Kong was one of the special effects marvels of the decade. Hey, but don't take my word for it. Read the reviews. Almost every major reviewer praised it as among the year's best.. The '76 Kong by comparison is the stain on the resumes of Jeff Bridges, Charles Grodin and Jessica Lang. You gotta be smoking something to claim it as superior to Jackson's. You are absurdly off the mark in your appraisal of Peter Jackson’s King Kong. Jackson righted a terrible wrong by allowing us to dispense with the atrocious 1976 Kong, easily one of the very worst major studio releases of that calender year. Jackson’s Kong was a loving and reverent tribute to the ‘33 Kong and aside from the bronto stampede the CG effects were spectacular. Naomi Watts delivered an Oscar caliber performance and Andy Serkis’ motion capture Kong was one of the special effects marvels of the decade. Hey, but don’t take my word for it. Read the reviews. Almost every major reviewer praised it as among the year’s best.. The ‘76 Kong by comparison is the stain on the resumes of Jeff Bridges, Charles Grodin and Jessica Lang. You gotta be smoking something to claim it as superior to Jackson’s.

]]> By: Sam http://blog.spout.com/2008/09/09/10-worst-updates-of-1930s-classics/#comment-113953 Sam Fri, 12 Sep 2008 01:52:27 +0000 http://blog.spout.com/?p=4824#comment-113953 I am going to have to agree with several comments said about The Mummy. It can hardly be called a remake of the original (which I do love by the way, it is a classic). Sure it has the same title and some characters but it is far closer to Indiana Jones than anything else, so I think saying it is a "bad update" is a tad unfair. Other than that I thought King Kong was a pretty good movie, not the greatest, but still good. As for the rest I either haven't seen them or agree with what was said about them. I am going to have to agree with several comments said about The Mummy. It can hardly be called a remake of the original (which I do love by the way, it is a classic). Sure it has the same title and some characters but it is far closer to Indiana Jones than anything else, so I think saying it is a “bad update” is a tad unfair.

Other than that I thought King Kong was a pretty good movie, not the greatest, but still good. As for the rest I either haven’t seen them or agree with what was said about them.

]]> By: cwalker http://blog.spout.com/2008/09/09/10-worst-updates-of-1930s-classics/#comment-113952 cwalker Fri, 12 Sep 2008 01:30:32 +0000 http://blog.spout.com/?p=4824#comment-113952 if a movie is remade, then i think the reason to remake it should be to provide a new view of the material, or perhaps to do the story more justice than the original.i think his list is interesting. however i suffer from not viewing 'death takes a holiday' to compare it to 'meet joe black' which i did love. i find the return to oz movie alright, but the creatures are so very stiff! "the women" is one of those rare b&w oldies i 'discovered' on pbs or somewhere 20 years ago and fell in love with. i HOPE this version is as demure and biting as the original. part of the 30's versions charm was the restraint that women endured in polite society, played off the horrible situation our heroine was in. i liked the new version of king kong, also. it is marvelous, the ape's cg is so great. it does not take away from the original, but is it's own interpretation. a love song to it, so to speak.as for 'hunchback' i liked the music, but found it an odd choice to animate.not a kids story to be honest. if a movie is remade, then i think the reason to remake it should be to provide a new view of the material, or perhaps to do the story more justice than the original.i think his list is interesting. however i suffer from not viewing ‘death takes a holiday’ to compare it to ‘meet joe black’ which i did love. i find the return to oz movie alright, but the creatures are so very stiff! “the women” is one of those rare b&w oldies i ‘discovered’ on pbs or somewhere 20 years ago and fell in love with. i HOPE this version is as demure and biting as the original. part of the 30’s versions charm was the restraint that women endured in polite society, played off the horrible situation our heroine was in. i liked the new version of king kong, also. it is marvelous, the ape’s cg is so great. it does not take away from the original, but is it’s own interpretation. a love song to it, so to speak.as for ‘hunchback’ i liked the music, but found it an odd choice to animate.not a kids story to be honest.

