Sunday, September 27, 2015

GONE IN 60 SECONDS (1974) vs. GONE IN SIXTY SECONDS (2000)

 


(laughing) "I almost had you."
"Had me?! (grinning) It don't matter if you win by an inch or a mile.  Winning's winning."

While I'm not writing about the movie The Fast and the Furious, this interaction between Brian O'Conner and Dom Toretto after the movie's first drag race can be used to describe how close this "race" really was between the original Gone in 60 Seconds (from here on out we'll just title it Gone...) and the remake.  Now, let's line 'em up and see how they do.

SYNOPSIS (1974): Insurance investigator Maindrian Pace and his team lead double-lives as unstoppable car thieves. When a South American drug lord pays Pace to steal 48 cars for him, all but one, a 1973 Ford Mustang, are in the bag. As Pace prepares to rip-off the fastback, codenamed "Eleanor", in Long Beach, he is unaware that his boss has tipped off the police after a business dispute. Detectives are waiting and pursue Pace through five cities as he desperately tries to get away. Source: IMDb.com

SYNOPSIS (2000): A retired master car thief must come back to the industry and steal 50 cars with his crew in one night to save his brother's life. Source: IMDb.com

DIRECTOR: H.B.Halicki vs. Dominic Sena

For Halicki's directorial debut, he could have definitely done a worse job than Gone... He not only directed the movie, but cast himself as the lead actor who hashes the plan to steal the cars he needs and drives the infamous "Eleanor" in the final chase scene.

Also, since this was Halicki's first film with an independent production, he put a lot of his own money into the film, purchasing all of the police cars that were crashed and using nearly all of his own vehicles for civilian cars that were in close proximity to the final chase scene.  You have to admire a man who wants so desperately to see his vision realized on the big screen to put his own money into it.

Not only did he invest his own wealth into the film, he put his own life in real danger.  Twice, he got into real accidents while driving "Eleanor."  He clipped a Cadillac who had missed his mark that spun the Mustang, causing Halicki to hit a light pole at 85 mph!  And during the big jump, one that reached 30 feet high and clearing 128 feet, the director compacted 10 vertebrae and--according to the director of photography--never seemed to walk the same.  That's dedication to your craft that is hard to measure!

You can find out more inside trivia facts of the original film here, as well as a list of all the cars the characters steal.

Sena, meanwhile, before his remake of Gone... was released in 2000, had only directed one other film.  He did, however, have experience directing several music videos--mainly for Janet Jackson.  His work on his sophomore project is likely his most well-known.  He kept directing but, in my opinion, Gone... was his best work.  The only other movie that created significant buzz was Swordfish, released just a year later.

I've gotta give the nod to Halicki on this one.  His film had a gritty, more realistic feel to the movie where the remake relied a little too much on CGI to make the chase scenes come across as more exciting, even though the main stars were professionally trained as stunt drivers and did most of their own stunts.

It would have been nice, though, to see what kind of career Halicki would end up having in Hollywood. Tragically, Halicki died on Aug. 20, 1989 in a car crash during filming a sequel to Gone.

At the time the 1974 film was released, it held the record for the most cars crashed: 93 total.  Six years later, the first Blues Brothers film would break that record at 103.  However, Halicki reigned victor after all with his second directorial film The Junkman in 1982 by totaling more than 150 vehicles, only surpassed by more recent films Fast Five, The Matrix: Reloaded, and Transformers: Dark of the Moon. Read the blog that outlines the top 11 movies that killed the most cars.

WINNER: Original, H.B. Halicki

SCREENPLAY: H.B. Halicki vs. Scott Rosenberg

While Halicki wrote, starred, and directed the original, I feel the film lacked a coherent screenplay.  Halicki outlined main script points to progress the plot but a lot of the minor dialog was adlibbed by the supporting cast.

