Track the Films You Watch (2005) - Page 55

Joe Karlosi · 09-24-2005, 01:16 PM

Michael,
You'd be right that I'd suggest that the 2004 zombie film known as "DAWN OF THE DEAD" is not a 'remake' of the Romero film, IMO. It's a zombie film that could have been named anything (like "28 DAYS LATER"), but chose to capitalize on the cult following of the other movie. At this point, I'd say I like both versions bearing that title about equally.

Mario Gauci · 09-24-2005, 01:30 PM

Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

"I await your verdict on BEN-HUR (1959)."

...just as much as I'm awaiting his verdict on L'AGE D'OR (1930) and LA BELLE ET LA BETE (1946)

!

It's a pity that (apparently) Mike's trouble with his TV set has taken the wind out of his sails somewhat and is possibly risking him not taking the top spot as "the HTF member who watched most films in 2005"!

To pitch in a little into the remakes debate going on, even if it is a generally held belief that "the original is always the best", this was proved wrong several times in the old days when, as Joe rightly puts it, "when they still knew how to make 'em". For example:

1.THE STUDENT OF PRAGUE - 1913 < 1926
2.DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE - 1920 < 1931
3.THE MARK OF ZORRO - 1920 < 1940
4.THE THREE MUSKETEERS - 1921 < 1948
5.THE PRISONER OF ZENDA - 1922 < 1937
6.ROBIN HOOD - 1922 < 1938 (i.e. THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD)
7.THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME - 1923 < 1939
8.THE THIEF OF BAGHDAD - 1924 < 1940
9.DRACULA - 1931 < 1958
10.THE WOLF MAN - 1941 < 1981 (i.e. AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON)

...

Haggai · 09-24-2005, 02:10 PM

Steve, I saw Billy Liar a couple of years ago, and I thought it was quite good. The fantasy sequences were really great, and Tom Courtenay was excellent.

Juliet of the Spirits (1965) 8/10
Fellini's follow-up to 8 1/2 seems to have him channeling some of his anxieties through his wife this time, as opposed to his obvious alter-ego in the earlier movie, where Marcello Mastroiani played a director who couldn't decide what sort of film to make. It's similarly styled, with some mysticism and elaborate childhood flashback sequences, and although it's occasionally slow and a bit pointless, there's plenty of elaborate imagery and characterization to create a strangely fascinating sort of landscape. The great Giulietta Masina carries things along brilliantly in the titular role.

Night and the City (1950) 8/10
I loved the elaborate visuals and excellent cast in this one, although there were a few times when the script didn't quite work for me. For instance, in one of the sub-plots, I still don't understand how the cop managed to discover that something was wrong with the liquor licence. But Widmark's very good, the ending is terrific, and Googie Withers was so great that I only wish that her part could have been even bigger.

Dodsworth (1936) 9/10
Walter Huston's stunning lead performance and William Wyler's smooth and crisp direction make this one a surprisingly outstanding adult drama. Some great supporting roles as well, including Mary Astor and a few scenes' worth of a super-young David Niven (he would have been 25 or 26). That recent Time magazine 100 best movies list had this one as the best movie of the '30s, and while that's certainly pushing it, a great movie it is.

Joe Karlosi · 09-24-2005, 02:12 PM

Quote:

It's a pity that (apparently) Mike's trouble with his TV set has taken the wind out of his sails somewhat and is possibly risking him not taking the top spot as "the HTF member who watched most films in 2005"!

Michael, once you get your TV working well again you'd better watch a ton of short subjects/cartoons/1890's features toot-sweet!

Michael Elliott · 09-24-2005, 03:25 PM

My widescreen TV is fine as of Thursday. My "other" TV has been fine for the past ten years so the TV issues haven't had anything to do with me not watching any movies the past week plus. I'm going through one of my party moods lately so that's taken up my time.

Now...fellow movie fans let me speak from my heart. Ever since I was a small kid my friends have always said I spent too much money on movies. This has been cut down this year but I still spend quite a bit. However, after buying rounds of drinks the past week or so I've come to realize that buying Criterion's at retail price is a lot cheaper. This hanging out/party habit takes a lot more money than the movie issues.

I did quit my job Friday since I knew I had another one lined up starting the last week of October. That'll give me three weeks to try and catch up on things as my party mood will be over after tonight.

The only thing I'm embarrassed about is that my favorite person in the world (Bob Dylan) just released a documentary by my favorite filmmaker (Martin Scorsese) and I haven't watched it yet.

