CONCLUSION POST!

We did it!  All finished!

I didn't get to several movies that I originally had on my list; but since I had to narrow it down in order to fit in the required 20 blogs, I had to pick and choose my favorites while still trying to vary the genres a little bit so you wouldn't get too bored.

I really hope you stuck it out with me this semester.  It was fun critiquing all the movies for you.  And it really did get me in the mood to rewatch all the movies again.  There toward the end though I didn't have that as an option.

What other movies would you like me to cover for you?  Even though the semester is finally over, I think I'm going to keep up with this blog for a little while.  And now that I don't have the restrictions for the assignment anymore, I can start to branch out a little bit to include some other movies--more from the 1001 Movies list or from the Oscar list I mentioned a few posts ago.

So comment and let me know.  And keep being entertained!!  Story-telling at its finest is when you can put yourself in a movie and live it with the characters.

Be safe everyone!

GODZILLA (1998) vs. GODZILLA (2014)

Ok, ok.  Yes, I went away from my formula I've been following all semester long: Compare the FIRST original to the LATEST remake.  And you're thinking "the 1998 Godzilla wasn't the original!"

Technically, you're correct.

But the stipulation being that the original Godzilla franchise is a Japanese production, not a U.S. production.

Loopholes.  Are a bitch, sometimes.  Hahaha!

SYNOPSIS (1998): An enormous, radioactively mutated lizard runs rampant in Manhattan.

DIRECTOR: Roland Emmerich vs. Gareth Edwards

I can't believe the original is going to win ANY of these categories!!  Roland Emmerich is well-known for his "end of the world" genre films, including The Day After Tomorrow, 2012, and of course Independence Day. 

But Godzilla?

While not really classified as an "end of the world" apocalyptic type film, a major city does get pretty much torn up as Godzilla's plaything.

However, just like in casting....just because you have a more famous cast doesn't mean you get the win here.  Taking into account the direction of each movie, Edwards did a much better job directing his film than Emmerich did.

If anything, Emmerich may have learned from his mistakes from this debacle of a film into his future movies, which did in fact turn out much better than this one.

WINNER: Remake, Gareth Edwards

SCREENPLAY: Dean Devlin/Roland Emmerich vs. Max Borenstein/Dave Callaham

The remake paid homage to the original Japanese films in that it pitted Godzilla up against other monsters to fight.

The original made Godzilla a female and capable of reproducing baby Godzillas.

Point to the remake.

WINNER: Remake, Max Borenstein/Dave Callaham

CAST/ACTING: Matthew Broderick, Jean Reno, Hank Azaria vs. Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Ken Watanabe, Elizabeth Olsen, Bryan Cranston

The remake just edges out the original in this one.  That was close.

Thanks Heisenberg! I mean, Cranston.

WINNER: Remake

MUSIC/SCORE:

The original DID have the better soundtrack.  And this isn't just a pity vote, either.  It was good.

WINNER: Original

Godzilla (1998):

• Rotten Tomatoes: 16% or 4.0/10 average rating
• IMDb.com: 5.3/10 from 145,621 users
• Metacritic: 32/100

Godzilla (2014):

• Rotten Tomatoes: 74% or 6.6/10 average rating
• IMDb.com: 6.5/10 from 283,567 users
• Metacritic: 62/100

OVERALL WINNER: Remake 2014 Godzilla

ROBOCOP (1987) vs. ROBOCOP (2014)

Just as I considered Total Recall one of the "classics" from my generation, I would say Robocop was more so.  I remember being so enthralled by a vigilante-type protector of the people in Officer Murphy as Robocop that I asked my mom in grade school for a lunchbox with his likeness on the front.

Or maybe that was Rambo.

Either way, I probably shouldn't have had either one.  Hahaha!!  I don't recall ever seeing the movies though.  Probably a good thing that I had strict parents as far as my movie tastes were concerned, because both of those movies are extremely violent.

SYNOPSIS (1987): In a dystopic and crime-ridden Detroit, a terminally wounded cop returns to the force as a powerful cyborg haunted by submerged memories.

DIRECTOR: Paul Verhoevan vs. Jose Padilha

I touched on this a little bit in the previous podcast for Total Recall: Verhoevan has the skill and the reputation for making good movies.  Padilha, on the other hand, does not.  His 2014 remake of another titular and iconic character in Robocop was his third movie and it fell way short, just as the remake of Total Recall did.

I never realized how similar the comparisons for this movie and the previous one are; both originals are iconic and beloved movies while the remakes both try to improve on them but only succeed in producing flash and not a lot of substance.

WINNER: Original, Paul Verhoevan

SCREENPLAY: Edward Neumeier/Michael Miner vs. Joshua Zetumer 

The remake focused a lot more on the political aspect and moral dilemma of putting a man under all that physical and psychological stress of essentially being transformed into a cyborg.  And the fact that the remake was inter-cut a lot by Samuel L. Jackson giving monologues via newscast updates.

I love Samuel L. and all, but damn, enough with that crap!  Just show us the progression instead of cutting away from the action to bore us for 10 minutes at a time.

Not to mention that the remake had a PG-13 rating as opposed to an R-rating in the original.  I guess they really wanted to market the remake to kids after all instead of adults; and the lesser rating achieved that to some extent.

Watch this YouTube clip from Screen Junkies and you'll be able to decide for youself:

CAST/ACTING: Peter Weller, Nancy Allen, Kurtwood Smith vs. Joel Kinnaman, Gary Oldman, Michael Keaton

While I commend Weller for his portrayal of Robocop in the original, and even That 70's Show actor Kurtwood Smith for being the perfect casting choice to play the bad guy, you have to give the acting cred to incredible method actors Oldman and Keaton.

Keaton was the original Batman for Pete sakes!  Do YOU want to vote against him?!  I know I sure don't!  Hahaha!

You have to expect any actor playing the lead for a movie about being a heartless, mindless cyborg has to be pretty dry in his delivery.  Both leading men did it well.  While the original incorporated a lot more humor and one-liners into Weller's performance, his take was better.

Overall, though, the original just couldn't match the popularity nor the much better acting of all its main characters as the remake.

WINNER: Remake

MUSIC/SCORE: Basil Poledouris vs. Pedro Bromfman

There were several times when I cringed at the music choice of the remake.  While, yes, I'm aware that the original was made in the mid-80's, its use in this film with the added "cheese" already with the effects and one-liners, the 80's music really worked for this film.

WINNER: Original, Basil Poledouris

Robocop (1987):

• Rotten Tomatoes: 88% or 7.8/10 average rating
• IMDb.com: 7.5/10 from 169,088 users
• Metacritic: 67/100

  Robocop (2014):

• Rotten Tomatoes: 49% or 5.6/10 average rating
• IMDb.com: 6.2/10 from 171,668 users
• Metacritic: 52/100

OVERALL WINNER: Original 1987 Robocop

 

 "I'll buy that for a dollar!"  I'll buy the win for the original any day of the week.