]]> By: Brian W. Fairbanks http://blog.spout.com/2008/09/09/10-worst-updates-of-1930s-classics/#comment-113947 Brian W. Fairbanks Thu, 11 Sep 2008 23:13:40 +0000 http://blog.spout.com/?p=4824#comment-113947 A good list, although I would disagree with some of your selections. I like "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" very much especially that truly disturbing finale. However, I did think Robert DeNiro's creature was disappointing. DeNiro deserves credit for attempting the role, but I wasn't convinced he was stitched together from corpses. A good list, although I would disagree with some of your selections. I like “Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein” very much especially that truly disturbing finale. However, I did think Robert DeNiro’s creature was disappointing. DeNiro deserves credit for attempting the role, but I wasn’t convinced he was stitched together from corpses.

]]> By: Dane http://blog.spout.com/2008/09/09/10-worst-updates-of-1930s-classics/#comment-113945 Dane Thu, 11 Sep 2008 22:53:07 +0000 http://blog.spout.com/?p=4824#comment-113945 I agree with you whole-heartedly (almost) on these remakes. While Meet Joe Black is a bit excessive, I think there are worse remakes, including the movie Rain with Joan Crawford which has been re-made about 3 or 4 times without any of the style or depth that the first film employed. Probably one of the worst remakes was Kevin Costner's Robin Hood -- the movie itself wasn't horrible, just Costner as Robin really made this bad. You could also throw in the one with Uma Thurman and Patrick Bergin, too. While the CGI in the King Kong remake had some pretty bad moments, I did find it entertaining and MUCH, MUCH better than the version with Jeff Bridges. And anyone who tries to remake a Capra film is never going to equal the original. Oh and one last one you missed: The Shop around the Corner was made in '39, but not released until '40 -- this was remade as You've Got Mail with Tom Hanks... Hollywood typically slaughters films when they do remakes. You can look at the movies from the silent era all the way through to the early 60's that have been remade and not handled well in their recreation. You definitely gave us all something to talk about! I agree with you whole-heartedly (almost) on these remakes. While Meet Joe Black is a bit excessive, I think there are worse remakes, including the movie Rain with Joan Crawford which has been re-made about 3 or 4 times without any of the style or depth that the first film employed. Probably one of the worst remakes was Kevin Costner’s Robin Hood — the movie itself wasn’t horrible, just Costner as Robin really made this bad. You could also throw in the one with Uma Thurman and Patrick Bergin, too. While the CGI in the King Kong remake had some pretty bad moments, I did find it entertaining and MUCH, MUCH better than the version with Jeff Bridges. And anyone who tries to remake a Capra film is never going to equal the original. Oh and one last one you missed: The Shop around the Corner was made in ‘39, but not released until ‘40 — this was remade as You’ve Got Mail with Tom Hanks…

Hollywood typically slaughters films when they do remakes. You can look at the movies from the silent era all the way through to the early 60’s that have been remade and not handled well in their recreation.

You definitely gave us all something to talk about!

]]> By: Rich Dockerty http://blog.spout.com/2008/09/09/10-worst-updates-of-1930s-classics/#comment-113944 Rich Dockerty Thu, 11 Sep 2008 22:47:42 +0000 http://blog.spout.com/?p=4824#comment-113944 Attention Ricardo Rodriguez! -- if there's an idiot to be found on these pages, Ricardo, it's you. I'm not kidding. Only a retard... and I mean that literally, Ricardo -- somebody who is CLINICALLY RETARDED... would be capable of making such stupid remarks as "How could you feel so passionate about movies older than your true sensibilities. stop being a poser and like your era of movies." As if the greatest art was all created since last Thursday. As if there is no point in looking at a Van Gough painting, or listening to a Beatles album, or a Beethoven symphony, or reading a work by Mark Twain or William Shakespeare. Because all of that stuff was created "before you were born". According to you, if it isn't from this generation, it isn't worth your time, and that is truly moronic. How many times, Ricardo Rodriguez, have people come up to you and told you that you're stupid. I bet it happens to you a lot. And again, I'm not even kidding. I can tell without ever having met you that you're an idiot. Attention Ricardo Rodriguez! — if there’s an idiot to be found on these pages, Ricardo, it’s you.

