In Reply to: This is one of those rare occassions... posted by Harmonia on October 9, 2004 at 18:01:59:
the question for me is, was the US remake necessary or worth watching if you've already seen the original? vanilla sky had a couple advantages over the original, like the scene with an empty times square. otherwise, i didn't think it was really necessary to remake. roger ebert once suggested, why doesn't hollywood remake bad films into good ones instead of trying to remake stuff that's already good?albee -- it's people like you responsible for hollywood remaking films that don't need to be remade. :-(
harmonia -- you are speaking my language. i love con films too!! david mamet, the jim thompson novel adaptations, etc. give us a list so i can catch the con films i've missed!!!
here's a good con film you may have missed by one of this board's favorite directors, claude chabrol -- rien ne va plus (US title: the swindle). it's got chabrol's flair for interesting characters, which is why i like it. i don't think it's out on dvd yet. i'll try to think of other suggestions ...
"HO, HO, HO!" - Santa Claus
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- ah, you are talking my talk - TA 22:54:52 10/09/04 (6)
- TA, I abhor remakes . . . . - albee33 09:51:09 10/10/04 (0)
- Re: ah, you are talking my talk - rico 06:23:59 10/10/04 (4)
- andy rooney? - TA 09:13:04 10/10/04 (3)
- Re: My apologies - rico 09:45:07 10/10/04 (2)
- Re: My apologies - TA 21:23:12 10/11/04 (1)
- Re: My apologies - rico 08:04:55 10/12/04 (0)