Sunday, October 11, 2015

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:
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):
The Producers (2005):
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):
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!

Saturday, October 10, 2015

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):
King Kong (2005):
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.

THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (1925) vs. THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (2004)




Many versions of this classic movie exist, both on the big and small screen, especially since Andrew Lloyd Webber brought the musical to the stage in 1986.  But as this is a blog written specifically to compare the original to the remake, so then shall we look at the first and most recent films.

While one is the beloved adaptation of the celebrated novel written by Gaston Leroux, the other is strictly adapted from Andrew Lloyd Webber's book and stage play.  The classic and unforgettable organ in Webber's version is powerful and instrumental, pun intended, in its driving force in announcing the phantom and using its deep tones to strike fear in the hearts of the audience.

SYNOPSIS (1925): A mad, disfigured composer seeks love with a lovely young opera singer. Source: IMDb.com

SYNOPSIS (2004): A young soprano becomes the obsession of a disfigured musical genius who lives beneath the Paris Opera House. Source: IMDb.com

The synopses for both films are relatively similar.  Notice that the original paints the phantom as a mad, deranged figure--understandable as the original is considered a horror film--whereas the remake makes him out to be a musical genius--fitting for an adaptation based on a stage play.

DIRECTOR: Rupert Julian vs. Joel Schumacher

Right off the bat I want to cringe at even the mention of Schumacher's name.  While he had several good films early in his career and decent films in recent years, he is probably most well-known for effectively ruining the Batman franchise with Batman Forever and Batman & Robin in the mid- to late-90s (which he was actually nominated for a Razzie as worst director for the latter film), forcing a brilliant reboot of the franchise in the late 2000s by Christopher Nolan.

That being said, he actually did a decent job at directing the remake of Phantom of the Opera.  Granted, he had a lot of great material to work with.

Still, Schumacher could not overcome the direction of Rupert Julian's silent film original.  The ground-breaking film, in its blurry and shaky shooting, upped the creepy factor brilliantly and intensified the fear by setting up for the audience in gruesome detail how grotesque the disfigurement of the phantom actually was long before he was unmasked.

Even though I viewed the 2004 remake shortly after it was released, a good ten years before I watched the original, I had the thought after watching the earlier film as I typically do after watching Japanese anime.

I prefer to watch my anime with English subtitles rather than the English dubbed version.  Hearing the audio in English, despite having A-list actors with great acting skill, takes away from the artistry of viewing it with Japanese dialog.

In the same way, some films are just better in black-and-white--and, in this particular case, some movies just come across the screen better as a silent film.  It really adds to the audience experience having the limitations of not being able to produce sound to your moving picture and being forced to create suspense by the actors' ability to act as well as the written "dialog" cue cards that are common in silent films, as well as using orchestral music to set the tones throughout the picture.

WINNER: Original, Rupert Julian

SCREENPLAY: Gaston Leroux vs. Andrew Lloyd Webber

I will be the first to admit that I don't typically like horror films.  Modern day horror focuses too much on the gore to create fear in the viewer rather than character-driven acting and film techniques that earlier movies used to instill in the audience a sense of pure and utter dread.

This case is no different.  The original film was a horror film but the remake was more of a romantic-drama set as a musical.  So while the stories were similar and were centered on the same characters, the two different styles really don't make this match-up fair.  An argument could be made for either film depending on which genre you prefer.

One is not better than the other; rather the two styles are complimentary to their respective films in a way that wouldn't come across as well had the original been a musical or the remake been a horror film.  The earlier film works better as a horror film for the reasons mentioned above in the DIRECTOR category; and, thus, the newer film works better as a musical.

WINNER: Both

CAST/ACTING: Lon Chaney, Mary Philbin, & Norman Kerry vs. Gerard Butler, Emmy Rossum, & Patrick Wilson

The remake has a great cast, with also a good supporting cast that includes Minnie Driver as Carlotta, the Prima Donna of the opera house.  Her character is hated as the phantom prefers the voice over the younger, more innocent, more seductive singer.  Carlotta is loud, obnoxious, and prideful of her talents (to which only she can recognize) and is played brilliantly by Driver.  The acting of the main actors isn't terrible either; in fact, Emmy Rossum was nominated for an Oscar for her portrayal as Christine.

