Remakes

I heard a rumor that The Third Man is being remade with Leonardo DeCaprio. Roger Ebert wrote that he wanted to throw up when he heard the news. I myself am indifferent, feeling no particular sentiment towards the original. Don't get me wrong; The Third Man is a good film - a very good film. It has a terrific score that I won't soon forget, a memorable performance by Orson Welles, terrific shots of the city of Vienna, and the main character is a man named Holly (!). But the pace is too slow and it lacks the suspense that Orson Welles' other classics embrace. But just to give you an idea of how revered this film is in the movie world, check out this article from the Pioneer Press, which describes the various The Third Man tours available in Vienna.


The bigger topic here is remakes. Over the last 5 years, Hollywood has exploded with remakes. A couple of years ago, I felt that every movie made was a remake. Some examples that come immediately to mind: 3:10 to Yuma, Alfie, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Charlotte's Web, Guess Who, King Kong, The Manchurian Candidate, Ocean's 11, The Producers, Posiedan, and so forth (I didn't even touch on horror movies which seem to be exclusively remakes these days).

I have mixed feelings about remakes. On the one hand, I revile them. First, many people go to movies not realizing the movie is a remake. Some of these remakes are so bad, it may discourage audiences from wactching the original film. The remake Guess Who and its original Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? are a good example. Second, far from being an homage to the original, many new versions are an insult to the halmarks of cinema. Again, Guess Who is an apt example. This is probably why Roger Ebert wanted to throw up when he heard about The Third Man.

But on the other hand, some remakes breathe new life into stories and improve on the long forgotten originals. I am thinking here of 3:10 to Yuma. Or they reimagine the characters in new and interesting ways (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory).

But I still have that nagging suspicioun that most remakes are simply a function of laziness. Writers can't come up with anything original so they recycle an old script, hoping audiences won't notice.

What do you think of remakes? Have you ever watched an original movie for the first time after watching the remake?

And the Oscar hosts are . . .

Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin. I love them both! I can't wait to watch them host the Oscars together (there hasn't been co-hosts since the 1980s). They should make a great comedy team. Of course, I would have preferred Steve Martin with Tina Fey but Tina is not starring in a holiday movie with Steve. So naturally, the Oscar producers had to pass her up and go for the shameless plug of Its Complicated (starring Meryl Streep, Steve Martin, and Alec Baldwin coming out December 25 to a theater near you).

A Serious Man

I saw A Serious Man last Friday. After seeing the movie, I stand by my prediction that it will be nominated for best picture this year.

Set in surburban Minneapolis in the 1960s, the movie follows Larry Gopnik, a physics professor, who is going through a bad spell in his life. His wife wants a divorce, someone is writing nasty letters to the tenure board, a korean student is trying to blackmail him for giving him an F, his brother won't leave his couch, and creditors are calling him for not paying for his record club subscription that he never even ordered. Larry hits rock bottom when his wife demands that he pay for the funeral for the man she was going to leave him for. With no where left to go, Larry turns to three different rabbis at his synogogue in order to determine what God is telling him.

Richly textual, the movie makes no apologies for being smart. I will be the first to admit that I didn't catch most of the biblical allusions or understand many of the Jewish phrases. (But I certainly understood the Minnesota references! The theater audience chuckled everytime a Twin Cities reference was made - such as to Ron Meshbesher or the Red Owl in Bloomington). But I don't care. Movies with layers of subtexts are the best kind to go back and watch again as you age, and gain wisdom and experience. This is the type of movie that you will take away a different interpretation with each viewing.

Many people will find this movie difficult to watch. It is slow, seems to have no point, and has an unconclusive ending (which may be an understatement). But I like movies that are more interested in the characters than in their stories. The Coen brothers drew heavily from the European New Wave traditions in this respect. Within the movie itself is a parable about a Jewish dentist who finds a message in Hebrew on the back of a patient's teeth. Wondering if this is a message from God, he visit his rabbi. The \rabbi, to the unsatisfaction of the Dentist, cannot tell him that the message means anything. It is what it is. And I think this parable is an allegory to the movie as a whole. The movie is not a story meant to give us a definitive message. Rather, it a snapshot of a character, meant to make us ponder.

A Serious Man is not the best movie I have seen this year, but it very good. Overall, I give it 3 1/2 stars and recommend that you see in theatres (rather than video).

Have you seen A Serious Man or are you planning on going? Are there any movies that you find different meanings in with each viewing? I would love to hear your thoughts!

Paranomal Activity

My uncle posted this interesting news item on facebook which I want to pass along:
http://movies.yahoo.com/news/usmovies.accesshollywood.com/paranormal-activity-becomes-most-profitable-movie-ever

Paranomal Activity is now the most profitable movie ever made. The article reports that the movie was made for less than $15,000 and has grossed over $65.1 million.

What I found most interesting is that Paramount studios has spent "only" $10 million to market the movie. It is unsettling to think that $10 million in advertising is a drop in the bucket. I wonder how many movies I've seen soley because of the advertising?