Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
Yes, say what you want about this film and how it is much more whimsical twist on the beloved original, but I think, for a remake that follows in the footsteps of the well known 1971 film, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory got the job done properly. Containing many differences from the original, this film, directed by Tim Burton and starring Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka, followed less of the original film and more of the original 1964 novel by Roald Dahl. Instead of geese that lay golden eggs like in the Gene Wilder version, it's back to walnut cracking squirrels. Charlie's father, who was entirely absent from the original film is present in this film, screwing the caps on toothpaste tubes at the nearby toothpaste factory. Even some of the minor elements from the original novel are present in this film, like the Indian prince who had Wonka build him an entire house out of chocolate, and hair toffee that makes people's hair grow to an incredible length. Sorry folks, no fizzy lifting drinks or HSAWAKNOW (Wonkawash spelled backwards) or boat rides that will scar children for life, but it's all good. Unlike other remakes like Planet of the Apes, Tim Burton handles this film very nicely, and delivers a different, yet exciting and innovative remake of a classic tale, one that others will enjoy just as much as the original. And would you believe the original wasn't released in Germany until after this film came out. That's a shame, honestly, for all should be able to see both of these magnificent films, full of edge of your seat excitement and wonder. By the way, Burton's film doesn't have cheesy looking everlasting gobstoppers and giant lollipops that are clearly inflatable balloons!
The Fly
Even without the famous Vincent Price, the remake of the 1958 film The Fly holds up quite well to the original, even if they are a few, somewhat gruesome changes here and there. Most of the key elements are still there, the teleportation pods, the relationship between the male and female leads, even some of the musical compositions are somewhat similar to the ones that can be heard in the original film. However, the most significant departure from the original, and the thing that got Chris Wales an Academy Award for Best Makeup was the horrid transformation of Seth Brundle into the hideous fly creature. It was horrifying and amazing to look at, and really makes the film all the more interesting and different from the original, where Vincent Price just simply pulled off a cloth to reveal his insect face. The acting in this film is also quite adequate, and very appropriate for an 80s remake, as the dialogue in the original film was appropriate for the 1950s time period. Either way, both films are great, and I enjoy picking out all of the significant differences between each film, for there are so many, I can't even mention them all within one entry. And the remake was so successful, it spawned a sequel 3 years later, with Seth Brundle's son as the title character. The sequel, like the sequels to the original film, didn't quite live up to the first film, but was still quite satisfying in it's own right, and worthy enough to make quite a bit of money at the box office. Nevertheless, the remake of Kurt Neumann's 1958 classic was a worthy contender, and one of the best films of the 1980s for sure. It might be a much darker, bloodier take on the original, but it is very unique and one of the most chilling motion pictures I have ever seen. Check it out, because there are not too many films out there like this!
King Kong
As I had stated a dozen times before, the original Merian C. Cooper King Kong film from 1933 is one of my all time favorite motion pictures. I personally could go on for hours and hours talking about the stop motion effects, the action, the relationships between the characters, I love the film that much, and usually when a film is very popular among movie goers, it often gets remade in the years following. Believe it or not, this wasn't the first time the hairy black monkey of destruction saw a reinterpretation. In 1976, an extremely low budget remake was made starring Jeff Bridges and Charles Grodin that was horrifically received at the box office and panned by Roger Eberts all over creation. What's even worse is that they actually made a sequel to this remake, much like they had made sequels to the original King Kong in the past, and it is often considered to many as the grand turd of terrible flicks. But in 2005, The Lord of the Rings director Peter Jackson would finally bring us the King Kong re-imagining we've wanted for years, displaying the iconic tale of Beauty and the Beast in a different, unique, and yet satisfying manner. The acting by the actors in this film is on par with the acting from the actors in the original film, although I think we can all agree, Naomi Watts simply can't pull off the same horrendous high pitched scream of Fay Wray, who's legendary scream echoes in my head to this very day. And of course, the CGI effects in this film simply don't put a dent in the glory of the stop motion effects of the original. Being such a big fan of the original film, it's very hard to say that the CGI effects in the newer film are better than the effects in the original. Sure, making CGI effects is just as tedious and time consuming as making frames and moving models for stop motion effects, even Peter Jackson admitted it was hard making a stop motion effects sequence when trying to create the lost spider pit scene from the original film, but CGI doesn't seem to have the appeal and charm of stop motion effects in films like the original King Kong, sometimes looking synthetic and unrealistic, although, sometimes, admittedly, it can blow my socks off.
