 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Guns of Navarone.
The original was great. So make it up to date with improved effects(lord those toy cannons falling into the bathtub looked fake even back then).
You mean the guns weren't real?!! Dont tell me that!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jun 17, 2013 - 1:40 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Richard-W
(Member)
|
People who think that updating special effects is reason enough to remake a movie need to think again. They need to start paying attention to the story being told, and to the characterizations, instead of to the special effects.
Richard
So you apparently say that EVERY movie featuring special effects have good or maybe even great story and characterizations?
No. I didn't say that. You did.
I will say, however that the story is more important than the special effects and the cgi environments. Lately I've been seeing films which are the opposite -- all razzle-dazzle and no story. Worse, I'm seeing inadequate writing, even amateur writing, and agenda-driven writing. When the cgi and special effects become more important than the story, I lose interest.
An agenda is not a reason to remake a classic film. Robert Wise's THE HAUNTING (1963) is a masterpiece because it relies on the power of suggestion to scare us. It has humanity, and makes us feel for the characters on screen (like all his films do). It shows us a haunting taking place in which nothing is revealed, prompting our imaginations to conjure up worse things than he could depict. The 1999 remake trivializes and violates the original by turning the story into a complaint about molested children coming back from the grave to seek justice and punish the men. It does this with unconvincing cgi effects in a cgi-generated production design that makes no sense. It wasn't scary, either. The remake was a stupid idea, agenda-driven, to please the idiots and morons in the audience.
Richard
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the idea behind Honey, I Shrunk the Kids would loan itself to a very nice, modern update with state-of-the-art special effects. : )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jul 27, 2019 - 4:18 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
joan hue
(Member)
|
In 1967-68, Cliff Robertson won an Oscar for his portrayal of a severely mentally disabled man in the movie CHARLY. It was based upon the great short story “Flowers for Algernon.” It was a fine movie, but it is 50 years old, and science has progressed. In the movie Charly, through a scientific experiment, becomes quite intelligent, but it has a sad ending. In 50 years, I still don’t think we have a “smart pill” or an intelligence-enhancing serum…yet. However, we have genetic studies, gene manipulation, cloning, etc.
It would be a cautionary tale about scientific boundaries. Should we accept our children as they are, or should we try to make them prettier, more handsome, and inevitably smarter?
I was watching Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, and once again marveled at how good Sam Rockwell was in this movie. He was a bit simple-minded but not disabled. I think he would give us a wonderful performance as Charly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reading the bold text, i thought this was another annoying posts thread! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Netflix series was woke garbage.
" Powerful move"
|
|
|
|
|
|
SPARTACUS with a lead actor who can act.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SPARTACUS with a lead actor who can act.
It's too bad you've retired from the stage, as I'm sure you'd be cast in the role.
As Gracchus.
No he'd be that Roman garrison commander who didnt picket guards because ..."Well, they were only slaves!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