TOTAL RECALL (1990) vs. TOTAL RECALL (2012)

LES MISERABLES (1935) vs. LES MISERABLES (2012)

Here's the actual rating system that I meant to include in the podcast. Included here for continuity of the layout of each post. Sorry guys. Les Miserables (1935) Rotten Tomatoes: 100% or 8.2/10 (only 9 user reviews) IMDb.com: 7.7/10 from 2,526 users Metacritic: none Les Miserables (2012) Rotten Tomatoes: 70% or 6.9/10 (but 79% of audiences liked it) IMDb.com: 7.6/10 from 228,950 users Metacritic: 63/100

TRUE GRIT (1969) vs. TRUE GRIT (2010)

I don't typically like westerns.  Growing up, my father either watched the news or westerns, and I never found in them anything exciting enough to watch.  It didn't matter if they cast such legends as John Wayne and Clint Eastwood, or if they were considered classics; I just found them boring.  Until about fifteen years or so ago when I watched 1993's Tombstone for the first time.  And I thought "if these are what western movies are all about, I've been missing out my whole life!"

When word got around a few years ago about this movie True Grit and how good it was, I wanted to believe it.  But in my head I kept thinking that no western was going to top Tombstone, so I didn't rush out to see it.  That is until the 1001 Movies You Must See list that I've been referencing included the remake.  And when I got to looking at movies that have been remade for the purposes of this blog, I knew that I had to include the only western I would write about in my critique.

So grab your six-shooter and saddle up.  Here we go!

SYNOPSIS: A drunken, hard-nosed U.S. Marshal and a Texas Ranger help a stubborn teenager track down her father's murderer in Indian territory. Source: IMDb.com

DIRECTOR: Henry Hathaway vs. Ethan & Joel Coen

Hathaway's direction of the original True Grit was great, capturing perfectly the picturesque countryside that was the backdrop for this backwoods country western adventure.  He had a great repertoire with legendary actor John Wayne as he was featured in a lot of Hathaway's movies.  He utilized the character-driven story of the film to direct his actors in such a way that was believable and relatable.

Hathaway started his Hollywood career as a child actor in westerns in the 1920's, understandably why he stuck to the genre when he began directing in 1932.  While he's got several dozen films under his direction and is considered a successful director by Hollywood's standards, they haven't received much attention from critics. Source: IMDb.com

The Coen Brothers, however, have dabbled in several genres whose movies have been critically well-received from critics and audiences alike.  To cult classics early in their career like Fargo and The Big Lebowski to the folk comedy O' Brother, Where Art Thou? to dramas like No Country For Old Men, A Serious Man, and Inside Llewyn Davis, there's almost nothing the two can't achieve together.  They've garnered many Oscar nominations for there films and have a style that surpasses most modern directors today.

Their direction of True Grit was fantastic.  In addition to establishing wide shots that sucked you into the countryside with the travelers as they search for the young girl's killer, they use the tension between the characters to drive the story and use close-ups and lighting to increase the tension for the audience.  The raise the bar on the original while keeping the heart of the story intact: the close yet dysfunctional relationship between the young girl and the gritty lawman she hires.

WINNER: Remake, Ethan & Joel Coen

SCREENPLAY: Marguerite Roberts vs. Ethan & Joel Coen

While both films credit the author of the novel, Charles Portis, it was the screenwriters themselves that brought the story to life on the big screen.

I couldn't tell a whole lot of difference between the two stories, however.  There were minute details that were different in the two films, such as the point in time when the Texas Ranger traveling with the young girl and the marshal broke company, the mention in the remake about Lawrence, Kansas, and one scene in which the trio ambush a small local gang that the young girl's killer is believed to be traveling with.  There are a couple character differences as well, but not that affect that overall arch of the storyline.

But as stated before, the story is pretty much the same.

One thing I will say about the remake though is how much subtle comedy is included in the script.  Whether it is the actor's portrayal of the characters or the screenwriters giving the characters personality on paper to give the actors a jumping-off point, I can't say for certain.  But seeing as how the remake was nominated for 10 Oscars--Best Picture and Best Writing being two--I'd like to think that it was the Coen brothers who wrote the comedic dialog in one or two particular scenes that had me rolling!

Made the remake more bearable to watch.  The 108-minute runtime of the remake was better than the 124-minute runtime of the original.  While the original wasn't terrible in any sense of the word, movies just go by quicker for me if they can make me laugh if ever so briefly.

WINNER: Remake, Ethan & Joel Coen

CAST/ACTING: John Wayne, Kim Darby, & Glen Campbell vs. Jeff Daniels, Hailee Steinfeld, & Matt Damon

This is a close one.  John Wayne, by the time of the 1969 release, had already obtained legendary status.  And Glen Campbell was a decently known actor in his own right.  It was Darby though that really caught my attention with her role as Mattie Ross.

Darby has mostly done work on the small screen, but her role as Mattie Ross--the young girl whose father was killed in the opening scenes of the film--was stellar.  She was strong-willed and confident, annoyingly persistent, yet determined to find her father's killer as she used her wits to raise money to pay the marshal and helped drive the trio into the countryside when the marshal got too deep into his drink.  Darby was completely engrossing.

And Wayne.  What can you say about him?  He's still your macho type-A leading man, like always; but in this film he has a vise which is drunkenness.  Playing a character with any trait that can be considered a flaw has to be an exciting challenge for any actor, especially for Wayne.  And he was rewarded for his work, winning an Oscar and a Golden Globe for Best Actor for his role as Rooster Cogburn.

The original was supported by other well-known actors as well, legendary actor Robert Duvall playing the role of gang leader Ned, and Dennis Hopper playing a very small role but noticeable nonetheless.

The top-billed cast of the remake did really well also.  Daniels as Cogburn, Steinfeld as Ross, and Damon as the Texas Ranger--not Chuck Norris, I know; slightly disappointing.  Hahaha!!  And as I already mentioned in an earlier section, their portrayal of their characters with the slight comedic element added made them intriguing and interesting to watch on screen.  The remake was supported by other well-known actors Josh Brolin and Barry Pepper.

I wanted to give the edge to the remake's cast.  However, because Daniels and Steinfeld were only nominated for their performances, Wayne won with his.  Good job, Duke.  Quite impressive indeed!

WINNER: Original

MUSIC/SCORE: Elmer Bernstein vs. Carter Burwell

I'm partial to newer music, mainly because the technology is better and the music, in turn, is better produced.  This movie score is no different.

The music played more of a factor for me in the remake than the original because the Coen brothers always have a certain look and feel to their pictures.  The music that they include in their films heightens that emotional connection for the audience that further expands the overall look to the film.  In conjunction with the actors and their ability and skill to bring the characters to life, the music even helps to develop their character's personalities more than just by silence alone.