The remake had a better plot.  While still a bit far-fetched, at least the script for Sena's Gone... gave the characters a more urgent "do-or-die" reason for stealing the cars: to save the life of the main character's, Memphis Reines (Nicolas Cage), younger brother, Kit (Giovanni Ribisi), who had gotten in too deep in the business of boosting cars and was essentially held hostage.

Not only was the plot more clearly defined, the dialog between the characters gave them personality and gave the movie a lighter tone by injecting a lot of humor and one-liners that are quotable to this day. During the viewing of Halicki's Gone..., I kept getting confused as to what was actually happening because the plot and dialog were so convoluted and unclear I often found myself thinking "When do we get to the big chase scene?"

The remake also did a better job of showing more of the cars that the main characters were stealing.  The original only had a few scenes, one in particular that showed Halicki's character walking through the parking garage past all the cars that his team had already stolen to get to "Eleanor."  You can find the list of the cars stolen in the remake here, as well as more trivia facts.

WINNER: Remake, Scott Rosenberg

CAST/ACTING: H.B. Halicki, Marion Busia, Jerry Daugirda vs. Nicolas Cage, Giovanni Ribisi, Angelina Jolie

There is no "game of inches" on this one; the remake is the clear winner...and more than by just a mile too!  The original had a very small cast with no reason to have more due to the fact that there was no screenplay and hardly any dialog between the characters.  It was evident that Halicki wanted to make a movie starring the cars.  In that regard, he succeeded everyone's expectations.

The remake gives homage to Halicki, but the large cast of interesting supporting characters--played by the likes of Scott Cain, Will Patton, Delroy Lindo and Timothy Olyphant as the detectives determined to take Memphis down, the great Robert Duvall as the ring leader, and Vinnie Jones as "Sphinx"--shows that a lot of careful attention was given to mold a compelling story around all the characters to further the appeal of the cars themselves.

WINNER: Remake

SCORE/MUSIC: Ronald Halicki/Philip Kachaturian vs. Trevor Rabin

While the original didn't have terrible music, I feel like it could have been used more to set the tone for the viewing audience.  Looking back, the music was completely forgettable and was in essence background noise for what you were really interested in: fast, flashy cars speeding away from the cops!

From the opening credits of the remake, playing the smooth and steady techno-rock beat of Moby's "Flower" as the camera cuts between old photos of the main characters and car memorabilia gives you a bit of backstory even before the movie gets off the starting block while getting your heart pumped up for seeing some ridiculously awesome automobiles.  The opening song prepares you for a cool, exciting ride that doesn't let up!

Other songs that were in the remake that gave it more flavor included War's "Low Rider" and "Busy Child" by The Crystal Method, just to name two.  Even when the screen goes black and the ending credits roll to The Cult's "Painted on My Heart," you're still feeling the pulse-pounding energy of what you just watched!

WINNER: Remake, Trevor Rabin

Gone in 60 Seconds (1974)
Gone in Sixty Seconds (2000)
  • Rotten Tomatoes: 24% or 4.4/10 average
  • IMDb: 6.5/10 from 205,164 users
  • Metacritic: 35/100
OVERALL WINNER: Remake 2000 Gone in Sixty Seconds



Like I stated before, the original has the realism that some movie-goers prefer.  However, the lack of a screenplay and the small cast really hurt the picture for viewers that want more out of their experience than a long car chase.  The remake has an interesting cast of characters that you can relate to--and root for--as they attempt to steal 50 cars in one night!  The homage the later film makes to the original by keeping its star ("Eleanor") the center. The realistic car chase in the original is the only thing that made it a contender against the remake.

Unlike our first film, Pyscho, I would definitely watch both films, especially if you're a gearhead.  But if I were a betting man, I'd gamble that you enjoyed watching the newer film in its entirety but fast-forwarded to the final chase scene in the original after trying to stay awake through the first 30 minutes.  Seriously, the final big chase scene in the original is the complete second half of the film!

If you base your desire to watch one and not the other solely by going off of Rotten Tomatoes' or IMDb.com's ratings, it'd be really hard to choose.  Which is why I decided to include Gone in 60 Seconds in this list and perhaps convince you either way by sharing my opinions as a fan of movies.