But don't get me wrong, there were some things in the remake that I thought we even better than some of the things in the original. The natives of Skull Island are much darker and solemn in appearance and not as goofy and ridiculously dressed as they were in the original film. And speaking of darker and solemn, this whole film in general was much more darker and contemporary than the original masterpiece. Of course in this day in age, it comes as no surprises things would be remade in a more realistic sense, but Jackson's King Kong kicked it up a supreme notch, and really delivered a much more intimidating appeal, even with James Newton Howard's blood pumping score to really send us to the edge of the wall. It also had it's share of light hearted scenes like the original, like Watts' Anne Darrow skating on ice with Kong, and Carl Denham trying to give a Skull Island child chocolate. It was very interesting to see what Jackson did to give the King Kong story a little more zest and expansion, and while it doesn't quite have the exact same feeling of the original, it has a unique, refreshing feeling to it, and I was very impressed with every bit of it. Surely it wasn't as good as the original film, but it was surely one of the best remakes I have ever seen, and watching both the original and the remake back to back, you can really see the significant differences that really make each film stand out. And the great brawl between King Kong and the airplanes atop the Empire State Building is breathtaking and heart pounding in each film, for the special effects in each version really add to the tension and wonder of how exactly they were able to make scenes like that.
Clash of the Titans
Yeh, I know what might be running through a lot of your heads. A lot of people didn't think this film was all that great and makes a fool out of the cult classic original film, but in my eyes, I think this film really did a great job of tackling the ancient tale of Perseus of Greek mythology, showing the story in a bloodier, more vicious perspective than the original 1981 film. The original Michael Moorey film is hands down the superior version of the two motion pictures, and for many reasons. RAY HARRYHAUSEN! Gosh darnit, he is one of the greatest stop motion artists of all time. Once you see his trademark stop motion effects in films like Jason and the Argonauts and The 7th Voyage of Sinbad, you immediately know it was him that made them, and you can really see the time and effort that was put into those effects to make them look as consistent and realistic as possible. So it's no surprise that the final fight between Perseus and the Kraken is one of my all time favorite stop motion fight scenes of all time, even if the Kraken looks nothing like his Greek mythology counterpart. But the appeal of the originally is almost unforgettable. It has that early 80s feeling to it that really sets the mood for the classic, released on the wake of other cult films like TRON, and even though a lot of the scenes in the film are cheesy as an episode of the 60s Batman, especially with the robotic bird Bubo that is very reminiscent of R2-D2, it is a film like no other, and one of the best films of the 80s. Plus, it stars Laurence Olivier as Zeus. HOW FITTING IS THAT!
But the 2010 doesn't have Lawrence Olivier, or Harryhausen effects, but instead has Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes, Sam Worthington in armor, and CGI effects fitting for each and every scene of the film,even if some of them were a bit "video game-ish". As I said before, CGI effects can often be stunning, but we all know it's fake, we all know it exists within a computer, and it will take a lot of hard work to make CGI effects blend in and look as realistic as possible. So it's no surprised that the effects in this film are a bit inferior to the Harryhausen effects of the original, but are still very very stunning and amazing to look at in some scenes, especially the fight scenes. The acting in the film was also something to talk about. I really enjoyed Liam Neeson as Zeus and Sam Worthington, who also plays Marcus Wright in Terminator: Salvation, did a fine job of attacking the role of Perseus, the famous finder of Mycenae and slayer of Medusa. But I think what really made me like this film the most was it took all the cheesiness of the original and made it into something darker, something to be taken more seriously. It's much more sophisticated and respected in many ways, and the action sequences are just as stellar as the action scenes in the original, very reminiscent of the fight scenes in films like 300 and Troy. And like the original, there are many glorious creatures to be amazed by, this time created through silicon material, but very interesting to examine. As I am aware, this film wasn't met very well in some critics' books, who criticized the acting and the story, but I personally thought it was a worthy re-imagining of the original cult classic, for there were some things I liked, some things I thought could have been done a little bit better. It's a pretty good movie, and I recommend it if you are in the mood for a good action-popcorn film, for it's far from terrible and far from being one of the worst movies of all time.
And with all of your minds in a befuddlement, you are probably wondering in envy what movie I have decided to talk about last. Well, I have given it a lot of thought and I have finally picked the perfect movie to talk about, one of the greatest movies ever made.