WINNER: Remake, Carter Burwell

True Grit (1969):

• Rotten Tomatoes: 90% or 7.9/10 average rating
• IMDb.com: 7.4/10 from 31,392 users
• Metacritic: none

True Grit (2010):

• Rotten Tomatoes: 96% or 8.4/10 average rating
• IMDb.com: 7.7/10 from 226,000 users
• Metacritic: 80/100

OVERALL WINNER: Remake 2010 True Grit

True Grit is on my list for my top favorite westerns.  That's not a long list, for certain.  But it's very heavily character- and story-driven and while there's not a lot of action, there's enough to make it interesting.  But for a movie to be carried by the performances of the characters speaks volumes for the director's belief in their screenplay and direction.

It may not be Tombstone caliber, but you can still do as much damage with a six-shooter as you can with any other gun.

Take it from Doc Holliday: make watching the 2010 True Grit your Huckleberry!

THE KARATE KID (1984) vs. THE KARATE KID (2010)

Taking another original from 1984 and the remake from 2010, albeit not as frightening as the Krueger films, comes an action-drama centered around a young man who desires to learn karate to take revenge on a group of bullies who has made his integration into the new neighborhood a living hell.  He will face more internal struggles than he's willing to admit as well as the external battles he must face against his opponents.  All under the tutelage and guidance of a wise, old sensei, who teaches him to understand the importance of using karate for making peace, not for war.

SYNOPSIS (1984): A handyman/martial arts master agrees to teach a bullied boy karate and shows him that there is more to the martial art than fighting.
SYNOPSIS (2010): Work causes a single mother to move to China with her young son; in his new home, the boy embraces kung fu, taught to him by a master.

DIRECTOR: John G. Avildsen vs. Harald Zwart

One look at the filmography of both directors and it's hard to compare one who directed an earlier critically-acclaimed film in Rocky to one who's known for movies like the forgettable Agent Cody Banks and the even more forgettable sequel to the modern remake of The Pink Panther.  But, try as we may, let's take a look at each director's take on The Karate Kid.

Both directors shot their films well, from establishing wide shots to get a feel for the setting in which each film was placed, to the needed close-ups for the more private emotional moments between the characters.  The editing and choreography of the fight scenes were well done and shot in a way that made me feel a part of the action.

It's difficult to pinpoint any one thing that either director did extremely well or very poorly.  That being said, I think I'd have to give the edge to Avildsen simply for directing in another beloved film series in Rocky.

WINNER: Original, John G. Avildsen

SCREENPLAY: Robert Mark Kamen vs. Christopher Murphey

I hate to criticize the remake for anything, but this one point is hard to overlook.  Taking the original story and screenplay and centering it around a 12-year-old in the remake was hard to swallow.  I didn't much care for following the struggles of a prepubescent boy nor did I feel any sympathy for him at all.

Another detail to the remake that was different than the original was that in the 2010 film, it was set in China rather than the United States.  Not a big oversight in and of itself.  But because the original master of karate was Japanese and the remake was filmed in China, they had to use a Chinese master.  Which, again, doesn't make any difference to the overall success or failure of either film.

However, if you know anything about martial arts, karate is a Japanese artform, meaning "empty hand."  So they had to change the style of martial arts completely in the remake to the Chinese style of kung fu, literally translated "merit master."  The average moviegoer might not care about that little detail; but I can almost guarantee that any avid martial artist would care to go see a movie entitled The Karate Kid and actually see karate.

I'm a fan of any style of martial art myself.  And actually prefer the faster-paced, more articulate style of kung fu over karate.  But for the purposes of critiquing these films, I have to take note.  I do think, though, that for the showcase of martial arts in the films, the remake did a better job of giving us more of a sample of the style in the various kicks, punches, grabs & holds, and locks & throws than the original did.

Maybe I'm just such a sucker for martial arts that I tend to gravitate toward the faster-paced styles.  That crane kick at the end of the original though.  Iconic, to say the least.

WINNER: Original, Robert Mark Kamen

CAST/ACTING: Ralph Macchio, Pat Morita, Elizabeth Shue vs. Jaden Smith, Jackie Chan, Taraji P. Henson

This may be the first time that the cast of characters are as closely well-known than any other film we've looked at up to this point.

In the original, you have Ralph Macchio playing Daniel (famous for his role as in The Outsiders), Pat Morita as Mr. Miyagi (one of the most titular characters in cinema), and Elizabeth Shue (who has made numerous supporting appearances in many films as an adult).  Macchio and Morita are most famous for their respective roles in all three of The Karate Kid films; Morita doing most of his acting work on the small screen for TV episodes as well as TV movies.

In the remake, you have Jaden Smith (his supporting roles in films like The Pursuit of Happyness alongside his father Will Smith, and The Day the Earth Stood Still not withstanding, he's probably most well-known for his inability to act in the M. Night Shyamalan disaster After Earth--even Will Smith couldn't save that piece of crap), Jackie Chan taking the role of Mr. Han (Chan is the most famous Hong Kong international movie star ever, and is famous for countless films for doing all of his own stunt work), and Taraji P. Henson (recently most well-known for her small screen roles in series like Person of Interest and Empire).

And the acting is actually pretty close too.  Morita and Chan perfect their roles as master very well.  Chan, however, I think had a slight advantage due to the surprising dramatic performance that's not typical of his career.  He's usually carefree and energetic as he choreographs all of his fight scenes, quick to include humor in his craft.

But to play Mr. Han was a challenge, I'm sure.  Mr. Han was a emotionally troubled man.  Mr. Miyagi was troubled in his own right; but the story of Mr. Han takes it one step further in being the sole responsible factor in the tragedy that befell him.  And that backstory takes center stage in one particular scene when Dre (Jaden Smith) walks in on a drunk Mr. Han taking a sledgehammer to his car that he keeps in his living room.  My vote for the best scene in the whole movie!

As I stated earlier in the previous section of the screenplay, to center the remake around a 12-year-old rather than a high school senior really took my attention away from the story.  It's not really Smith's fault for that, and he did as well as he could have.  But Smith didn't have to play him as whiny and as arrogant as he did.

WINNER: Tie....too close to call

MUSIC/SCORE: Bill Conti vs. James Horner

Wow, I can't believe it was James Horner!  What a shock!

While I can't, in all fairness, pick the remake in this category just for Horner's name alone, it's hard to choose the original just because...well, it's early 80s music.  Each had it's own use for the music; the original had a more personal touch with classic Japanese instruments in a couple of the pieces whereas the remake used modern hip hop, techno, and rap selections to emphasize the upbeat nature of kung fu.  They even did a Chinese remix of the Gorillaz 'Dirty Harry.'

It's sad that Horner's return to composing the score for this film was foreshadowed by the heavy hip hop soundtrack that was the backdrop for a lot of movie.  I would have enjoyed more of the score myself; certainly with a name like Horner you can make better use of him than put him in the background.

I might have voted for the remake had it not been for that.

