Tag Archives: remake

Love Affair (to Remember)

Ever been watching a film and thought, “I’ve seen this before?”

I recently caught a presentation of Love Affair (1939) with Charles Boyer and Irene Dunne, directed by Leo McCrarey. About 10 minutes in I realized it was reminding me of something else I’d seen not too long ago: An Affair to Remember (1957) with Cary Grant and Deborah Kerr, also directed by Leo McCrarey.

You aren’t misreading, McCrarey directed both. It is an incredible example of a director getting a complete do-over later in his life with (almost) the same script, but an entirely different life view and technology advantage. The result is, in many ways, two entirely different films with almost the same plot and words. I don’t know of any other film pairing that could whet the appetite of a film lover more than the chance to see that in action, especially with such big names attached.

I recommend both movies for different reasons. Love Affair has the energy and sensibility of The Thin Man pairing of Powell and Loy. An Affair to Remember is quite a bit more serious and emotional. Both are gorgeously filmed and well executed. And, as dated as both are in some ways, they stand the test of time rather well because they focus more on the emotions than the culture of the era.  Make time for both of these at some point. Together, they are fascinating nuggets of film history; on their own, they are just good films as well.

I could spend an exhaustive amount of effort going through the comparisons, but the folks at Spectrum Culture have already done so, and it is an excellent, if spoiler-ridden, read. So if you want detail before or after you dig these films up, here is a link to the article:

Re-Make/Re-Model: Love Affair (1939) vs. An Affair to Remember (1957)

Love Affair An Affair to Remember

War for the Planet of the Apes

War for the Planet of the Apes is the first of this rebooted series that I actually went to the theater for. Like many, I was massively dubious when Rise of the Planet of the Apes hit screens back in 2011. Why bother remaking what was a wonderful, if campy, bit of social science fiction from the 70s? And, like many, I was massively surprised by the result (even with its one really huge leap of logic).

Matt Reeves and Mark Bomback’s  script for Dawn of the Planet of the Apes continued to build on the world and characters, while improving the writing, and I got a bit more hooked. So I was willing to gamble on this third in the series, which had another Reeves/Bomback script, especially as the reviews were coming out massively positive prior to the release. And they’re not wrong.

This may be an action movie, but it is a movie first and action second. It is an intense piece of commentary on what it is to be human, what the value of war is, and how fundamentalist and biased beliefs, of any kind, on any side, only lead to destruction. Despite its 2.5 hour running time, it doesn’t feel long. And the final hour leading to the climax fairly bolts along. But without the heart beneath the skin of this film, it wouldn’t have worked.

Andy Serkis’s (Star Wars VII: The Force Awakens) Caesar is interesting to watch. Technology aside, it is about the directing by Matt Reeves and Serkis’s efforts. Caesar’s voice is practically flat through the film. His emotion is all in the eyes, mouth, and gestures, which is an interesting choice. It keeps him alien but accessible. We understand his emotions even if we don’t necessarily understand how he thinks all the time. It was a clever choice. It is also in direct opposition to Steve Zahn’s (Captain Fantastic) highly recognizable, and entertaining performance as Bad Ape. Or Karin Konoval’s emotive turn as Maurice.  

Wood Harrelson is the lone performance in this movie that I had trouble with. He isn’t quite intense enough, and yet also not laid back enough to feel believable. It is just a shade off, but it made him more a stock character, despite his rich backstory, than the charismatic leader he needs to be. It works, but I think they missed an opportunity for something truly impactful with him.

But this isn’t just about what’s new in the Apes universe. The movie is loaded with nods to the original series, which are fun to spot. The script never forgets it is a riff on something we might know well and it manages to reference major points without pulling you out of the tale they are telling. And their riff is a clever one indeed.

Something else to realize is that the film is definitely crafted for the big screen. It is loaded with wide, beautiful shots for both background and action scenes. It is also the kind of film that deserves to be supported because it is good; it isn’t just a hollow summer film. You’ll definitely have fun, be entertained, and even a bit touched. It completes the story begun in Rise, but allows for there to be future tales as well. Apes has everything you need and it is a step above a lot of the drivel summer usually throws at us. So get out and see this on the big screen. It is definitely worth the time and effort.