Quote:

Michael, once you get your TV working well again you'd better watch a ton of short subjects/cartoons/1890's features toot-sweet!

Why's that?

Quote:

1.THE STUDENT OF PRAGUE - 1913 < 1926
2.DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE - 1920 < 1931
3.THE MARK OF ZORRO - 1920 < 1940
4.THE THREE MUSKETEERS - 1921 < 1948
5.THE PRISONER OF ZENDA - 1922 < 1937
6.ROBIN HOOD - 1922 < 1938 (i.e. THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD)
7.THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME - 1923 < 1939
8.THE THIEF OF BAGHDAD - 1924 < 1940
9.DRACULA - 1931 < 1958
10.THE WOLF MAN - 1941 < 1981 (i.e. AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON)

I think all but STUDENT and HUNCHBACK could be debated.

Mario Gauci · 09-24-2005, 04:12 PM

Quote (originally posted by Haggai):

"Night and the City (1950) 8/10

I loved the elaborate visuals and excellent cast in this one, although there were a few times when the script didn't quite work for me. For instance, in one of the sub-plots, I still don't understand how the cop managed to discover that something was wrong with the liquor licence. But Widmark's very good, the ending is terrific, and Googie Withers was so great that I only wish that her part could have been even bigger."

Incidentally, I've just caught up with this noir masterpiece last week after hearing so much about it over the years. Actually, I had put on THE SET-UP (1949) the day before in tribute to the late, great Robert Wise and I loved that film so much that I ended up watching a bunch of noirs/thrillers afterwards - not just NIGHT AND THE CITY but also THIEVES' HIGHWAY (1949), PICKUP ON SOUTH STREET (1953), THE KILLERS (1964), THE KILLERS (1946) and, coming up, GUN CRAZY (1949), OUT OF THE PAST (1947), MURDER, MY SWEET (1944), BAD DAY AT BLACK ROCK (1955), THE ASPHALT JUNGLE (1950), ADVISE AND CONSENT (1962), FURY (1936), SUNSET BOULEVARD (1950), THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI (1948) and CITIZEN KANE (1941)!!

Anyway, to go back to NIGHT AND THE CITY, it is indeed one of the genre's (many) peaks, a tour-de-force for both director Jules Dassin and leading man Richard Widmark; it also boasts remarkably expressionistic lighting courtesy of Max Greene and a gallery of memorably slimy characters (and characterizations) by Francis L. Sullivan, Googie Withers, Herbert Lom, Mike Mazurki and Stanislaus Zbyszko. Also, reading through Paul Schrader's seminal and highly interesting essay on film noir on Criterion's double-disc set of THE KILLERS, it struck me how this film - and, likewise, John Boorman's POINT BLANK (1967) - went by almost unnoticed at the time of their original release and only garnered their irreproachable reputations over the years; in fact, Schrader does not mention either of them in his lengthy and exhaustive piece!

As for Haggai's "problem" with the liquor license subplot, it seemed to me that had it been an authentic license, just putting a glass on it (as the cop inadvertantly did) would not have smeared the ink all over it...and, the fact that it did, could only mean that the ink was 'fresh' and the license a forgery.

Haggai · 09-24-2005, 04:30 PM

Mmm...I guess that's what they were thinking, but why couldn't a legit license have fresh ink? I just didn't think it worked. But Mario, why only 3 1/2 stars, if you think it's a masterpiece? And you need to put a link in your sig to your running list, this is getting confusing with page 3, page 52...

The Set-Up is great. I love all the movies in Warners Noir Vol. 1, three 9/10's for me, and two 10/10's (Out of the Past and Asphalt Jungle).

Joe Karlosi · 09-25-2005, 07:35 AM

Quote:

1.THE STUDENT OF PRAGUE - 1913 < 1926
2.DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE - 1920 < 1931
3.THE MARK OF ZORRO - 1920 < 1940
4.THE THREE MUSKETEERS - 1921 < 1948
5.THE PRISONER OF ZENDA - 1922 < 1937
6.ROBIN HOOD - 1922 < 1938 (i.e. THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD)
7.THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME - 1923 < 1939
8.THE THIEF OF BAGHDAD - 1924 < 1940
9.DRACULA - 1931 < 1958
10.THE WOLF MAN - 1941 < 1981 (i.e. AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON)

What's interesting to me about this list is that, once again, so many are silent films that needed to be improved with sound. To me, of course most sound re-do's are inherently superior to the earlier silent versions. With one exception:

The Phantom of the Opera (1943, 1962, etc....) < Phantom 1925

I'd disagree with DRACULA (and am surprised to find you feel the way you do, Mario, as I know you're a big supporter of the Browning film). I much prefer the mood of the 1931 version to the slam-bang-boom version of "Dracula on Speed" that is most commonly known as HORROR OF DRACULA (1958). However, I can understand the need for that particular discussion.

