DrCrowTStarwars said:
There is a difference between an adaption and a remake and what is more you should only do a remake if the original was lacking in some way and I have yet to see any proof that any director in Holywood can one up Hitchcock.
As for the remake of The man who knew too much,everyone makes at least one mistake if they work on movies as long as Hitchcock did and that was his. The original didn't have a thing wrong with it and it's pace was nice and tight. Remaking it just to use colour and big name stars was a bad idea and didn't work.
This idea that every movie should be a remake of an older movie and making new movies or adapting books that haven't been made into films before is some how wrong is what is killing Hollywood and is the biggest reason I rarely go to the movies any more. Nothing creative or original gets released any more.
...Well...you see I think the '56 remake gets the short end quite often. It certainly drags in a few places, but the overall thematic quality to the story and characters far outdoes the 1934 version which in comparison is a bit clipped due to the shorter runtime and technical limitations of a British production at the time. Technically it is a masterpiece, with the Albert Hall sequence remaining one of the great moments in cinema. Stewart foreshadows his Scottie characterization in Vertigo, the hugely underrated Doris Day is really convincing as the distraught mother, and overall the '56 version feels much more polished than the original. The current transfers are s***, and the film is still being neglected by Universal after 30 years of ownership.
FanFiltration said:
X-Men (2000) 7/10
Good cast and decent writing, but suffers from a poor production design.
X2 X-Men United (2003) 8/10
More solid production value, and more involved story.
X-Men: The Last Stand (2006) 5/10
A very disappointing entry, and one that is also a very mixed bag. Great casting choice for Beast, but some of the costumes looked terrible. Some of the scenes are good, but the majority is just garbage. That entire concept with the Golden Gate Bridge is utter crap. Not the world's worst film, but far below the standards set in the first two movies in the series.
X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009) 5/10
Yet another disappointment. This felt more like "X-Men Lite" then a stand alone Wolverine adventure. Also the story just re-treads old ground with the Striker story. The casting of Liev Schreiber was the best thing about the film. I was truly starting to lose faith in this series at this point.
X-Men First Class (2011) 8/10
Now that is more like it! A return to form with an amazing cast and engaging story. This film will be re-watched by me a number of times in the future.
The Wolverine (2013) 4/10
Fine production values (yet a few very bad green screen scenes), interesting scenic locations, completely boring and ridiculous -- even for an" X-Men" film. My least favorite of the entire series.
A good summary FF. I plan on seeing DOFP at some point, but don't really have much hopes for it being really spectacular. I'm really underwhelmed by this series overall--especially in how very little is ever developed other than Jackman's Wolverine. The best films are X2 and First Class, and my favorite part of them all is Brian Cox's wonderful Stryker. I wish they had just followed him for a movie to be honest.
Jack Ryan Shadow Recruit-A dull, tepid, uninspired pointless waste. Thinking man's thrillers are dead, and the Ryan series was long pissed away by Paramount. I'm not a Clancy expert but shouldn't they have used Costner as an older troubled Ryan in the midst of a grand crisis?
1.5 ball out of 4 bored Kevin Costners.
CEOT3K
Never have I seen this all the way through. Finally did with the Criterion CLV 1977 theatrical and must say that somewhere along the way, Spielberg must have forgotten why he started making pictures. This is a reminder of why we make pictures, why we hold faiths in the inexplicable, how damn good Richard Dreyfuss is, how wonderful Spielberg's innate decisions can be and of what science fiction can provoke in our hearts and minds.
The LD is faultless and original save for one 30 sec shot from the asinine Special Edition. I compared the three cuts with the new BD and prefer the '77, plus the Criterion to my eyes has better color. The sound mix has stereo surround on the new release (not original) and is too clean for a 1977 film. The Dolby surround mas straight from the 1980 master, and is as close as one can get to the original 1977 70mm that many claim was never equaled.
4 balls out of 4 crazy ideas to present aliens. Unforgettable though not perfect.
The Hunt for Red October-to get the bad taste out of my mouth from the new film I had to go back to this. There should have been a sequel, there should have been more Baldwin Ryan adventures, this should have spawned a successful and innovative series that blended action filmmaking with thinking man's writing. But Paramount said let's dump it. Go figure.
I think this is really almost as good as McTiernan's work on Die Hard. It's much more subtle and puts no foot out of place. The original LD retains the warm look of release prints and is framed closer to a 70mm print. The audio is the 35mm Dolby Stereo and while not as fully detailed as the later discrete remixes, I prefer this track for the overall better presentation in the lower frequencies. The new transfer is good but lacks the color accuracy of the original.
This film is so good that our favorite Scot is a believable Soviet submarine captain.
4 balls out of 4 guys crawling around in steam vents.