War for the Planet of the Apes

Spider-Man: Homecoming

So here we are: the third bite at the apple for Sony. Say farewell to the Rami trilogy and the misfired Amazing Spider Man duo. I have to admit, when I heard this was all in the works, my enthusiasm was low. The trajectory of the character has been driven at Sony more by the drive to hang onto the rights than to make good films. But let’s put that aside for the moment. The fact is this reboot is really quite good and finally has a young kid playing Peter Parker at the right age for a change.

From the casting of Tom Holland (The Secret World of Arrietty) to starting off with The Ramones for the soundtrack to kick it all off, this co-release with Marvel really hit all the right marks. Holland is young enough to really feel like a gangling 15  year old who, limbs at all angles, fearlessly swings around NYC and environs trying to do good. He isn’t an antihero like Deadpool, but he isn’t the typical superhero either.

And this is where Marvel and the six credited writers (yes, six) really deserve some applause. They know that we’re fatigued with these films. They know that we find it all just a bit silly. They play into that idea, allowing Peter Parker to be both superhero and little hero. He bumbles around and is more an Everyman than ever before. It really helps sell the movie as both a fun ride and as something relatable. But they also weave him into the Avengers universe with clips from Captain America: Civil War so that we have context. It works wonderfully. But, most importantly, it isn’t entirely predictable. It keeps throwing in curve balls and surprises, and of course, humor. I have no idea who to really credit with all that given the number of people involved, but that it all works together with that many cooks is a feat unto itself.

Along with Holland are some great, supporting roles. Michael Keaton’s (Robocop) role is particularly nuanced. He starts in the prologue with solid motivation, and then, like many things, it morphs into something else. And the prologue is worth mentioning as it winds back the clock to just after the first Avengers movie, in a world shattered and newly aware of aliens and superheros. Spider-Man can play-out in parallel to the movies that followed, though the Civil War reference gives them a bit of a time paradox problem, but just blink through it and it won’t bother you too much.

There are other main adult roles. Marisa Tomei (Love the Coopers) is sadly underused in this movie, though she definitely has some important moments, and is there in Peter’s mind at all times. Jon Favreau (Chef) however, gets a bit more screen time and his own little subplot through the movie. And Robert Downey Jr. (Avengers: Age of Ultron) gets some moments as well. The biggest surprise in the adult cast for me was the very nice turn by Donald Glover (The Martian). I’ve like the actor for a while, but he delivered this part, small as it was, with great skill. There are other surprises as well, but I won’t expose them here.

The film really focuses, rightly so, on the younger cast. Jacob Batalon quietly carries a lot more of the story than you expect. Laura Harrier and Zendaya add some nice confusion and, let’s say goals for Peter Parker to focus on. Only Tony Revolori (Dope), really feels forced in this group. Here I mainly blame director Jon Watts (Cop Car) for not holding him in check.

This is a rocket-fueled adventure, but very much from an adolescent’s eyes, even if there is plenty for adults to both relate to and enjoy. It is a great addition to the Marvel Universe, but I am dubious that Sony will recognize what they have and keep their mitts off of it. We’ll see if they can sustain the franchise this time. They have made it clear it is only leaving their hands when they’ve turned to dust, so that means a movie every three years, regardless of quality or value. If I sound concerned, suffice to say that whispers from the industry already suggest that the future is heading off the rails, which would be a damned shame. They really have something here, and a star that can sustain them for a good long while before he’s too old to play the part. Here’s hoping they see that and protect it.

Meantime, go and give your summer a kick to get it rolling again after several weeks of disappointing releases.

Spider-Man: Homecoming

Beauty and the Beast (2017)

You’ve probably already seen this (I hadn’t) and nothing I’m going to say here will change your mind.

So, if you loved this film, power to you and move along, you’ll probably think I’m being sour and unromantic, but I’m not. I love this story, and am particularly fond of the Grimm’s version and the Cocteau film, which leans heavily on that source. I even like the TV version (but, hey, that gave us Ron Perlman and Linda Hamilton, not to mention George RR Martin). But this Disney version is simplified and just not as engaging.

Like all fairy tales, there is a base truth Beauty wishes to convey, to teach. There are many ways to get there if you want to do variations of the story, but to really get there, in all cases, you have to truly care for the characters and their situations. You need to feel their fear and see their changes. Disney’s offering is all distraction and almost no emotion. That doesn’t make it un-entertaining, it just makes it empty entertainment, however pretty. And, to be fair,  the production design (real and digital) is truly a thing of beauty and imagination. Also, the nods to Sound of Music and Esther Williams, among others, are a riot.

