What's new

Possible Hitchcock remakes (1 Viewer)

Seth Paxton

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 1998
Messages
7,585
Just some semi-rumor stuff that I read from a link in the Software section (regarding To Catch a Thief on DVD).

Strangers on a Train with Jude Law and Heath Ledger.

To Catch a Thief with Paltrow and Clooney.

I think both films sound like good casting choices and could actually make for some pretty interesting remakes. Both are old enough that a remake could have some merit, though I would not be expecting the originals to be outdone unless a master director was put at the helm.

I really like Jude Law as an actor, and as a big Cary Grant fan I certainly see a comparable type/style with Clooney (hunky romantic lead that plays comedy quite well). I think Grant was funnier than George, but not by a huge margin.

Just rumors cooking at this point, but both could make for some interesting films. Strangers already got the Crystal/DeVito treatment, but I think a serious remake would be much more interesting.
 

MichaelAW

Second Unit
Joined
Apr 14, 2002
Messages
422
Hell, just the other night my wife and I (I'm a screenwriter, too) were watching Casablanca and for the hell of it, we thought about casting a remake of it.

It sure is fun to speculate about (I had Harrison Ford as Rick, Annette Benning as Ilsa, and Kevin Spacey as Kovacs), but I don't know if I'd necessarily want to see it.
 

Paul_D

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2001
Messages
2,048
I saw the thread header and immediately thought "bad idea". And then I added the word "Period" onto that thought. But actually reading the casting rumours, these could actually work wonders. I don't consider To Catch A Thief to be a particularly great flick anyway, so a modern slick reworking to actually weork very well. And for me, Strangers on a Train is probably one of Hitchcock's most dated films, so a modern retellinmg would have to be so radically different from the original, that it wouldn't bear much resemblance, and could work-well with the right director. Interesting news. :emoji_thumbsup:
 

george kaplan

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2001
Messages
13,063
I don't expect the remakes to be as good as the originals, but not all remakes are bad by any means. The Maltese Falcon (1941) was what, the 3rd version of that film? And while it's no Dial M for Murder, I thought A Perfect Murder was an acceptable remake.
 

Matthew_Millheiser

Supporting Actor
Joined
May 1, 2000
Messages
657
Does anyone remember the The Lady Vanishes remake, starring Cybil Shepherd and Elliot Gould?
No?
Good. There's a reason why: it blew so hard, it reminded one of what he might find if he extracted the contents of an elephant's colon with a plunger.
There's just no need for remakes -- the classics are considered classics because they were just that damned good.
Like that stupid Charade remake they're doing with Markie Mark and Thandie Newton (not a Hitchcock film, I know, but close enough). Two leads with all the charisma of a sump pump. The original sparkled with the gigawattage of star power generated by Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn. Yes, it had a smart script and was wonderfully directed, but Charade was ultimately the synergy of great stars with wonderful chemistry, a great script and a very capable director.
Jonathan Demme is a good director (I still think Married To The Mob is his best film) who has made some misteps (Beloved?!!), but... Mark Wahlberg? Mr. Monotone Delivery? Eesh. He works better in ensemble pieces (he was great in Boogie Nights, Three Kings, The Perfect Storm, etc..) because he doesn't have to carry the film on his own. That was one of the reasons why Planet of the Apes (2001) blew so hard. And Thandie Newton -- granted, she's exquisite to look at -- doesn't seem the type that can project both the innocence, playfulness, and resourcefulness that Audrey Hepburn imbued into the character of Regina Lambert.
Yes yes, I haven't seem the film at all. I don't know how Demme is approaching the material, he might turn it into a moody, serious thriller. It might even work.
But it's so not NECESSARY. Why waste years developing a film that was already done, and done masterfully?!
As much as I enjoyed Cameron Crowe's take on Abre Los Ojos, I would much rather have seen him handle his own, original material.
It's like that Tori Amos album of cover tunes.... :frowning: No Little Earthquakes, that's fer shurr...
 

