Ohyes, I liked the Bogart re-remake much better than either of the preceding films. Even though I bought a 45" projection TV in 4.3 aspect ratio (because I watch more pre-widescreen than widescreen movies), I am NEVER one to say "don't remake this movie!" Heck, the 1932 THE MUMMY is one of my flat-out favorite films and would certainly qualify as a "sacred cow" to me. But, I genuinely enjoyed the 1999 remake. I did not like the subsequent THE MUMMY RETURNS very much because I am not a fan of extended "chase scenes" in movies and RETURNS was basically one huge chase scene. But the '99 effort? I give it a thumbs up and watch it from time to time on DVD.
YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN is another example. Here we have three films remade into one: FRANKENSTEIN, BRIDE OF and SON OF. Certainly a rousing success, although some may quibble that a spoof or satire is not technically a remake.
I just watched the trailer to KONG this morning. I had heard nothing of it except it was being made and I swear my mouth dropped open and I got pretty excited when I saw the opening scene of a 1930's Manhattan my jaw literally dropped. I was expecting something along the line of the MIGHTY JOE YOUNG remake (which I though was pretty good - and thought Baker's Joe was amazing), set in modern times the way many remakes are. But seeing the 30's NY, the hand cranked cameras etc? I tell you I am psyched to see this one. I was also thinking about Jack Black in the Carl Denham role and decided it was pretty danged insightful. Denham was a charcater who tended to defy convention, both in KONG and the underappreciated SON OF KONG (which I still have on laserdisc and shows Denham's quirkiness to great effect.) Jack Black baisically plays socially quirky characters. While lacking the semi-grandfatherish feel of Carl Denham, I can see where they were going casting Black and I think!
it was a
good choice.
Now onto KONG himself. In the original KING KONG, Willis O'Brien's creation was a rather squairsh, flat creature. But they nailed KONG with the facial expressions. That original KONG could emote, so one suspended disbelief in favor of simply liking Kong. Compare the KONG physically to MIGHTY JOE YOUNG. O'brien used a model of a gorilla skeleton to create Joe. The result? A shockingly realistic gorilla that far surpassed KONG. He also was a cutey with his own set of perfect facial expressions.
I think one of the issues with remakes is the time frame they were made. In the MALTESE FALCON arc, all of the films were made in the 30's and 40's. Shot in b&w with 4.3 aspect ratios. The times had not changed very much in comparison to, say, the original MUMMY with the 1999 MUMMY.
Now we have an intirquing prospect. A 1930's film being remade in 2005 with a 1930's look. And seemingly respecting much of what was in the original. Based on the trailer, I think this is gonna be a doozy.
Richard Halegua Comic Art <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Whenever I think of great remakes the 1941 MALTESE FALCON always
>springs to mind. They rarely get better!
well that means that you liked the remake better than the original
which was released in 1931 with Bebe Daniels, Ricardo Cortez & Thelma
Todd and Dwight Frye as Wilmer. or the version in 1936 released
as Satan Was A Lady with Bette Davis & Warren William.
so to summerize.. WHAT WE ALL LIKE BEST IS THE REMAKE
would you have preferred that the Bogart version was never made to
protect "the previously sacred cows" ??
Rich===================