But the story itself is rushed and almost utterly without tension or sense of time. It all seems to happen over the course of, at most, five days. I certainly believe in immediate connections between people, but they don’t usually involve kidnap, threats, and imprisonment. That takes time to overcome. In this case, everyone walked in knowing what would happen and didn’t even try to pretend it wouldn’t…the closest feint was the faked, depressing ending which the Enchantress (whom we’ve been spotting hanging out all along) deals with silently and completely without comment.

Does it still work? In its way, yes, but not because it is on the screen, but because it is in your mind. That is not only a cheat, but ultimately unsatisfying. It didn’t really do anything new for us. Frankly, there was too much other stuff to allow there to be characters and acting so that we actually cared about Belle, the Beast, her father, etc., and not just about the “story.”

There were other annoyances as well. The forced amount of diversity in the cast, seemingly without purpose, meaning, or basis. The continuity gaffs with the horse who magically appears at either end of the journey as needed, with or without tack. Peasants that suddenly have fancy dress. And then there was the great “controversy,” which was over so fast I actually almost missed it. Man people are screwed up if that was what flipped them out.

Ultimately, this is an OK piece of distraction, but not a great or classic film; it is simply big and flashy. Sure, it’s worth a single watch, but there isn’t a single performance worthy of mention, nor specific results calling out.

Beauty and the Beast (2017)

Prime Suspect (1973)

Dame Helen Mirren (Collateral Beauty) cemented Jane Tennison as one of the bedrocks of British mystery, and one of the strongest and most complicated women to make it to screen. You cannot think of Jane Tennison without thinking of Helen Mirren in that role. The show had a much vaunted 7 series run (1991-2006) that still enjoys reairs today.

But how did Tennison become the ballsy, broken, insightful DS we bade farewell to 11 years ago? Since 2006 several other unforgettable detectives have been given the prequel treatment. Endeavour and Young Montalbano come immediately to mind as especially successful forays into that territory.  These shows provide(d) both a continuation of series when the original show either had no where to go or when the original actor was no longer available, and an opportunity to understand the characters in a new way. We love their quirks (good and bad), but rarely know how they came about. For instance, Morse’s love of Opera, Montalbano’s love of seafood, and, of course, their love lives and tendency to drink.

Tennison was definitely ripe for this treatment. However, while the casting physically wasn’t bad, with Stefani Martini (Emerald City) in the lead role, the writing by series creator, Lynda La Plante, and Glen Laker just wasn’t as complex and solid as their competition. Had this series come out five years ago, I think I would have been much more impressed. But what the other two examples manage, and which this missed, was the steady building up of the character we know. Every episode of Endeavour, for instance, adds one of his traits or clearly leads to it.

Compounding my frustration with the series, I just couldn’t see Tennison in Martini. Even by the end of the 6 episode arc, there is only the barest hint of the Tennison we followed for over a decade. Whether that issue should be laid at the feet of Martini (lack of research?) or director Caffrey, I can’t be sure, but the fault doesn’t matter so much as the effect. What I got was a good mystery, but not so much a peek into the driving formation of Tennison herself. Or, not as much as I’d have hoped over 6 episodes.

I am willing to give them another bite at the apple on this one. The story of this particular series was interesting. The cast solid, especially with Alun Armstrong (The Hollow Crown), Jessica Gunning (Pride), and slew of other recognizable faces. It isn’t bad and there is definitely potential and room for growth. I would hope they would look around and realize that these kinds of shows require something just a bit different than the typical Brit mystery. They have a legacy to support and an audience to re-engage.

I have to say that with all these prequel and existing series running, I now have a dream to have a cross-over that starts with Endeavour, goes to Prime Suspect, then into George Gently, and finally ends, years later, as a cold case for Vera. For fun, you could involve Montalbano somewhere in the Gently cycle as I think they’d overlap by the next Gently series. As long as each kept their own sensibility, it could be a fabulous romp. If you really want to go crazy you could bring in a few of the longer running, cozy mystery series as well, but I think that would shatter the illusion of a single world.