Ben-Hur
One of the greatest movies in all of cinema, Ben-Hur, believe it or not, is not the first film take on the 1880 novel, Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ by Lew Wallace.MGM made a silent film of Ben-Hur in 1925 starring famous silent movie actor Ramon Novarro, and like many other people as well as film historians, I think this version has a lot of elements that are better than some of the elements present in the famous 1959 version, which is known for winning more Oscars than any other movie in Hollywood. For example, a lot of people consider Ben-Hur's signature chariot race to be highly superior in the 1925 version, filled with just as many eye boggling moments as the famous 1959 film, whose take on the chariot race has become a recognizable element of not just the film, but films as a whole. The silent nature and the mannerisms of the silent movie actors is also at times more amusing to observe than some of the acting and dialogue spoken by the characters in the 59 film, and some of the scenes in the 59 film that didn't have that much tension and drama have those ingredients in the 1925 film, even if it is silent and we can't here the actors speak. Overall, I think the 1959 masterpiece is far superior to the 1925 film, but the 1925 is hands down an uncanny masterpiece in film as well. It was just as epic for it's time as the 1959 was epic for it's time, and both did a fantastic job of recreating the legendary tale of Judah Ben-Hur, a Jerusalem prince and merchant who was displayed as a gallant hero and warrior in both versions. And before I begin to mainly focus on the 1959 epic, I must also mention that there was a fascinating 15 minute film version of Ben-Hur from 1907. I personally have not seen this version and I probably won't anytime soon, but I have read that it mainly focused on the famous chariot race scene and local firemen played the parts of the chariot racers and the horses that pulled the fire wagons played the horses that pulled the chariots through the streets. I have also read that this film was made without the original author, Lew Wallace's permission, and several court cases and copyright claims developed soon after because of this flaw. To put it short, this film is one of the many reasons why people who want to make movies based off of novels must first get the license to make the film from the original creators of the novel, otherwise the film creators could get into serious trouble and ownership suits can begin to brew.
But enough talk about that matter, let us talk about the film that is considered to many as one of the greatest motion pictures ever made, Ben-Hur. I'm simply going to keep this short and bittersweet because there is really nothing more I can say that hasn't already been said infinite times beforehand, especially about the film's trademark chariot race, and for the simple fact that Ben-Hur, while interesting and mind blowing, is not one of my all time favorite movies. Don't get me wrong, it is an excellent movie, and if it wasn't, why the heck would I be talking about it in the first place, but it never really had the same impact on me as other films like Star Wars or The Wizard of Oz, and offering this film to today's film consumers, whose minds are often dominated by the Twilight series and horror remakes, is like offering a two year old a book of Shakespeare plays. Kids at that age most likely won't even understand what some of the words in those stories mean. Ben-Hur is a bore to sit through for many people, but is still just as epic as say a Lord of the Rings film or film focusing on the hardships of war, attachment and how to deal with certain struggles. It's interesting, fascinating, and fun to watch at times, particularly in the action scenes and, you guessed it, the chariot race scene, which has some of the most suspenseful moments ever shot on camera. And the actors, particularly Charlton Heston give a defiant performance, Heston tackling on the role of Ben-Hur with all his blood and guts, delivering some mighty fines lines of dialogue and capturing the embodiment of the character flawlessly, as flawlessly as Leonard Nimoy took on the role of Spock, and Harrison Ford took on the role of Indiana Jones and Han Solo. The other actors also do a fantastic job as their respective characters, Stephen Boyd fantastic as Messala and Martha Scott as the female lead, Merriam, showing that they really take their roles seriously and want to give a prudent performance. The morals of this film are also universally unforgettable. Ben-Hur believed in himself, and though many relentless things brought him to his kneecaps, he got back up again and continued to strive forward, teaching us all the lessons of bravery and courage and how to face many of life's challenging challenges. I also like how they tie this film in with the events displayed in the Bible, Ben-Hur meeting one of the kings of the Magi, Balthasar, and witnessing the crucifixion of Christ towards the end of the movie, learning of Christ's teachings and the ways of forgiveness. The film also displays the hardships and crude nature of the Roman Empire, often showing their motives of greed, obsession and wealth.But not even that brought down Ben-Hur's courageous actions, as he would go on to win the chariot race and learn not to take on the ways of revenge and vendetta, but forgive others and except other people for who they were.
That my friends, is why I enjoy Ben-Hur so much because of it's lessons, for all stories, whether they'd be movies, televisions shows, or books have morals, and teach us things, like how to solve problems and how to accept ourselves as well as others, and I can't help but compare films like Ben-Hur to the tales of the Bible and mythology, for the struggles of the characters are similar to the struggles of the characters of the Bible, the characters changing overtime and realizing things they didn't realize before, making them better, more respective people. That's what I like about remakes, although they are a different take on a classic tale, they still carry the morals and values of the first telling, the characters and the settings and the meaningful elements that we can take with us through life. Although some of them are critically despised and hated by those who glorify the originals, they are still known in many ways to tackle things the original couldn't tackle, and do things in different manners to better the story and the film in whole. I am still not sure what exemplary tales will be re-maded, rebooted, reinterpreted, re-imagined, reexamined, customized in the near future, but whatever they are, we are in for a wild, exotic treat, for who knows what the film makers have in store for us, and how the plan to go about remaking the stories for today's power hungry audience, crazy for good stories, exceptional acting and special effects without the constant use of CGI. It will surely be something to talk about!
No comments:
Post a Comment