Pointless Remakes of Classic Films

[cubanmiamiboy]

Nicole Kidman appears to be the current queen of Pointless Remakes of Classic Films, what with her appearance in the Stepford Wives remake and the current Invasion Of the Body Snatchers remake.

...and "Moulin Rouge" and "Bewitched"...Yep, she's, with no doubt, the Queen...

[sidwich]

Thanks, sidwich. I hadn’t heard that one. (Of course, the original “Sabrina” was nobody’s masterpiece, either, and if Pollack had wanted to be rude to a distinguished colleague and senior citizen several snappy comebacks would have been available to him.)

I'd take the nonagenarian Wilder over Pollack in a verbal smackdown any day of the week.

I like "Sabrina." It's not Wilder's best film or most influential by any means, but it has its charming moments. I used to think that it was a good candidate for being remade, but Pollack's remake is so poor that it disabused me of that notion.

There's also the 4 versions of 'Les Liaisons Dangereuses', the Vadim/Moreau, the Close/Malkovich/Pfeiffer and the French miniseries with Deneuve/Kinski/Rupert Everett/D. Darrieux. The latter I far prefer to the others, as might be expected, but in addition to my prejudices, they got it French enough without being just sort of trivial, the way the Vadim was. (There seem to be more than 4, but the 4th one was also from 1989, with Bening/Firth, and I've not seen it, usually called 'Valmont')

Milos Forman's "Valmont" is worth seeing. Very different feel than Frears' film, although filmed almost simultaneously.

And actually, I'd say there are at least 5 versions of "Les Liaisons Dangereuses." You're forgetting "Cruel Intentions," which is the story set among teenagers on the Upper East Side. An intriguing idea although very unevenly executed with some excellent moments and some cringeworthy ones.

[bart]

[Milos Forman's "Valmont" is worth seeing. Very different feel than Frears' film, although filmed almost simultaneously.

I agree. One (I can't remember which) was released before the other, but I found them on tv at approximately the same time. In situations like this, the actors are the sources of the most immediately noticeable differences. I like Bening/Firth, who conveyed a civilized kind of evil -- both delicious and repellent -- well beyond the more contrived peformances of Close and Malkovich, who is even more mannered than usual in this one.

[bart]

[Milos Forman's "Valmont" is worth seeing. Very different feel than Frears' film, although filmed almost simultaneously.

I agree. One (I can't remember which) was released before the other, but I found them on tv at approximately the same time. In situations like this, the actors are the sources of the most immediately noticeable differences. I like "Valmont's" Annette Bening and Colin Firth, who conveyed a civilized kind of evil -- both delicious and repellent -- well beyond the more contrived peformances of Glenn Close and John Malkovich, who is even more mannered than usual in this one. The secondary roles in "Valmont" are equally well-cast, with skilled British actors predominating. The "Dangerous Liaisons" team -- including Swoozie Kurtz, Uma Thurman, and Keanu Reeves -- seem imported from another universe.

[Helene]

In situations like this, the actors are the sources of the most immediately noticeable differences. I like "Valmont's" Annette Bening and Colin Firth, who conveyed a civilized kind of evil -- both delicious and repellent -- well beyond the more contrived peformances of Glenn Close and John Malkovich, who is even more mannered than usual in this one. The secondary roles in "Valmont" are equally well-cast, with skilled British actors predominating. The "Dangerous Liaisons" team -- including Swoozie Kurtz, Uma Thurman, and Keanu Reeves -- seem imported from another universe.

I haven't seen Valmont, but now I will. I was so disappointed in Dangerous Liaisons, primarily, because in order to be a convincing Valmont, at least from my reading of the book, he has to have some semblance of self-control and of never being rushed, and he can't be indistinguishable from a snarly little ferret.

[dirac]

What Price Hollywood? with Constance Bennett).

Oh yes, I love that.

I think the 1937 version is pretty good. Janet Gaynor is too old for her role but Fredric March is excellent, as good as James Mason.