WINNER: Original, Bill Conti

The Karate Kid (1984): 

• Rotten Tomatoes: 90% or 6.9/10 average rating
• IMDb.com: 7.2/10 from 115,968 users
• Metacritic: none

The Karate Kid (2010):

• Rotten Tomatoes: 66% or 6.2/10 average rating
• IMDb.com: 6.2/10 from 111,888 users
• Metacritic: 61/100

OVERALL WINNER: Original 1984 The Karate Kid

I have to admit, I didn't expect the critics or viewers to like the remake as much as they did.  I can't really say what I attribute the decent ratings too, although I'm sure it has something to do with the legend Jackie Chan acting in a legendary role in an outstanding way.



But, Chan couldn't carry the whole movie...which he almost did, in my opinion.

Nothing can top the beloved character of Mr. Miyagi and, no matter how difficult his struggles, he never failed to teach young Daniel-san the true meaning of the way of karate.  He did it with such seamless effort and movement, you couldn't help but almost be hypnotized by him every time he was on screen.

Well done, Miyagi.  Be at peace.

A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET (1984) vs. A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET (2010)

Good evening, and Happy Friday the 13th everybody!!

And while we're not talking about Jason Voorhees, the titular killer from that particular horror series, I wanted to pay homage to another horror film great:  Freddy Krueger.  Not only because he's a much more interesting and intriguing character, but for the purposes of this blog, the Friday the 13th movies aren't really remakes....they just keep making more of them as a rebooted series.

So stay awake, readers.  You won't want to die before finishing this one!!

SYNOPSIS (1984): Several people are hunted by a cruel serial killer who kills his victims in their dreams. When the survivors are trying to find the reason for being chosen, the murderer won't lose any chance to kill them as soon as they fall asleep. Source: IMDb.com

DIRECTOR: Wes Craven vs. Samuel Bayer

One quick search on each director's filmography on IMDb.com would tell you in about 5 seconds which one is going to be the winner here.  Chances are, you've heard Wes Craven's name circulating around college dorms and parties as being one of very few kings of the horror movie genre, if not THE king.  While Stephen King is notoriously famous for his writing, so in the same way is Craven for is directing.

So, who's this Samuel Bayer guy?   A nobody....more or less.

2010's Nightmare.... is the only movie that Bayer has directed.  He's mostly done music videos or music DVD documentary specials for several famous artists.  His attempt at directing a movie fell way short though.  He might have done better going with an original screenplay instead of trying to improve--but failing miserably--on an already iconic and beloved horror franchise.  As you will see, his remake got slashed--pun intended--by both critics and audiences.

Perhaps that's why he hasn't attempted another film to this day.  Coincidence?

WINNER: Original, Wes Craven

SCREENPLAY: Wes Craven vs. Wesley Strick and Eric Heisserer

Something pretty noticeable that the remake attempted to do was to flesh out--pun again intended (I could do this all night!)--the plot a bit.  The audience watching the original film is wondering how Freddy is choosing is victims; and while it's explained that the parents of the high school kids killed him, it didn't really explain why then Krueger didn't go after the parents rather than their kids.

The remake explained that better.  However, while it's better for the audience to understand the backstory of the relationship between Krueger and the victims he's killing in the remake, it doesn't necessarily mean that knowledge is better for the character.  You see, in the remake, it's explained that while Krueger was alive, he was the gardener at the preschool where these kids attended.  He would lure the kids down into the basement where he would play with them in a hidden room behind the maintenance room, calling it a "secret cave."  The kids would then tell the parents, and just like in the original movie, the parents killed Freddy by burning him alive in a utility shed.

I like my horror movie antagonists to kill because they're psycho killers who enjoy the act of killing for the sake of killing.  Understanding the backstory of Krueger in the remake just made his pursuits of the victims a bit......creepy.  And creepy in the not-so-scary good way he should be creepy.

Something else the remake failed to do.  I never got the real sense that Freddy was a supernatural being.  He's supposed to be dead; but the way Bayer directed it and the way the screenplay was written, they failed to show him as anything more than just a normal serial killer.

Another thing worth noting is the tension and the build-up that the original movie used.  The imagery was truly terrifying.  Craven and his team and his directorial skill created the illusion of terror in the imagery alone, whereas the remake relied much too heavily on the "jump scare" to get audiences to jump out of their seats.  When you know a jump scare is coming, it kinda makes it difficult to immerse yourself in the film and truly be terrified.

WINNER: Original, Wes Craven

CAST/ACTING: Robert Englund, Heather Langenkamp, Johnny Depp, and Ronee Blakley vs. Jackie Earle Haley, Rooney Mara, and Kyle Gallner

The original had one of the most recognizable names in Hollywood today in Depp; but by the time Nightmare.... was made, he was just getting his start.  In fact, his role as Glen Lantz was his very first gig.  And Langenkamp had only been in one other movie before; and her role made her famous and recognizable as she was in several of the sequels.

And let's not forget Englund, who played the prankster serial killer.  A large majority of his work in acting is on the small screen; but his large performance as Freddy Krueger dominates.  Englund IS Krueger.

So it took some guts for Jackie Earle Haley to try and fill his shoes.  You might recognize his name, or his face, but you'll definitely recognize his voice as being the man behind the mask as the Watchman anti-hero, Rorschach.  And Rooney Mara and Kyle Gallner had some lead acting roles in some minor films, and Mara would go on to be most well-known for her work in The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo.

So as far as casting, I think the remake edges out the original because of the early starts of the young cast's careers.  The acting is definitely better in the remake, mainly because of the young actor's previous acting ability.

CAST/ACTING WINNER: Remake

MUSIC/SCORE: Charles Bernstein vs. Steve Jablonsky

As in previous films that we've discussed, if the music doesn't really help in creating the mood that the movie is supposed to convey with its imagery, then the music isn't doing its job.  It's not supposed to distract from the film; but if it's done properly, the audience will feel that much more connected with the film to heighten their experience.

That being said, the original wins in this category.  Not only does the remake fail to create the same kind of tension in its imagery where the original excelled, the music didn't make up for the lack of tension due to its direction by creating such heart-wrenching sounds and music.  The remake, overall, was very forgettable and lack-luster at best.

MUSIC/SCORE WINNER: Original, Charles Bernstein

A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984):

• Rotten Tomatoes:  94% or 7.7/10 average rating
• IMDb.com: 7.5/10 from 138,468 users
• Metacritic: 78/100

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010):

• Rotten Tomatoes: 15% or 3.7/10 average rating
• IMDb.com: 5.2/10 from 71,491 users
• Metacritic: 35/100

OVERALL WINNER:  Original 1984 A Nightmare on Elm Street

No contest on this, folks.  If you listened to my podcast interview with Israel Sanchez in the post prior to this one, you might agree with both of us that it really takes an intriguing story and in-depth character development to really carry a film and make it great.  This movie is prime example.

While you may opt to watch the remake anyway if you're in the camp that think that because modern movies have better technology that it will makesa film like this seem more realistic.  But you'd be wrong.  While there are a couple scenes in the original where the effects are campy and completely fake, the rest of the movie makes up for it in regards to its realism.