Until next time.

Sunday, September 20, 2015

PSYCHO (1960) vs. PYSCHO (1998)





 “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”  You could tag this famous phrase on just about everything to describe why you didn’t change a thing from the original concept.  This couldn’t be more true than for the first entry in our list, Psycho.

SYNOPSIS: A Phoenix secretary steals a large sum of money from her employer’s client, goes on the run and checks into a remote motel run by a young man under the domination of his mother. Source: IMDb.com

DIRECTOR: Alfred Hitchcock vs. Gus Van Sant

The original movie was directed in 1960 by legendary director Alfred Hitchcock, famously recognized for his superb story-telling--as well as his rotund profile--particularly in the murder mystery genre.  He built up quite a resume of well-known films under his direction by this time, but Psycho stands out as a breakthrough film by showing the mass audience a different kind of horror film.  Moving away from movies featuring classic creatures like the Wolfman, Frankenstein, or Dracula, Hitchcock thought to make a film where the antagonist–in this case, Norman Bates–was more terrifyingly real and believable in a genre that could be easily labeled today as a psychological thriller.

Gus Van Sant directed the remake in 1998 but, while not new to the film industry, he didn’t quite have the reputation that Hitchcock had.  A year prior to Psycho, though, Van Sant was nominated for an Oscar for Best Director for his film Good Will Hunting.  He didn’t have anything new to bring to the table for the remake; he even went so far as to make the same cameo in his film that Hitchcock did for the original.  Hitchcock makes a cameo in every movie he shoots.  That was his thing.  Van Sant didn’t need to copy even THAT for his version, did he?!

For Psycho, Hitchcock has the edge over Van Sant in the fact that Hitchcock was a pioneer in the way movies were made.  For a film famous for its shower scene where the leading female character Marion Crane is murdered, Hitchcock had to work around the restraints of not showing the actress naked.  Movies at the time didn’t have nudity at all.  The way the scene was directed with a lot of jump cuts heightened the intensity without revealing too much.  Van Sant didn’t have those restraints in 1998, but decided that a shot-for-shot remake was the way to go.

WINNER: Original, Hitchcock

SCREENPLAY: Joseph Stefano vs. Joseph Stefano

Because the 1998 film was a shot-for-shot remake, the screenplay was the same for both films.  Adapted from the lackluster 1959 novel Psycho by Robert Bloch based on a real-life Wisconsin murder (you can read about the book here), Stefano altered a few of the details for the film, particularly the main character.  In the book, Norman Bates is a middle-aged, fat alcoholic.  Stefano, in a interview about the making of original film, stated that “he didn’t like [Bates] from the book because he was very unlikable.”  In order for the movie audience to switch their empathy for Bates after he kills Marion Crane, Stefano made the character a slightly younger, thinner, neighborly type.  He also wrote in for the character of Bates the fact that he eats Halloween candy throughout some big scenes.

In the same interview from above, Stefano explains that he got the job to write the movie for Hitchcock by centering the film not around Norman Bates–as the book had done–but to focus on the character of Marion Crane.  Hitchcock was impressed by this notion as proof that Stefano had the writing chops to do it.

The screenplay was written for the era at the time.  Because Van Sant wanted the same screenplay, not much was changed in the way of the script.  The dialog between the characters just didn’t translate to the newer version, with phrases like “I do declare” and “It’s the only case of murder and suicide on Fairvale ledgers.”  In 1998?  Seriously?  I guess the “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” mentality meant not having an updated screenplay to match the sign of the times.