Yes, it is very good, but is there one before that? 'What Price Hollywood' would make Streisand/Kris the 3rd remake, not 4th, unless there's one we haven't mentioned.

Interesting that you should mention John Gregory Dunne in this connection. Dunne and Joan Didion later did a screenplay for a picture called Up Close and Personal that was in essence A Star is Born retold with television anchorfolks instead of movie stars.

Yes, and they had all manner of trouble with that one too, it was supposed to be loosely based on 'Golden Girl' about Jessica Savitch. Dunne wrote 'Monster!' about this movie, which was entertaining, but nothing so special. But they had been pretty fantastic with 'Panic in Needle Park', and really did their field work on it. At one of Didion's readings, she talked about hanging out with the junkies on the Upper West Side and seeing them shoot up. Although their best might be 'True Confessions', based on his novel.

Dunne made some funny remarks about Up Close and Personal in an interview. He was asked about the notable divergences from Savitch’s life and he pointed out that no studio was likely to feature Pfeiffer and Redford in a picture about a druggie bisexual anchorwoman with a lover who beats her up. (A TV movie was made with Sela Ward at about the same time which hewed considerably closer to the known facts.)

Nicole Kidman appears to be the current queen of Pointless Remakes of Classic Films, what with her appearance in the Stepford Wives remake and the current Invasion Of the Body Snatchers remake.

True. However, I’ve always liked the Philip Kaufman version of The Invasion of the Body Snatchers with Donald Sutherland and Brooke Adams that was made in the Seventies. A good idea well executed.

Yes, it is very good, but is there one before that? 'What Price Hollywood' would make Streisand/Kris the 3rd remake, not 4th, unless there's one we haven't mentioned.

Technically, What Price Hollywood? isn’t the first version of the story, although A Star is Born borrowed from it so heavily that litigation was contemplated. I can’t think of any other official remakes offhand.

.......French miniseries with Deneuve/Kinski/Rupert Everett/D. Darrieux. The latter I far prefer to the others, as might be expected, but in addition to my prejudices, they got it French enough without being just sort of trivial, the way the Vadim was.

I thought the Vadim version could have been better, if Moreau and Philipe had been in better form. She’s not really good casting for Merteuil, though – Deneuve would be excellent, I’d think. I haven’t seen the miniseries – tell us more.

[cubanmiamiboy]

And speaking about remakes, "Valley of the dolls" is coming...so let's see...

[papeetepatrick]

Dunne made some funny remarks about Up Close and Personal in an interview. He was asked about the notable divergences from Savitch’s life and he pointed out that no studio was likely to feature Pfeiffer and Redford in a picture about a druggie bisexual anchorwoman with a lover who beats her up.

I also remember, in their struggles to get something done with this mess, that they said, along the lines of what you just quoted from Dunne, that they finally answered their question of 'what is this movie about?' The answer was 'Two stars.' After hearing that, I never saw films in the same way again.

...I thought the Vadim version could have been better, if Moreau and Philipe had been in better form. She’s not really good casting for Merteuil, though – Deneuve would be excellent, I’d think. I haven’t seen the miniseries

My feeling was that Deneuve was better than she'd ever been in this--when you finally see her in it, you think, of course, she's been supposed to do this all her life. She can be very expressive without moving and this was very effective in this role, when she'd stand silent and mostly expressionless at a moment when anyone else would have reacted with some form of anger, hysteria, or something externalized. And she's played plenty of aberrant types before, as in 'The Convent' with Malkovich' and 'Belle de Jour' and 'The Hustle' and 'The Hunger' and 'Place Vendome', just to start-- so this was the place she needed to end up. The miniseries is lavish and lasts 302 minutes. I had never heard of it, and just saw it at the video store. It's from 2003. Everett's French is perfect, and Kinski is excellent as their victim. They modernize it in a way you don't notice too much, it's set in the 60s; I can't put my finger on why it works, that sort of thing usually bothers me. I agree that Moreau is a little too naturally warm for Merteuil, and although Deneuve is capable of great warmth, she is also the master of *cool*. The miniseries comes across as much more naturally vicious than the others, to my mind.