However, I have to give the edge to the acting skills of the original film.  Because it was a silent film and, as I outline before, they had to rely on their pure acting skill using facial expressions and body movement to bring the characters to life as they didn't have the luxury of using their voices for dialog and tone.  It takes a much higher skill level as an actor to strike fear in the audience by a mere look or a certain way the actor moves.

Not to mention that the original phantom was truly disfigured, a skeletal face with no nose shrouded in a dark over-sized cloak.  The remake's phantom was a handsome man, dare I say dashing, with half of his face severely burned which is the reason for the mask.  Both perceptions of the character are essential to the feel of their respective movies; the original makeup designed to be more horrifying where the makeup in the remake was more in line for the romantic audience.

CAST WINNER: Remake; ACTING WINNER: Original

SCORE/MUSIC: Uncredited/Unknown vs. Andrew Lloyd Webber

The original movie uses classical music to set the tones of jovial scenes versus the horrific scenes where the phantom is prominent.  The remake uses more modern musical-style numbers that are beloved to this day by many fans of the theater but still uses its style to create a memorable experience.  Both movies, again, utilize their particular styles in a way that define the genre and era when each movie was released.

The remake's Phantom of the Opera soundtrack could be listened to and enjoyed without the movie to accompany it.  Whereas the original work is crucial to the movie in a way that doesn't translate or stand alone as a solely musical accomplishment.


Heck, even Gerard Butler has a pretty decent singing voice as The Phantom!

WINNER: Remake, Andrew Lloyd Webber

The Phantom of the Opera (1925):
The Phantom of the Opera (2004):
  • Rotten Tomatoes: 32% or 5.0/10 average rating
  • IMDb.com: 7.4/10 from 91,213 users
  • Metacritic:  40/100
OVERALL WINNER: Another tie!





Looks like you, the reader, will have to vote for yourself again. I definitely didn't think this was going to be a close entry either.  I am partial to the original 1925 The Phantom of the Opera myself.

Rotten Tomatoes wasn't very kind to the remake, as you can see.  The comparison is closer in rating on the IMDb.com website; but everyone seems to take in to account Rotten Tomatoes as the "go to" nowadays for the rating of films.

Take a watch of both films though, per my suggestion of course.  There's a lot to enjoy about both films.  It would be a shame to miss out on one or the other.

You can also check out the review of the original in the same book as I mentioned in the Psycho post: 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die by Steven Jay Schneider, 2011.

THE ITALIAN JOB (1969) vs. THE ITALIAN JOB (2003)




"Charlie, there are two kinds of thieves in this world: The ones who steal to enrich their lives, and those who steal to define their lives. Don't be the latter. Makes you miss out on what's really important in this life."

Heist movies have an excellent appeal to them not only because they are exciting action-dramas but also because there's a true sense of realism in most of the heist movies that I've ever watched.  Movies like Ocean's Eleven (and subsequent sequels) and even some movies in the James Bond and Mission Impossible series are entertaining because the viewer is always on the edge of their seat wondering if the "good guys" are going to make off with the score and--after having seen the film--can think to himself "Now how plausible can that really be done in the real world?" and "I wonder if I could get away with something like that!"  The answer to the latter question would likely be a resounding 'no;' but that's precisely what's fun about the movies: they make people feel free to dream a life so unlike their own!

This time we're looking at the original heist flick from 1969 The Italian Job pitted against its remake from 2003.  As close as I thought the last battle was between the two Gone in 60 Seconds movies, this one was even closer!  So it'll be hard to pick apart these two tense films to see who edges out the winner.  This could be a long post, ya'll, so buckle in.