Now, if you're still awake, go watch the four sequels to the original.

I plan to.

After I attempt to get some shut-eye.

Podcast Interview with Israel Sanchez

Take a listen to my first podcast with author and blogger Israel Sanchez, giving us insight to what he considers to be the cornerstones of great film making. We discuss favorite films, favorite directors, and touch on the nuances between original and remade movies that distinguish them from the rest of the pack.

Audacity Podcast Test

With the recent Guy Fawkes Day last week, I continued my annual tradition of watching 'V for Vendetta,' based on the comic book of a vigilante anti-hero (codenamed 'V') who exposes the British government and frees the oppressed society from the fear that their government, through a series of tragic events, has used to control them.  Another very memorable quote from the movie is "People shouldn't be afraid of their government.  The government should be afraid of its people!"

THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL (1951) vs. THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL (2008)

Apocalyptic movies are a specific genre that are tremendously exciting due to human's curiosity with the end times.  As much as we try to extend life as long as possible, we are fascinated by the end of it and how and when it will occur.  Some apocalyptic films, as in this case, focus on the science fiction possibilities of how people think the world will end while others see the world succumbing to a more natural cause.  Whatever the disaster, you can be sure that these movies will captivate audiences until the end of time.

SYNOPSIS (2008): A remake of the 1951 classic sci-fi film about an alien visitor and his giant robot counterpart who visit Earth. Source: IMDb.com

DIRECTOR: Robert Wise vs. Scott Derrickson

When just comparing the directors to each other, it's pretty clear who the winner is.  In addition, when you compare the director's style in each of the movies, it's a clear winner also (to me at least) who is more deserving of the accolades.

Wise had numerous films under his direction by the time Earth... was released.  Derrickson, on the other hand, had only one, The Exorcism of Emily Rose.  By another stark contrast, Wise went on to direct two of the most well known musicals: The Sound of Music and West Side Story whereas Derrickson stayed in the horror genre with films like Sinister and Deliver Us From Evil, which received slightly better ratings from IMDb.com than his sci-fi film we're featuring here.

Wise's directorial style in the original was also superior to the remake's.  In one particular scene when the main protagonist, the alien Klaatu, is introduced to the rest of the main characters, he is found standing in the shadows watching them view the unfolding newscast of the spaceship landing on the television.  It offers a heightened sense of tension as the audience doesn't quite understand Klaatu's intentions and is subsequently riveted to what's about to happen.

The remake was over-saturated with special effects that didn't help hold the flimsy story line together.  I think Derrickson could have utilized more fear-inducing filming techniques to draw the audience further into the picture instead of basically saying "just sit there bored in your chair waiting for the next big effect to try to make it all worth it, but it'll ultimately fail anyway."

The decision to film the original in black-and-white also helped the nuance of the film, even though technology existed to make it color if the director so chose that route, and made it appear more "alien."

WINNER: Original, Robert Wise

SCREENPLAY: Edmund H. North vs. David Scarpa

Often, movies often reflect the moral, political, or social issues of the time, and this film is no different.  The greatest different between the original Earth... and the remake is the shift from world peace to environmental awareness.

In the 1951 original, Klaatu's warning was the effect of human's nature to develop weapons to destroy each other, and therefore putting all other planets at risk of war.  This threat of destruction to other planets is what Klaatu, acting as a representative guardian for the other species, says needs to change or else Earth and its inhabitants will be exterminated.

In the remake, however, it dumbs down the idea of inter-galaxy peace and turns it into a save the planet because humans are destroying it.  The idea in the remake being that the humans will be exterminated for the sake of 'Mother Earth' as opposed to humans in the original being given an ultimatum to live in peace or be destroyed for the sake of the survival of other species in the universe.

Also something I found troublesome in the remake was, toward the end of the film, Klaatu is emotionally changed in his quest to eliminate the human race based on the tears of a small child.  After seeing the child's breakdown, he suddenly switches his course of action and says "You have shown me that you can change" and sets out to help reverse the events set in motion to destroy the planet.

WHAT?!

After most of the movie trying to show Klaatu as an unsympathetic alien representing the planet earth, you want me to believe that he suddenly cares about the human race because of one child?!  Not only that, but why would a member of the alien race care so much about Earth (as opposed to, say, his own planet) that he would be sent to warn them to change or die?

As I said, a flimsy story line, at best.

WINNER: Original, Edmund H. North

CAST/ACTING: Michael Rennie, Patricia Neal, Hugh Marlowe vs. Keanu Reeves, Jennifer Connelly, Kathy Bates

This may be the first time that, while the remake did have a better cast than the original, it actually hurt the film rather than made it better.  The main actors, and even several of the supporting cast (like Jon Hamm from Mad Men, John Cleese from the British Monty Python troupe, and Jaden Smith, son of famous actor Will Smith), were so recognizable that it deterred from the story being plausible.  Reeves, most famous for his role as Neo in The Matrix trilogy, is not known as a great actor by any stretch and didn't contribute

Because the original didn't have a lot of well-known actors, it helped the actors to make the characters their own and not detract from telling its own story without the audience having preconceived notions of who they thought the actors were trying to portray.  Not to mention that Rennie's interpretation of Klaatu was ten times more believable and sincere than Reeves more robotic and seemingly forced portrayal.  He appeared very stiff and

CAST/ACTING WINNER: Original

MUSIC/SCORE: Bernard Herrmann vs. Tyler Bates

The music in neither film really struck me as outstanding and essential to the telling of the story and eliciting emotion in the audience.  So if I had to choose, I would go with the remake just because modern films typically utilize more music than older films do.

WINNER: Remake, Tyler Bates

The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951):

• Rotten Tomatoes: 94% or 8.1/10 average rating 
• IMDb.com: 7.8/10 from 61,661 users
• Metacritic: none

The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008):

• Rotten Tomatoes: 21% or 4.1/10 average rating
• IMDb.com: 5.5/10 from 133,886 users
• Metacritic: 40/100

OVERALL WINNER: Original 1951 The Day the Earth Stood Still

While one could argue that these films weren't technically of the apocalyptic nature, the end of the world is implied by Klaatu's warning to the inhabitants of Earth.  By the end of the original, you're left with the cliffhanger of wondering whether or not the human race will choose to heed the warnings.  By the end of the remake, it's pretty clear that the planet is spared with absolutely no real basis for such a decision other than the alien witnessing the tears of a child and the compassion from his step-mother.

Weak.  Very weak.

Almost halfway through!!

Hello, readers!!  I can't tell you how excited I've been to write about these movies for you!  I know I've always been a movie geek--and if you're still here, that means you must be too!  But writing about most of these movies that I had seen even before I chose this topic to blog about, I'm so much more enthusiastic about the films that I almost just have to stop writing and watch them all over again.

If only I had that kind of time. *sigh*

It is true that--because I'm in my middle-30s, being married for over 7 years, and being a working (both in school and in my job) father to a wonderfully sweet 3-1/2-year-old--my time is not really my own anymore.  My wife would testify to that in a New York minute.