[sidwich]

I agree. One (I can't remember which) was released before the other, but I found them on tv at approximately the same time. In situations like this, the actors are the sources of the most immediately noticeable differences. I like "Valmont's" Annette Bening and Colin Firth, who conveyed a civilized kind of evil -- both delicious and repellent -- well beyond the more contrived peformances of Glenn Close and John Malkovich, who is even more mannered than usual in this one. The secondary roles in "Valmont" are equally well-cast, with skilled British actors predominating. The "Dangerous Liaisons" team -- including Swoozie Kurtz, Uma Thurman, and Keanu Reeves -- seem imported from another universe.

Forman started his movie earlier, but the shooting took a while, and Frears completed his first, and "Dangerous Liaisons" was the earlier to be released. "Vamont" has a tendency to meander, but I think I like it a bit more. Forman commented at the time that no scene in the book actually appears in the film, and I think he's less inhibited by the parameters of the source material. I find the Frears film overly literal.

[printscess]

There was the awful TV re-make of the Goodbye Girl with Jeff Daniels and Paricia Heaton. There is a new movie coming out with Ben Stiller (always funny) doing a re-make of The Heartbreak Kid. I wonder how that will fare? The Invasion with Nicole Kidman..a re-make of the Invasion of the Body Snatchers. I saw it as a child unbeknownst to my mother, who told me I couldn't see it and the of course I refused to go to sleep for weeks. My younger son asked me to take him to see it and my childhood memories came flooding back and I nixed that idea.

[bart]

Forman started his movie earlier, but the shooting took a while, and Frears completed his first, and "Dangerous Liaisons" was the earlier to be released. "Vamont" has a tendency to meander, but I think I like it a bit more. Forman commented at the time that no scene in the book actually appears in the film, and I think he's less inhibited by the parameters of the source material. I find the Frears film overly literal.

Thanks for that information, sidwich. I still have my old Signet paperback of the original Choderlos de Laclos novel . 75 cents -- the good old days! The epistolary format seems to allow for a variety of approaches to telling the story on film. The Marquise de Merteuil's (Close's, Benning's) fate is much more effective in the original than in either movie.

Mame de Merteuil's destiny seems at last accomplished, my dear and excellent friend; and it is such that her worst enemies are divided between indignation she merits and the pity she inspires. I was indeed right ot say that it would perhaps be fortunate for her if she died of her smallpox. She has recovered, it is true, but horribly disfigured; and particularly by the loss of one eye. You may easily imagine that I have not seen her again; but I am told she is positively hideous.

The Marquis de .... , who never misses the opportunity of saying a spiteful thing, ... said that her disease had turned her round and that now her soul is in her face. Unhappily, everyone thought the expression a very true one.

A modern filmmaker would never dare to spell out the moral of his story quite so openly.

The Invasion with Nicole Kidman..a re-make of the Invasion of the Body Snatchers. I saw it as a child unbeknownst to my mother, who told me I couldn't see it and the of course I refused to go to sleep for weeks. My younger son asked me to take him to see it and my childhood memories came flooding back and I nixed that idea.

I remember being much affected by that film, too, Printcess. The night we saw it a bunch of us kids were sitting out on a dock staring at the biggest full moon -- white and mottled -- we'd ever seen. The reflection in the black water was even bigger. One of us wondered aloud whether space invaders could make a secret landing on our lake on a night like this. I still remember the dismissive laughter -- and the frisson of excitement and fear that more than one of us felt. What if .... ? Now THAT's an effective movie.

[Helene]

A modern filmmaker would never dare to spell out the moral of his story quite so openly.

But the scene in which she flees (to Belgium?) would make interesting cinema.

[canbelto]

I can't believe no one has mentioned Gus van Sant's remake of "Psycho."