I’m not kidding. Only a retard… and I mean that literally, Ricardo — somebody who is CLINICALLY RETARDED… would be capable of making such stupid remarks as “How could you feel so passionate about movies older than your true sensibilities. stop being a poser and like your era of movies.”

As if the greatest art was all created since last Thursday. As if there is no point in looking at a Van Gough painting, or listening to a Beatles album, or a Beethoven symphony, or reading a work by Mark Twain or William Shakespeare.

Because all of that stuff was created “before you were born”.

According to you, if it isn’t from this generation, it isn’t worth your time, and that is truly moronic.

How many times, Ricardo Rodriguez, have people come up to you and told you that you’re stupid. I bet it happens to you a lot. And again, I’m not even kidding. I can tell without ever having met you that you’re an idiot.

]]> By: Jeff Friedman http://blog.spout.com/2008/09/09/10-worst-updates-of-1930s-classics/#comment-113941 Jeff Friedman Thu, 11 Sep 2008 21:15:44 +0000 http://blog.spout.com/?p=4824#comment-113941 I don't think you have to reach into the present to find perfectly awful remakes of 30's classics. I still haven't gotten over my initial (and last) viewing of the Marlon Brando remake of "Mutiny on the Bounty." Ugh. I don’t think you have to reach into the present to find perfectly awful remakes of 30’s classics. I still haven’t gotten over my initial (and last) viewing of the Marlon Brando remake of “Mutiny on the Bounty.”
Ugh.

]]> By: poopsie http://blog.spout.com/2008/09/09/10-worst-updates-of-1930s-classics/#comment-113940 poopsie Thu, 11 Sep 2008 21:12:10 +0000 http://blog.spout.com/?p=4824#comment-113940 The film Meet Joe Black came when my beloved dog was dying of cancer. It is a masterpiece. I could listen to the soundtrack for 6 1/2 hours. Would need lots of Kleenex, though. The film Meet Joe Black came when my beloved dog was dying of cancer. It is a masterpiece. I could listen to the soundtrack for 6 1/2 hours. Would need lots of Kleenex, though.

]]> By: Del http://blog.spout.com/2008/09/09/10-worst-updates-of-1930s-classics/#comment-113939 Del Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:39:58 +0000 http://blog.spout.com/?p=4824#comment-113939 The 2005 King Kong was great. Snappy dialogue, beautiful music, good acting, much more emotional and exciting content. And just where, pray tell, did you see these so called awful special effects? The 2005 King Kong was great. Snappy dialogue, beautiful music, good acting, much more emotional and exciting content.

And just where, pray tell, did you see these so called awful special effects?

]]> By: Zippertuck http://blog.spout.com/2008/09/09/10-worst-updates-of-1930s-classics/#comment-113938 Zippertuck Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:23:20 +0000 http://blog.spout.com/?p=4824#comment-113938 The 2005 King Kong sucks! It's too long, there are too many effects and Jack Black had no business being cast. I can remember looking at my watch every 10 minutes wondering how long I would have to sit and watch the thing. And please that scene in central park on the ice - total Disney. I would suspect those criticizing its choice on list are all under 35. The 2005 King Kong sucks! It’s too long, there are too many effects and Jack Black had no business being cast. I can remember looking at my watch every 10 minutes wondering how long I would have to sit and watch the thing. And please that scene in central park on the ice - total Disney. I would suspect those criticizing its choice on list are all under 35.

]]>