So, let's recap.  Here's a linked list of all the movies we've covered up to this point:

• Psycho
• Gone in 60 Seconds
• The Italian Job
• The Phantom of the Opera
• King Kong
• The Longest Yard 
• The Producers

So, the genres represented are (1) horror, (2) action, (1) musical, (1) drama, and (2) comedy.

The running tally of overall winners are: Original - (2); Remake - (3); Ties/Reader's Choice - (2)

As we near the halfway point in just another week or two, you probably have been noticing a little pattern as to how the blog posts have been organized.

I have decided that it would be best to organize the movies I blog about in chronological order from the earliest to the latest remake.  For example, the Psycho remake was released in 1998, Gone in 60 Seconds in 2000, etc.  Why?  For good reason, as a matter of fact.

What good would my blog be if I started writing about the latest remakes that have come out FIRST?!  Would you even pay attention until the end when I post my 20th and final blog....critiquing a movie that was remade likely before you could even comprehend what a movie was?

I thought not.  I know I wouldn't!

Here is a few movies that will wet your cinematic appetite in the upcoming weeks as we take a look at those remakes that have been released in just the last six or seven years:

• A Nightmare on Elm Street
• True Grit
• Total Recall
• Godzilla

Seeing as how I was more than generous to give you 40% of the films we're about to discuss, I think I'll keep you in the dark on the rest.

Thank you for walking through these amazing films.  Okay, maybe not all of them so amazing.  But that's the wonder of cinema; and the reason why you shouldn't take at face value what a professional movie critic says, or even online statistical websites like RottenTomatoes.com or IMDb.com.

Because no one can tell you what a good movie is.  Other people are not you!  Sometimes, you just have to take the risk of seeing a piss-poor film in hopes that you'll actually find a gem that you wouldn't otherwise have taken notice of.

That's precisely what happened to me when I began my quest to view every single one of the 1001 Movies list I've been citing from.  In actuality, I've only been using the 2011 edition.  Currently, in the Topeka & Shawnee County Public Library, they have three editions: one also from 2013 and one just acquired a few weeks ago from 2015.  Each publication has its own list, with some from the previous editions not mentioned as well as newer films that were released after the previous edition.

So, if you are curious to check them out and try to see all of them as well, the link below will take you to the online list so you don't have to go to the library to check out the hardcopy (or be put on a waiting list for weeks because someone checked it out right before you).

1001 (and more!) Movies You Must See Before You Die

Now, go out out there and immerse yourself in more movies!!

EXTRA:
I know it's not movie related, but because it's my blog and I can post whatever I want......

Because the premiere episode for season 6 aired tonight, here's the epic trailer for what you're about to witness.  For all The Walking Dead fans reading:

Stay alive, my friends!!  There's more movie battles to come!!

THE PRODUCERS (1967) vs. THE PRODUCERS (2005)

Yes, the second comedy is already upon us!  I was seriously considering doing A Death at a Funeral instead, but after looking at the original being a British comedy in 2007 and the American remake only released three years later, I decided against it.  Instead, I chose yet another one of the 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die films in Mel Brooks' widely popular original comedy.

And if you were wondering, unlike my previous post on The Longest Yard, this one is clearly a comedy in all its glory!

SYNOPSIS: Producers Max Bialystock and Leo Bloom make money by producing a sure-fire flop. Source: IMDb.com

DIRECTOR: Mel Brooks vs. Susan Stroman

I don't believe it.  This battle really isn't fair at all.  Not because Stroman is a woman; but because 2005 The Producers is the only film she's ever directed!  She's done much of her work on the stage as both actress and choreographer, and is actually responsible for the record-making 12 Tony Awards for her theatrical stage version of this movie.

Mel Brooks, by contrast, is one of many beloved Hollywood directors with most of his movies considered as cult classics in today's terms.  Even though he would only direct a dozen films himself, 1967 The Producers was the first. Other movies of his include Blazing Saddles, Young Frankenstein, and Spaceballs.

WINNER: Original, Mel Brooks

SCREENPLAY: Mel Brooks vs. himself and Thomas Meehan

Clear winner on this one too.  Not much can be said when you're solely responsible for both screenplays.  While the remake got actress Uma Thurman more involved as a developing character than the original did, not much changed otherwise.

WINNER: Original, Mel Brooks

CAST/ACTING: Zero Mostel, Gene Wilder, & Lee Meredith vs. Nathan Lane, Matthew Broderick, & Uma Thurman

While Mostel starred in a dozen movies already by the time the original Producers was released, Wilder cast as Leo Bloom was only his second starring big screen role.  Which he did exceptionally well, according to the Oscar nomination he received for his portrayal of the wildly eccentric accountant.

Broderick would win a Hollywood Film Award for his version of Leo Bloom.  While clearly not as prestigious an award as an Oscar, I preferred Broderick's character more than Wilder's.  Wilder's voice was just too shrill whenever his character would get too overwhelmed by the implications of what he had gotten in to with Bialystock.  Wilder portrayed him as shy yet loud and obnoxious during his fits of anxiety, whereas Broderick portrayed him as a much calmer--but not any less peculiar.

Brooks' original film had a great supporting cast of characters as well, from the director of 'Springtime for Hitler,' the sure-fire flop that was certain to fail, the German-born Franz Liebkind who is found to be the playwright of 'Springtime...,' and the flamboyant stage actor cast as the lead in the fictional play, Adolf Hitler.

The remake's supporting cast included big names like Will Ferrell as Franz Liebkind and Jon Lovitz.

Like so many other films that we've already discussed, it appears the winners go the same route as the ones before:

CAST WINNER: Remake; ACTING WINNER: Original

SCORE/MUSIC: John Morris vs. Glen Kelly

Since most of the music comes from the musical within the fictional play 'Springtime for Hitler,' I would have to give the nod to the original in this category as well.  The remake might have had a bigger production; but as far as the creativity and its use to tell the story, the remake just had to duplicate the original.

WINNER: Original, John Morris

The Producers (1967):

• Rotten Tomatoes: 90% or 8.0/10 average rating
• IMDb.com: 7.7/10 from 37,608 users
• Metacritic: 97/100 

The Producers (2005):

• Rotten Tomatoes: 51% or 5.8/10 average rating
• IMDb.com: 6.4/10 from 34,002 users
• Metacritic: 52/100

OVERALL WINNER: Original 1967 The Producers

I'll be honest....I did not see this one coming.  I watched the remake years ago and remember it being very funny, creative, and entertaining.  It wasn't until a couple years ago when I came across Schneider's book 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die, 2011, that included the original did I realize I aught to check it out too.

Wilder's shrill and obnoxious portrayal of Bloom, and the disgust of having to look upon Mostel's character's comb-over, was enough to turn me off.  I much prefer the familiarity of Lane, Broderick, Thurman, and Ferrell in the remake.