Product Details

Kong: Skull Island

Ok, this is the nth reboot of this tale, so let’s admit there is only so much new they can bring to it, especially as they are consciously rebuilding the monster universe that dominated the latter half of the 20th Century.

And who would have suspected that Jordan Vogt-Roberts (Kings of Summer) would be the one to take it all on again, especially as his second feature? I do have to say, though, that despite a rather stellar addition to the writing team  of Dan Gilroy (Nightcrawler) to Max Borenstein (Godzilla) and Derek Connolly (Jurassic World, Safety Not Guaranteed), the ultimate tale was mostly just set up for whatever is coming next (and if you stay through the credits you’ll know what that is).

Still, they got some things right. The framing of the story is interesting, sweet, and new for the franchise. They also didn’t hold back the monkey till late in the film… he’s right there near the top. Get it out of the way, we all know what Kong looks like anyway. Smart. They also did some nice greatest hits of Kong through the film and avoided the ape meets girl silliness.

The only big ape really going for the girl is Tom Hiddleston (High-Rise) getting to know Brie Larson (Room). Both did fine jobs in limited roles. And John C. Reilly (The Lobster) brought some much needed levity to the survival story without totally devolving into slapstick. However, John Goodman (Ratchet & Clank) and Samuel L. Jackson (The Legend of Tarzan) were just, frankly, bad. It isn’t entirely their fault, their stories were weak and relatively unsupported. They worked hard to get us to believe, but it was all just so cheap. The rest of the cast has some nice standouts, such as Shea Whigham (Radio Free Albemuth), but are generally interchangeable and forgettable. Even folks like Toby Kebbell (A Monster Calls) just fade away in what is demonstrably an action flick where life is cheap and the point is the visuals.

So, is this one worth it? On its own… maybe, sorta. As part of whatever is getting built up, it may become more meaningful and interesting. For now, it’s a good ride and loaded with pretty pictures, but not what I would call ground breaking story or genre busting caliber.

Kong: Skull Island

Evangelion: 3.3 You Can (Not) Redo

OK, yeah, I’m done.

After 2.22 I was gritting my teeth, but wanted to finally, maybe, understand the story as it got beyond the original, epic and classic series. But while there is a bit of information and explanation, and it is just as pretty as ever, it has just gotten boring and repetitive. On top of the issues of plot, Shinji even beats out Harry Potter for whiny-ness and lack of ability to act. Sadly, unlike Potter, he doesn’t have any positive qualities that make me want to back him.

But this installment isn’t even the last… there is another (at least) to come. But, given who is left, I’ve frankly stopped caring if humanity survives… I’m not sure they should.

There are plenty of great, new anime to fill your time with; don’t waste it on this series retread. It isn’t visually enhanced so much nor that much more story that it is worth your time investment. If you haven’t seen Evangelion…then the choice is yours, but I think the original series, for all its flaws and incomplete ending, was more satisfying.

Evangelion: 3.3 You Can (Not) Redo

The Equalizer (2014)

Before Fuqua and Wenk rebooted The Magnificent Seven, the director/writer duo tackled the 80’s show, The Equalizer. Frankly, this earlier collaboration is much more successful. Fuqua took his time building the character and back-story for Denzel Washington (Fences). The plot is tight and with little chaff. They also managed to get me to let go of Edward Woodward’s portrayal of the original character by capturing the root of his drives and wrapping them up in something new and plausible. OK, didn’t completely forget Woodward, but I was able to watch this rendition of the idea with an open mind thanks to the careful story telling.

Washington is surrounded by a bevy of actors, though he still dominates the movie. Chloë Grace Moretz (Clouds of Sils Maria) turns in a nicely understated performance that is the catalyst for plot. Bill Pullman (Independence Day: Resurgence) and Melissa Leo (Snowden) play an unlikely but comfortably aging couple that add support. And for Angel fans, there is always Vladimir Kulich without his Beast make-up.

My only gripe in the cast was Marton Csokas (Falcón). It is an interesting character, and a scary one at that, but beggared credibility for me. Unlike Washington’s work, the character felt more cliché rather than new and I could easily predict his dialogue and actions simply because there was little to guess at.

Like John Wick, the Equalizer kills by necessity and often after giving people a choice. But, though Washington is also rather cold and methodical about his attacks, they are clearly filmed for us to enjoy. We are not left with any sense of regret for his actions, we celebrate them. That is the point of the film and character, so I’m not criticizing, but seeing it in such close proximity to Wick, it is an interesting comparison to make.