I know you've only included the incredibly stupid AN AMERICAM WEREWOLF IN LONDON to get a rise out of me, so I won't comment more than just to say that it is not in any way, of course, a "remake" of THE WOLF MAN.

Then again, you already knew that.

So really, what does the list say? Of all the examples, only the Dracula one strikes me personally as a valid observation, IMO.

Mario Gauci · 09-25-2005, 09:27 AM

Quote (originally posted by Haggai):

"Mmm...I guess that's what they were thinking, but why couldn't a legit license have fresh ink? I just didn't think it worked. But Mario, why only 3 1/2 stars, if you think it's a masterpiece? And you need to put a link in your sig to your running list, this is getting confusing with page 3, page 52..."

Hey, I'm no forger...what do I know

? But, that's the way it struck me when I watched it last Sunday.

Besides, the reasons for giving a noir masterpiece like NIGHT AND THE CITY (1950) only ***1/2 rather than the full **** rating, may lie in the fact that the film is perhaps a little too high-pitched and bleak for its own good; in fact, it's possibly the bleakest noir I've ever watched. Of course, one can argue that this very quality perfectly captures the post-WWII mood and is, thus, the essence of noir - and he would be right, naturally. All I can say is that my favorite noir is (and has been for several years) Howard Hawks' THE BIG SLEEP (1946) and that film is as witty, enjoyable and funny (at times laugh-out-loud funny) as any classic screwball comedy, in my opinion.

Quotes (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

"What's interesting to me about this list is that, once again, so many are silent films that needed to be improved with sound. To me, of course most sound re-do's are inherently superior to the earlier silent versions."

As you say, that's only your opinion, Joe

; although, it is not that easy to find remakes which are superior to the originals, I limited my list (which I compiled off the top of my head) to films I had watched myself rather than naming examples which are generally thought of as being better. I'm sure there are some others which have escaped me and which do not necessarily bring out that "Silents vs. Talkies" debate...

"I'd disagree with DRACULA (and am surprised to find you feel the way you do, Mario, as I know you're a big supporter of the Browning film). I much prefer the mood of the 1931 version to the slam-bang-boom version of "Dracula on Speed" that is most commonly known as HORROR OF DRACULA (1958). However, I can understand the need for that particular discussion."

If DRACULA (1958) is too fast for you, then DRACULA (1931) is too slow for the rest of us and, even if (as you say) I'm a big supporter of it, I still acknowledge its staginess and lethargic pace as its major flaws; of course, repeated viewings have made these qualities more acceptable if still quite noticable.

"I know you've only included the incredibly stupid AN AMERICAM WEREWOLF IN LONDON to get a rise out of me, so I won't comment more than just to say that it is not in any way, of course, a "remake" of THE WOLF MAN. Then again, you already knew that."

For a man who is much older than myself, you are still a wise man, Joe Karlosi...

"So really, what does the list say? Of all the examples, only the Dracula one strikes me personally as a valid observation, IMO."

Actually, what the list says in the end, is that I am a Silent film lover and, although the cinematic versions of various literary classics made in that era were not necessarily the best film versions, they are still well worth watching, entertaining and instructive.

Joe Karlosi · 09-25-2005, 01:47 PM

Quote:

If DRACULA (1958) is too fast for you

No, it's too fast for DRACULA, the story. I can go on forever about the main problems I have with the film (you're better off checking out the Hammer section on the CHFB for that) but the least of my objections would be in the pacing.

Quote:

DRACULA (1931) is too slow for the rest of us and, even if (as you say) I'm a big supporter of it, I still acknowledge its staginess and lethargic pace as its major flaws;

As do I. But I think that approach better suits the material and - specifically - Stoker's novel.

Quote:

For a man who is much older than myself, you are still a wise man, Joe Karlosi

You'll find when you're 43 that it's not "much older", my son.

Quote:

Actually, what the list says in the end, is that I am a Silent film lover and, although the cinematic versions of various literary classics made in that era were not necessarily the best film versions, they are still well worth watching, entertaining and instructive.

Well, the list above doesn't say that really, as the silents you mentioned all happen to be ones you felt were bettered by the later sound versions.