Tom Meyer

Second Unit
Joined
Feb 11, 1999
Messages
402
I think Grant was funnier than George, but not by a huge margin
Ok, you're treading on sacred ground here. Cary Grant was one of the greatest film comedians, EVER. PERIOD. END OF STORY !! :) Yes, Clooney was amusing in "Oh Brother ...", but to say that he's almost as funny as CG is CRAZY. CG has films that have gone down in history as some of the greatest comedies EVER -- "Bringing up Baby", "His Girl Friday", "The Philadelphia Story" -- Ring any bells ?!?!
Clooney could *maybe* do justice to his more dramatic/suave rolls like "To Catch a Thief" or "Notorious", but were also talking about CLASSIC films in this case, as well. Any actor who tried to step into Cary Grant's shoes would be, in my opinion, have some sort of career deathwish. I mean, who would set themselves up to be compared to Cary Grant, one of the top 3 or 4 greatest leading men in film history ?!?!?
Can you tell I'm a big CG fan ? :)
 

Eric Peterson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2001
Messages
2,959
Real Name
Eric Peterson
I don't like the idea of any film being remade. It's one think to remake an old film that wasn't very good but had a good story, or to remake a foreign language film in order to give it a wider audience (Face it - most people don't want to read a movie), but the idea of remaking a renowned classic is crazy. It would much rather see this films remastered and rereleased than remade. Psycho was terrible, Oceans 11 was pretty good, but it had virtually nothing to do with the original.

That being said, I'll probably go see the remakes, if and when they come out, because I'm a sucker and curious to see how bad they can foul them up.
 

Mark Pfeiffer

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 27, 1999
Messages
1,339
Why can't we just have re-releases instead?
Most re-releases aren't going to open to $30-50 million opening weekends. It's all the bottom line unfortunately.

But I'm not necessarily opposed to remakes as long as it isn't simply a note for note duplication. (I didn't mind Gus Van Sant's Psycho but didn't really see the point.) The problems in remakes are often when the new version is too slavish to the original. I thought A Perfect Murder worked reasonably well, and Strangers on a Train has been remade, in a way, already with Throw Momma From the Train.
 

Seth Paxton

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 1998
Messages
7,585
Tom, I guess I was really thinking of the suave funny Grant.

Arsenic and Old Lace is one of my all-time favs and I really couldn't picture GC getting near that level. (well maybe, I think he could be silly if he wanted to, he's pretty well known as an on-set practical joker. I think you are underselling GC's talent rather than me not appreciating Grant, whom is my fav leading man all-time)

Really, before GC came along I considered Steve Martin as the closest thing to Grant.

But think of this, picture Clooney's Out of Sight and Ocean's 11 characters, then think about To Catch a Thief.


Then think of Jude Law in Gattaca and Mr. Ripley, then think of Strangers on a Train.


Neither NEED to be done, but both have much more promise than most remakes lately. These are the kinds of films/casts that more accurately fit the situation that a remake could work.

I agree that the A Perfect Murder remake was not too bad and made for a pretty good film.

I mean Shakespeare gets done again and again, including on stage. Why? Well, people want to play great characters and stories. Not only do we love seeing them, but artists love doing them. I can understand that. Really, I think that's what was behind VSky and Insomnia.

But this is tainted by the evil business side of remakes which is "what can we make some money off of". Often it is hard to tell ahead of time.

But without remakes we would never have had Heston as Ben-Hur for example, nor Eastwood as the Man with No Name.
 

Mike Broadman

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2001
Messages
4,951
I was thinking this morning about why people get miffed about some remakes but not others, like the fact that the Maltese Falcon with Bogart is a remake but no one minds. I think it has to do with how well-loved a film is. The other Maltese Falcons had various degrees of success, but the one with Bogart was probably the best (though I haven't seen the others, so I can't say for sure). It certainly is the most famous and is considered a classic.

So, if someone made another Maltese Falcon, people would complain, because a classic film about that was already done.

Hitchcock films certainly fall under the same category. Since the originals are already so good, any remakes would either fall short or be a copy.

So, remakes of great films: bad. Remakes of other films: OK.

One exception to all of this is Cape Fear. I haven't seen the original, but heard it was good. The 90s version was accepted very well, too.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum statistics

Threads
356,470
Messages
5,113,356
Members
144,097
Latest member
Logos1204
Recent bookmarks
0
Top