As a franchise launch, this was a solid start. Whether that momentum can be maintained with the sequel will really depend on how much care they give the script and its production. On the up side, Wenk is still writing, but a director has yet to be confirmed at this time.

The Equalizer

Westworld

[Yes, this one contains some spoilers]

Since I made some early guesses about Westworld, and have finally had time to wrap up watching the first series, thought I owed it a follow-up. Particularly so because the show managed to do something unusual: it surprised me.

There is, of course, lots of sex, nudity, and violence. But, I’m happy (?) to say, there is a purpose to it all in this case, unlike so many HBO shows. There are still some challenges with the story: issues that could have been avoided; aspects of society that were avoided; procedural aspects that seem dumb to be missing; and corporate weirdness that is plausible, but a stretch in its execution.

However, the main thing about this series is the beauty of its construction and the utter misdirection it manages to both maintain and to pay off. Much like Amy Adam’s timeline in Arrival, Westworld plays with how we see Dolores’ experience of reality. Her lack of a chronology when memory is perfect and indistinguishable from present is an amazing piece of writing. Nolan may have out-Inceptioned himself with this given how long it stretches out.

In order to pull it all apart, you’d have to go back to the beginning and try to find the current time line to identify where all the flashbacks are. Also like Arrival, there are clues (clothing, wounds, etc) so it isn’t unfair, just very dense given the multiple Host POVs. And since we don’t know about Bernard until near the end, we have no way to understand the complexity of the plot until the last couple episodes.

Sometimes you just like looking at a jewel because it sparkles, even if you don’t like the cut or color. Westworld isn’t a show I think I could watch again for enjoyment. It is too bleak and violent, regardless of its purpose. However, I can truly appreciate its craft and design. I’m glad I came back and trusted it through to the end. I can’t see a second season being nearly as intriguing. A second series isn’t even necessary. But, should it return, I’d give it a chance.

Product Details

Pete’s Dragon

The original Pete’s Dragon was a silly, delightful memory for me. So much so I even have an original cell of Elliot on my wall. The 1977 movie had music, adventure, comedy, and, of course, Shelly Winters and a host of other great actors (not to mention Helen Reddy).

Remaking it for present day was always going to be a challenge because sensibilities have changed. At a basic level, the choice to change the underlying focus of the story to being an ecological one was clever and topical. However the overall story itself of a lost child raised by creatures was somewhat aced by Jungle Book in plot and crushed by the same film in terms of effects.

Additionally, writer/director David Lowery’s (Aint Them Bodies Saints) story result is muddled, particularly at the beginning. While I appreciated the choices, it was far too scary an opening for young kids and far too simple for older kids and adults. It also just never fully gels, though it finds its head of steam about half way through the plot.

But even more frustrating is that only one actor comes across as genuine and real: Robert Redford (The Walk). The rest of the cast, including Keith Urban (Star Trek Beyond), Bryce Dallas Howard (Jurassic World), and Wes Bentley (Welcome to Me), never felt true; they’re all play-acting a child’s story. That approach could have worked, but the sense of the tale, which is more naturalistic, didn’t support that approach either. There just isn’t enough adventure to make that choice feel fulfilling. I will give the two children some props however. Oakes Fegley (This is Where I Leave You) and Oona Laurence (Southpaw) work well together and found an approach that felt right for the audience and story: positive and possible but not necessarily without risk and cost.

The dragon himself, Elliot, is well done and not a bad interpolation of the original hand-drawn character. OK, yes, furry, but it works… mostly because he is clearly based on dog behavior (a wolf hound if I had to pick). But that had other knock-on issues. While the movement choices make him seem cuddly, it resonates oddly because he is so familiar that there is no sense of “otherness.” How to Train Your Dragon achieved that aspect by looking at more at feline behavior for its movement and attitude and it kept just enough of a sense of risk and miscommunication between the characters.

Children’s movies are never easy to do, admittedly. Finding the right tone to keep everyone’s attention is a huge challenge. This version of Pete’s rides a difficult line with very good intentions to deliver both a story and a message, not to mention a bit of magic, but doesn’t quite hold together, even if it manages to pay off at the end.

Pete