SYNOPSIS (1969): Comic caper movie about a plan to steal a gold shipment from the streets of Turin by creating a traffic jam. Source: IMDb.com

SYNOPSIS (2003): After being betrayed and left for dead in Italy, Charlie Croker and his team plan an elaborate gold heist against their former ally. Source: IMDb.com

DIRECTOR: Peter Collinson vs. F. Gary Gray

While The Italian Job wasn't Collinson's first feature film, it was the first to be nominated for a Golden Globe award for best English-language Foreign Film.  Collinson's previous movie, The Long Day's Dying released just a year earlier in 1968, nabbed him two wins at the Sans Sebastian International Film Festival.  Collinson spent many years directing a few episodes for a variety of television shows but decided to focus on the big screen with his directorial debut The Penthouse in 1967.  His movies grew pretty steadily in popularity during that short time, according to the ratings for the films leading up to the one we're dissecting today.

F. Gary Gray, by contrast, was a younger more brazen man who got his feet wet early in 1995 when his first movie Friday was released when he was only 29.  Viewed today as a cult classic, the movie gained enough buzz and propelled his career in the action-drama genre with early projects like Set It Off (a different kind of heist movie centered around a gang of female bank robbers) and The Negotiator, and later projects  However, Gray's movies seemed to appeal more to the younger crowd right out of the gate and included many big-name Hollywood actors.

Concerning their respective films, I must say that it was definitely hard to choose.  The directing style was superb in both films, each director utilizing the evident star-power in their actors and crew, their knowledge of cinematography and how to shoot a particular scene to make the audience feel emotionally connected to the experience, and overall piecing all the elements of a good movie together to make it one unforgettable ride!

Specifically speaking, from the opening credits of the original film, Collinson puts the camera on the dash and on the wheel-well of a very fast and sporty car as it races along an Italian mountain road set to a classic Italian song.  You don't really know who the man behind the wheel is.  But it sets the tone for the movie and immerses the audience in an ambiance of a high-octane artisan thrill ride.  And when the car exits the opening scene in flames, your eyes are transfixed and you wonder "Who was that guy?!"  And you continue to be glued to the screen until the final credits roll.

In the remake, Gray uses smart technical editing during his opening credits sequence set to a modern blend of orchestral and techno/club beats that prepares you for how articulate and precise the characters have to be in order to pull the haul of a lifetime.

The vote for 'director' really could swing either way.  Whether you prefer one over the other would likely depend on whether you just like updated versions of good films or in awe of how good a movie that's "so old" can be without the advancement of the technology that movies today can offer.

For the sake of argument though, I could say that Gray edges out Collinson in this category because he's a younger director and he made his version more "cool" to appeal to a younger audience (like myself when I first viewed it).  I could also cast my vote for him because, despite being a young director, it is easy to judge his films as "all flash and no substance."  But take a closer look at his resume.  It is stacked with impressive films throughout his career.  He makes cool movies but makes a long-lasting statement in doing so that makes you want to keep watching them over and over.

Even amidst writing this post, I kept going back and forth in this category but ultimately decided that the longevity of the impact of Gray's films--recently the overwhelmingly surprise hit Straight Outta Compton--would be the better legacy to movie fans.  But if you voted for Collinson  after viewing both films yourself, I wouldn't be mad at ya.  A strong argument could be presented for him as well.

WINNER: Remake, F. Gary Gray

SCREENPLAY: Troy Kennedy-Martin vs. Donna & Wayne Powers

While not a direct shot-for-shot remake like 1998's Psycho was, the remake of The Italian Job borrowed a lot from the original screenplay; so much so that Kennedy-Martin is actually credited with writing honors in the remake.  One could possibly say that the Powers' made improvements on the original without losing its creativity and influence but instead strengthened it with their editions.

The remake tells its own story, though, even with the same names as the two lead male characters (Charlie Croker and John Bridger).  Although it alters the roles slightly in the remake, the newer film also introduces John Bridger's daughter, Stella, and fleshes out the remaining supporting characters as well.

A quick glance at the two movie posters above should tell you how essential the three Mini Coopers were in both films.  I think the use of the small cars was crucial in the carrying out of the heist for the same reasons:  fast, compact cars that are easy to maneuver in and out of traffic to avoid the police chasing them while being strong enough to handle the weight of the gold being stolen.