But give credit to where credit is due:  Mel Brooks.  It was his hand in this picture, his FIRST picture, that set himself up for career success.

And it all started with a satire play about a gay Adolf Hitler.  Genius.  Pure genius!

THE LONGEST YARD (1974) vs. THE LONGEST YARD (2005)

 

Our first of two comedies that we'll be taking a look at this fall pits action-drama star Burt Reynolds against comedy legend Adam Sandler in the edgy role of Paul Crewe, an ex-pro football star turned convict and then forced by the warden to put a football team together to essentially be tackling dummies for the semi-pro team who double as the prison's cruel and intimidating guards.

But what the warden doesn't realize is that there's honor among THESE thieves as they put their lives on the gridiron line to get the respect they know they deserve.

Let the game begin!

DIRECTOR: Robert Aldrich vs. Peter Segal

Robert Aldrich entered the film industry in 1941 when he got a job as a production clerk at RKO Pictures. He soon worked his way up to script clerk, then became an assistant director, a production manager and an associate producer. He began writing and directing for TV series in the early 1950s, and directed his first feature in 1953. Source: IMDb.com 

Peter Segal, on the other hand, began his directorial career making TV movies until he decided to take on the third installment of the Naked Gun trilogy with Leslie Nielson.  He continued his string of comedies working with Chris Farley, David Spade, and Eddie Murphy, ultimately teaming up with comedy superstar Adam Sandler for three consecutive films in the early 2000s, 50 First Dates, Anger Management, and The Longest Yard.

While I admit to not seeing any other movie of Aldrich's, his longer track record of Hollywood films far surpasses that of Segal's.  Not to mention that most of Segal's comedies are funny, but mediocre.  There isn't much to make you want to watch his movies again, creating a long-lasting impression....unless of course you consider the three Segal films that Sandler stars in better than an immediate string of films that starts to feel almost like Sandler has overstayed his welcome on the big screen.

One of the main differences between the two films in question that made me like the original better was the fact that the characters in the first film weren't just one-dimensional muscular meatheads.  In fact, it is the guards and not the convicts that are the stereotypical, steroid-popping "thugs."  I suppose it's good that they are because you aren't supposed to like them; you're supposed to root for the convicts.

WINNER: Original, Robert Aldrich

SCREENPLAY: Tracy Keenan Wynn vs. Sheldon Turner

The original film won a Golden Globe as being 1974's Best Picture in a comedy or musical.  I wonder, though, how anyone could have classified it as such.  While it had elements of light comedic scenes to break up the tense moments between Crewe and the warden in the bleak setting of a prison, I viewed the original as more of a drama than anything.  I only found myself chuckling a couple times, where the remake had me genuinely laughing many times.

The two screenplays tell the exact same story.  The remake even reuses several lines of dialog from the original as well as using a couple of the original classic rock songs.  The one thing the remake does the best is fleshing out the characters a bit more, making the relationship between them seem like a more natural bond than the original's makeshift team.

Despite the original film winning Best Picture, I think it's more of a statement to how the original movie compared to the other nominees up for the award at that time, not a reflection of how much better it was than the remake more than 30 years later.  In fact, the remake was much more entertaining.  The setting felt more like a prison in the remake, the revenge factor more plausible because of the focus on character development, and the outcome more satisfying.

Some cool facts about the remake:

• I'm always a sucker for any big Hollywood film giving a shout out to anything Kansas related.  So when one of the side characters trying out for the convict team mentions that he played football at Kansas State, to which Crewe is surprised and says "Yeah?  With Coach Schneider?!," the other character says "No, Kansas State Penitentiary."  In the original film, the school/prison was Oklahoma State.
• Chris Rock has the pleasure of reusing a popular one-liner from the movie Friday, one that Chris Tucker's character tells a neighborhood thug that loses a fight to Ice Cube's character: "You just got knocked the f--k out!"
• There is blatant product placement with McDonald's, as a supporting character's nickname is "Cheeseburger Eddie," played by the infamous Terry Crews, because he's always peddling their merchandise to other inmates.

WINNER: Remake, Sheldon Turner

CAST/ACTING: Burt Reynolds, Eddie Albert, & Ed Lauter vs. Adam Sandler, James Cromwell, & William Fechtner

The one thing I've found most common between older movies and newer is the willingness to cast A-list actors as supporting actors to give the movie more depth, to help the lead-role actor carry the film.  When movies were first popular, and apparently movies being made into the early 70s in this case, followed that same pattern.  Older movies loved to focus on the lead actor(s) because, after all, they were the biggest stars during their time.

Burt Reynolds was excellent as the gritty Crewe, turning to alcohol and rebellion after he became "washed up" as a pro-football star and enjoyed making a scene and causing trouble.  His character states in the movie that he has a sense of humor.  But as I said earlier, people don't see Reynolds and immediately think "comedian."  Most of his movies are action-dramas.

Reynolds was out of his element a little bit.  And so was Eddie Albert who played the warden.  Albert was most well-known for his leading role in the television series Green Acres.  Instead of playing a likable farmer, he played his role as the sadistic ruler of the prison ward extremely well.  Bernadette Peters, more famous for her roles in the theater, plays the warden's secretary and even Richard Kiel, who is most commonly recognized as the Bond villian Jaws from The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker and would later star alongside Sandler in Happy Gilmore, got a spot with the supporting cast as a lovable, very large and inhumanly strong offensive lineman.

All things being equal, the actors playing the lead characters in the remake did just as well.  Sandler, most often cast as quirky yet annoyingly likable, dipped his toes into his dark side without slipping so far away from his comedic background that it didn't appear unnatural.

But Sandler had something that Reynolds did not:  a supporting cast whose relationships proved invaluable to the progression of the plot.

With fellow A-list actors and comedians like Chris Rock, Cloris Leachman (who was ridiculously hilarious in her small role as the warden's secretary), and Tracy Morgan as the leader of the small band of gay convicts.  Also, the rapper Nelly plays a key role in the film as does former NFL Dallas Cowboy Michael Irvin.  Even former WWE/WWF superstars "Stone Cold" Steve Austin and Goldberg have a chance to get in on the action.

While it could be argued that the acting isn't better in the remake, you can't say they didn't pack it full of well-known stars.  As is true to form in every Adam Sandler movie, even Rob Schneider shows up in a small role at the end, restating his famous one-liner from Waterboy: "YOU CAN DOOOO EET!"

CAST WINNER: Remake; ACTING WINNER: Original

SCORE/MUSIC: Frank de Vol vs. Teddy Castellucci

Save for only a couple classic rock songs punctuated by Lynyrd Skynyrd's "Saturday Night Special," the music in the original is almost non-existent.

The remake clearly wins with its use of combined hip-hop, techno, and classic rock tracks to get you pumped up when the football action on the field begins and the battle between the guards and convicts is accentuated because of the accompanying soundtrack.

Landslide victory here.