I think musicals might lend themselves better to remakes because many of the Broadway adaptations were made in a time when dubbed voices and drastically censored musical numbers were the norm. See: Carousel.

[Old Fashioned]

I agree. One (I can't remember which) was released before the other, but I found them on tv at approximately the same time. In situations like this, the actors are the sources of the most immediately noticeable differences. I like "Valmont's" Annette Bening and Colin Firth, who conveyed a civilized kind of evil -- both delicious and repellent -- well beyond the more contrived peformances of Glenn Close and John Malkovich, who is even more mannered than usual in this one. The secondary roles in "Valmont" are equally well-cast, with skilled British actors predominating. The "Dangerous Liaisons" team -- including Swoozie Kurtz, Uma Thurman, and Keanu Reeves -- seem imported from another universe.

Forman started his movie earlier, but the shooting took a while, and Frears completed his first, and "Dangerous Liaisons" was the earlier to be released. "Vamont" has a tendency to meander, but I think I like it a bit more. Forman commented at the time that no scene in the book actually appears in the film, and I think he's less inhibited by the parameters of the source material. I find the Frears film overly literal.

Hmm...I think I'm the only one here who adores both Close and Malkovich, and the Frears' movie.

[cubanmiamiboy]

Hmm...I think I'm the only one here who adores both Close and Malkovich, and the Frears' movie.

I'm with you, OldFashioned...

[printscess]

I can't believe no one has mentioned Gus van Sant's remake of "Psycho."

I think musicals might lend themselves better to remakes because many of the Broadway adaptations were made in a time when dubbed voices and drastically censored musical numbers were the norm. See: Carousel.

My most favorite musical is West Side Story. I was probably a baby when the original play was on Broadway, but grew up listening to the "orginal cast sound track" that my parents had and played it ad nauseum ( in my heart I was Chita Rivera, dancing up a storm). I remember like it was yesterday seeing the movie with my parents when I was 10. When the revival of the play opened up on Broadway in the 1970's I went to see it, only to be disappointed. I hope that is a movie that is not remade. The great thing about the movie is that the outdoor scenes were shot in the Hells Kitchen neighborhood part of NYC which is now Lincoln Center.

[papeetepatrick]

When the revival of the play opened up on Broadway in the 1970's I went to see it, only to be disappointed. I hope that is a movie that is not remade. The great thing about the movie is that the outdoor scenes were shot in the Hells Kitchen neighborhood part of NYC which is now Lincoln Center.

Most of the big musicals adapted from B'way don't get remade. Showboat was an exception, and that was early on. There's much that is great in 'West Side Story', but I have heard how wonderful Carol Lawrence and Larry Kert were in the original, and therefore in some ways I'm sure it was even fresher and greater, because Natalie Wood was good, but maybe not great, same with Beymer. Chakiris was a knockout and Moreno excellent too.

[dirac]

Hmm...I think I'm the only one here who adores both Close and Malkovich, and the Frears' movie.

I'm with you, OldFashioned...

You're not alone.

I think the Christopher Hampson/Frears version is better overall. The ‘look and feel’ of the Forman version is superior IMO, but I thought the story and characters became muddled and lost a lot of the intensity of the novel. 'Dangerous Liaisons' has real passion.

I also admired Glenn Close as Merteuil. No, she’s not dream casting, and Annette Bening is closer to the role in looks and age, but Close has authority, power, and unlike some others in Frears’ cast you believe she’s an aristocrat. Malkovich is wrong for Valmont in obvious ways, yet for me he’s far more interesting to watch than Colin Firth. (I suspect the role is trickier to cast and play than it looks.) Some of the early scenes where they are working hard for elegant viciousness are a tad strained, but as they begin to lose control of events and the gloves come off, they're a gripping pair.

Most of the big musicals adapted from B'way don't get remade.

And these days it’s far too risky and expensive.