WINNER: Original, Joseph Stefano

CAST/ACTING: Anthony Perkins, Janet Leigh, Vera Miles vs. Vince Vaughn, Anne Heche, Julianne Moore

While the remake has bigger names than the original, with actors William H. Macy and Viggo Mortensen playing supporting roles, the acting wasn’t much better.  Janet Leigh won an Oscar for Best Actress for her role as Marion Crane.  Anne Heche, on the other hand, was nominated for a Razzie Award for her dull and lifeless interpretation of the same title character.  If you don’t know what a Razzie Award is, it’s a spoof award given to the worst of the worst.  A side note to add, the Psycho remake and Van Sant actually won a Razzie for Worst Remake and Worst Director respectively (Van Sant went from being nominated for the top award–an Oscar–for Best Director in 1997 to winning the worst award just a year later.  It wasn’t all his fault though; he should have used his own original screenplay).

I’ll be honest.  I’m biased against Vince Vaughn and Anne Heche.  Vaughn is normally known for his odd-ball quirky and raunchy comedies and I don’t like him as an actor AT ALL.  But I’ll give him his due diligence in respect that he went out of his usual typecast roles to play Norman Bates.  He didn’t do terrible, but his laugh is distasteful.  He even went as far as copying Perkins eating of the Halloween candy.  He couldn’t find anything original for his portrayal of Bates?!  As far as Anne Heche is concerned, I don’t think I’ve liked a single movie she’s ever starred in.  And the chemistry between the two leading characters is nonexistent, something the original actors clearly had much more of.

Hey, at least in the remake you get to see the bassist from Red Hot Chili Peppers, Flea, in a very small role!

CAST WINNER: Remake; ACTING WINNER: Original

SCORE: Bernard Herrmann vs. Bernard Herrmann

Sigh.  Really?  You used the same music too?!  It’s a good thing I decided to watch the original first because there is absolutely nothing to like about the remake.  The whole time I was watching both movies though, I kept thinking the music sounded awfully familiar, like I had heard it before and NOT in a film.  It wasn’t until halfway through the remake that I figured it out. Listen to the opening of Busta Rhymes “Gimme Some More.”  Incredible similarity, right?!

WINNER: Both original and remake

Psycho (1960)
Psycho (1998)
  • Rotten Tomatoes: 37% or 5.2/10 average
  • IMDb: 4.6/10 from 36,472 users
  • Metacritic: 47/100
OVERALL WINNER: Original 1960 Pyscho



Stick with the original film on this one.  The movie is actually better in black-and-white anyway, making the nuances of each character and the movie as a whole much more enjoyable to watch. The remake has nothing new to bring to the table and the use of the same screenplay from 1960 is completely outdated and the character interaction stale.

You can also check out a short movie review for Psycho in the book 1001 Movies to See Before You Die by Steven Jay Schneider, 2011.

Welcome to "MOVIES: THEN vs. NOW!"

With the advancement of technology and new film making techniques, the movie-going experience has changed a lot even in the last decade.  But what makes a movie great?  Is computer-generated images what makes newer movies more exciting to watch?  Or does “greatness” come from the early foundations of a fantastic story, superb acting, and character development?

Over the years, some film directors have taken it upon themselves to take old movies and remake them into visions that they see as an improvement of the originals.  Movies like The Longest Yard or Total Recall have been subject to change as well as a slew of others that we’ll take a look at throughout the next several months.

I will attempt to focus my attention on individual movies that have been remade and not rebooted film franchises–like those you typically find in comic book adaptations such as Spider-man, Batman, or Superman–or movies that are featured in a series like those of James Bond or Mission Impossible.  I will try to focus on stand-alone new movies that essentially tell the same story as the originals with the same movie title and the majority of the same characters.  As much as I’d like to compare 1989’s Batman to one of my favorite films of all-time, 2008’s The Dark Knight, they are two separate stories.

I hope you’ll find something to your enjoyment as you read.  Perhaps you’ll be encouraged to check out some of the earlier films and compare them to the newer, updated versions yourself.  Or maybe my opinions will spark up a running dialog of discussion as we share our own personal favorites with one another.  In any case, although these blogs are written under the guise of a school assignment, there’s nothing that says they can’t be entertaining!

Enjoy!