WINNER: Remake, Teddy Castellucci

The Longest Yard (1974):

• Rotten Tomatoes: 81% or 7.0/10 average rating
• IMDb.com: 7.1/10 from 12,497 users
• Metacritic: none

The Longest Yard (2005):

• Rotten Tomatoes: 31% or 4.8/10 average rating (although 62% of viewers liked it)
• IMDb.com: 6.4/10 from 120,136 users
• Metacritic: 48/100

OVERALL WINNER: Remake 2005 The Longest Yard

Another case, just like the last entry with King Kong, the remake is the ultimate winner despite having better rankings on both rottentomatoes.com and IMDb.com.  It really came down to the entertainment factor, and I just found myself yawning more than laughing during the 2-hour original film.

Perhaps if Reynolds would have kept his mustache.  That's one helluva fine 'stache.

Even though the original won Best Picture for a comedy, the remake was funnier.  Do you agree?  Comment below and let's see what the consensus is!

KING KONG (1933) vs. KING KONG (2005)

Before Godzilla was heralded as the King of Monsters, there was another king.  King Kong.  And his reign was terrifically menacing!!  No other introduction is necessary.

 

Like our previous entry, The Phantom of the Opera, there are multiple versions of this beloved movie monster.  But again, we're focusing on the first and most recent films (the only ones that matter in my opinion).

SYNOPSIS: It is the classic tale of "nature vs. civilization" as the city folk travel to an exotic and isolated island to shoot a movie but come face-to-face with the local terror, King Kong.  In hopes of bringing him back to New York City to make an astoundingly huge profit off the beast, the movie crew embarks on a new mission to capture the gigantic gorilla.  Forced out of his element and paraded through the city only to be shackled as a circus show, King Kong cannot be held captive and terrorizes New York City until the final climax atop the Empire State Building.

DIRECTOR: Merian C. Cooper/Ernest B. Schoedsack vs. Peter Jackson

Although Cooper and Schoedsack were uncredited for their work on the original film, they worked closely together on two other films.  Cooper's directorial career was short-lived while Schoedsack went on to direct other classics about the lovable ape, most notably Son of Kong and Mighty Joe Young (which got its own remake in 1998).


Peter Jackson on the other hand has made a much bigger name for himself.  Most well-known for his two recent epic trilogies The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, in between the two major projects he found time to direct a different kind of epic.

Cooper and Schoedsack together brought Hollywood to its feet with the groundbreaking original movie, made famous for the film's use of modeling and the stop-motion technique.  Stop-motion photography is the process of posing inanimate objects in certain positions, snapping a photo, and then moving the models ever so slightly, and snapping another photo.  This process is quite tedious.  The individual photos are then pieced together and run through a projector to make it appear that the models are moving.

Future movies owe it to the original King Kong for creating this very unique style of film-making.  Stop-animation is commonly used nowadays for movies using clay figures, like in James and the Giant Peach, Wallace and Gromit, and used by director Tim Burton in The Nightmare Before Christmas and Corpse Bride.

Despite all the important groundwork the original laid out for future films, I have to give the nod to the remake.  Jackson's use of heavy CGI didn't distract from the "realness" of the film at all.  Except for the scene where the movie crew is caught amidst a brontosaurus stampede, which is so ridiculously fake as this clip shows,

the use of computers was so detailed and smooth that you forget it's only a computer simulation (albeit when it's not mixed with live actors, *sigh*).  Jackson also included in his version the same epic showdown between King Kong and a T-Rex.  Not just one...but THREE!

If that doesn't pump you up, I don't know what will.

WINNER: Remake, Peter Jackson

SCREENPLAY: James Creelman & Ruth Rose vs. Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, & Peter Jackson

Because both films used ideas and concepts from Merian C. Cooper and Edgar Wallace, two instrumental figures who conceived the idea for the story, I have to cast my vote for the original.

One thing the screenplay did exceptionally well for the remake was to showcase the close bond and the smitten infatuation King Kong has with Ann Darrow.  Actually, it might have showcased that bond so well that it becomes a bit creepy by the end to see the leading female character lovingly gaze into the eyes of the giant ape.  It is clearly a compassionate look as Darrow sees Kong as her protector, not a romantic stare that one may have for a lover.  Ewww, gross.

One thing the original screenplay did well was transforming King Kong from a feared antagonist on Skull Island to a sympathetic protagonist by the film's conclusion, causing you to feel compassion for the creature when Kong sacrifices his life in order to protect the life of Darrow.  As the final quote from the end of the film suggests, "'Twas beauty killed the beast."

WINNER: Original

CAST/ACTING: Fay Wray, Robert Armstrong, & Bruce Cabot vs. Naomi Watts, Jack Black, & Adrian Brody

No contest here; the remake wins by a landslide.  Not only for the A-list actors it cast, but for the one actor that you DON'T see.

By now, everyone should know the name Andy Serkis.  He is likely the best and most famous actor for the motion-capture technique, namely for his work as Gollum in Jackson's earlier mentioned work The Lord of the Rings and later for his role as Caesar in the modern reboot of The Planet of the Apes.

Andy Serkis portrays King Kong, which captures the human-like emotion so well it translates flawlessly on the big screen.  Because there's an actual actor behind the eyes and the movements the giant beast, there is no way that a simple stop-motion character can capture the same emotion.


WINNER: Remake

SCORE/MUSIC: Max Steiner vs. James Newton Howard

The music that is used in the original is good.  But not quite good enough.  I mentioned before how crucial the motion-capture was in projecting more emotion out of Kong in the remake, but the music added to that brings out full circle the emotion that the movie is meant to convey.


WINNER: Remake, James Newton Howard

King Kong (1993):

• Rotten Tomatoes: 98% or 9.0/10 average rating
• IMDb.com: 8.0/10 from 61,623 users
• Metacritic: none

King Kong (2005):

• Rotten Tomatoes: 84% or 7.7/10 average rating
• IMDb.com: 7.3/10 from 296,187 users
• Metacritic: 81/100

OVERALL WINNER: Remake 2005 King Kong

While the original is also one of the 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die included in the book by Steven Jay Schneider, 2011, and should definitely not be missed, the remake gets the final vote for me.

I think the only reason why the original 1933 King Kong recorded such a high rating from both Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb.com was the pioneering techniques of stop-motion and modeling.  While the original is considered a classic, and rightfully so, I enjoyed watching the remake so much more.  Not because of the computer-generated Kong and huge green-screen set pieces; that's not what entirely makes a film great to me.  It was Serkis' performance of the titular character that gave the remake its personality that ultimately was the deciding factor in my decision.

Something the original just couldn't capture.

Do you agree?  Whether you do or not, you can now enjoy watching everything wrong with King Kong, brought to you by one of my favorite YouTube channels 'CinemaSins.'  This video will either confirm your disagreement against my vote for this entry, or entertain the agreement of it.  Either way, it's definitely a channel you--as a fan of movies like myself--should definitely check out.

Enjoy!  Next up, our first of two comedies: The Longest Yard.