[carbro]

I was deeply disturbed for several days after seeing Dangerous Liaisons. I couldn't bear the cruelty the Close and Malkovitch characters. I guess that argues in favor of the film's effectiveness.

For that reason, I made no effort to see Valmont. If it had struck the same emotional chords, I wouldn't have been able to cope.

[sidwich]

I can't believe no one has mentioned Gus van Sant's remake of "Psycho."

The creepiest thing for me about the remake of "Psycho" was that somebody actually thought it was a good idea of reshoot "Psycho" shot for identical shot. When Anne Heche had to hop over the gear shift because there was no bench-seating to slide across (as in the original), it was just far too bizarre.

I think musicals might lend themselves better to remakes because many of the Broadway adaptations were made in a time when dubbed voices and drastically censored musical numbers were the norm. See: Carousel.

I think remakes of musicals are as hit-or-miss as any. For example, I think for all the technological advances and Lana Turner's glamour, the remake of "The Merry Widow" is far, far weaker than the early sound version with Jeanette MacDonald and Maurice Chevalier directed by Ernst Lubtisch. Lubitsch directed a classic, primitive sound and all.

"Carousel" will be interesting if Hugh Jackman can get it off the ground. It deserves a good film treatment. I liked the reconception that Nicholas Hytner did with the National in London in the 1990's, although it didn't translate well when mounted at Lincoln Center.

[sz]

>"Carousel" will be interesting if Hugh Jackman can get it off the ground.

If???!!! Have you ever seen anything that Hugh Jackman wasn't fantastic in??!!!

[dirac]

I was deeply disturbed for several days after seeing Dangerous Liaisons. I couldn't bear the cruelty the Close and Malkovitch characters. I guess that argues in favor of the film's effectiveness.

For that reason, I made no effort to see Valmont. If it had struck the same emotional chords, I wouldn't have been able to cope.

The scene where Malkovich breaks off with Pfeiffer is brutal – it’s as if he’s clubbing a baby seal.

Lubitsch directed a classic, primitive sound and all.

I love that movie. ("Give me back my shoe!")

[papeetepatrick]

I think remakes of musicals are as hit-or-miss as any. For example, I think for all the technological advances and Lana Turner's glamour, the remake of "The Merry Widow" is far, far weaker than the early sound version with Jeanette MacDonald and Maurice Chevalier directed by Ernst Lubtisch. Lubitsch directed a classic, primitive sound and all.

I see little to recommend in the Turner/Lamas 'Merry Widow'. Turner's glamour doesn't even matter here, she is allowed to give such a bad performance. When she waltzes with Lamas at the end, she is so stiff it is inexcusable--at least, in some of the soap opera things like 'By Love Possessed', where she is not required to do much more than just show up, her obvious deterioration in these lurid-looking things doesn't matter so much--even has some unique interest when combined with Ross Hunter and the other crews who used her after the Stompanato business. And there are a few legitimately good performances before that, 'Cass Timberlane' among others, and the obvious ones like 'Postman Always Rings Twice'etc.. But I think 'Merry Widow' is perhaps her very worst performance. The McDonald/Eddy wouldn't have had to be much more than decent to surpass this.

They might pull something off with a remade 'Carousel', but I rather doubt it, and the original, though not a masterpiece, was quite good in many ways. I don't see it as needing a remake.

[sz]

>....and the original, though not a masterpiece, was quite good in many ways.

>I don't see it as needing a remake.

Must agree with you there..... the original is quite wonderful.

(Though I'll try anything once with Hugh Jackman.... )

But it seems to be the trend (in ballet, theater, film).... that if you don't have anything

new that audiences love enough to see over and over ($$) again, bring back an oldie, make it

slightly different, and reap mucho buckos.

[Helene]

I don't know if it counts as a classic, but Three Men and a Cradle, which was remade as Three Men and a Baby, was just released in India as Heyy Babyy, starring Bollywood heartthrob Ashkay Kumar.

Why do I think this is going to be badd?