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.