Both sequences using the Mini Coopers were similarly spectacular.  If automobiles could win an award for best supporting actor, these cars would take it for sure.  Well, that is unless Kit from Knight Rider, Herbie the Lovebug, or even the Batmobile were up for the award too!

I have to choose the original on this one.  Because, without it for F. Gary Gray's team to craft their improved version, the remake definitely wouldn't have been as good.

WINNER: Original, Troy Kennedy-Martin

CAST/ACTING: Michael Caine, Noel Coward, Benny Hill, Maggie Blye vs. Mark Wahlberg, Charlize Theron, Edward Norton, Donald Sutherland

Simply looking at the surface of the casting list, one might automatically dub the remake the winner because there's many more A-list actors.  However, the simple fact that Michael Caine plays the lead character in the original should give you pause.  Considering the movies the tenured British actor has starred in, Caine is a living legend in his own right.

Caine could have been the only recognizable actor in that whole film and it would still carry as much weight because he is that good!!  Benny Hill is a well-known British comedian, but his role in The Italian Job was extremely minimal and didn't utilize his comedic talent at all.

As I mentioned before, the characters in the remake were much more fleshed out and were a much better support system for the main characters.  The original film required too many team members to accomplish the heist while the remake centered around the camaraderie and expertise of only five members.  Supporting cast and great acting rounding out the team came courtesy of actors Jason Stathom (most well-known for his cast-typing persona as a hard ass-kicking action star made famous in his role in the Transporter trilogy) as premiere wheelman Handsome Rob, R&B/rapper Mos Def as demolition artist 'Left Ear,' and comedic Seth Green as the tech wizard Lyle.

The acting in both films were splendid.  And the vote might have swung the original's way if they involved the minor characters more instead of using them simply for comedy relief.  I don't really blame them though.  Why?  Two words:  Michael freaking Caine.  Oh wait, that's technically three.

WINNER: Remake

SCORE/MUSIC: Quincy Jones vs. John Powell

Based on name recognition alone, I'd cast my vote for Quincy Jones in a New York-minute!!  But, I have to be as objective as I can be.  So here goes.

The original score used classical music to heighten the mood of its action sequences.  Strange?  Perhaps.  But what made it unique was that whenever I saw the main characters planning the heist, testing that plan, and following through with the plan, the American and Italian classic pieces they used made me feel like the actors had a genuine humble reason for stealing the gold.  It's a bit hard to explain.

The remake used more modern and hip-hop or club-style/techno music to create its tension to heighten the necessity for the plan to go as perfectly as possible.  You were still rooting for the good guys because, while the original hinted at a revenge motivation, the remake clearly made revenge the motivating factor.  Like Stella said when Charlie asks her, a civilian, not a trained thief like the rest of them, to be a part of the team, "I want to see the look on that man's face when his gold is gone. He took my father from me, I'm taking this"

If I were basing my opinion solely on the music alone, it would be easy to choose the more up-to-date score or soundtrack.  But in these comparative match-ups, I look at how the score makes the movie worse or better.  In this case, the original score made me feel more connected to the character's situation than the remake did.

WINNER: Original, Quincy Jones

The Italian Job (1969)

Gone in Sixty Seconds (2000)
  • Rotten Tomatoes: 73% or 6.4/10 average
  • IMDb: 7.0/10 from 269,983 users
  • Metacritic: 68/100
OVERALL WINNER: Too close to call.  I told you.

?????

I could go ahead and say that I'm going to break the tie with the ratings from Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb.com, but I've never been one to believe (or care) what professional movie critics say.  So, for this entry, I'm going to let YOU decide.

I didn't expect to like the original as much as I did because I own the remake and watch it all the time.  Or at least used to before I got married and had a kid.  My time isn't my own anymore.....but that's another blog post for another blog, not this one.

You be the judge!!  You make the call!!  Which is it going to be?  Watch both movies and comment below to cast your vote!!