My List of Movie Pet Peeves

The “One Liner” – Oh goodness, probably the worst cliché of them all. Why this has become a staple of all movies, I will never understand. Here are some famous ones “You're terminated, [bleep]er.” “We’re gunna need a bigger boat.” “Snakes, why’d it have to be snakes?” “Say Hello to my little friend.” “Brothers, what we do in life... echoes in eternity.”

Repeating those last few words – “I’ll never let go, Jack. I’ll never let go.” “That’s it, man. Game over, man. Game over.” “We'll get there, Pop. We'll get there.” What is that?! I think it occurs at least once in every movie. It’s for emphasis, but sometimes it’s a line that doesn’t mean a thing and then it just stands out as the one line that’s repeated. Do every day people duplicate what they’re saying for emphasis? It would be funny if they did!

Somebody Always has a Connection Somewhere – This one’s a favorite of mine in thriller movies. There will be some obscure challenge in the way of finishing the mission and one of the characters, even just a random extra, will pipe up with helpful information they read in a magazine or have a family member with a connection. How convenient! I think there should be more Googling of information in movies, let them pull up a Wikipedia article and that’s how they get the needed information.


“Let me tell you my whole plan” speech – Lets set the scene – the bad guy has a hostage or is about to escape and thinking he’s off the hook he tells the good guy (and the audience) why he’s involved in this elaborate, crazy plan. We the audience know its coming and there’s nothing we can do to stop it, but it just pours out of the bad guys mouth like a…well…script!

No Bathroom Breaks – Unless for comedic purposes, do people use the bathroom in the movies? No one gets up after dinner to pee or has to go number 2 when they first wake up in the morning. It just isn’t glamorous enough I guess, but neither is it realistic.

Unrealistic Dwellings – One reason I love movies that take place in NYC so much is the apartments they have the characters live in. No matter what occupation the character supposedly has they always have an amazing place! One recent example is from “My Best Friend’s Girl.” Kate Hudson and her roommate have this INCREDIBLE two story townhouse/apartment thingy! Neither has a hugely important job that they spend a lot of time at, so how can they afford such a place? Oh yeah, I forgot, it’s a movie.


Don’t People Work? – Isn’t it amazing that movies always seem to be taking place on the weekend or other national holiday where everyone has the day off?! It’s rare to see someone worry about spending days and weeks seeking out their one true love or running off to a tropical location without any contact or notification to their offices and they always seem to have plenty of money to spend too.

Parking in the Front – When good guys are chasing bad guys in cars and need to get into a building quickly, they always find a close spot. When the sweet guy wants to surprise his lady, there is always a parking place up front. Where’s the wasting 10 minutes for someone to pull out of spot, or the three trips around the lot before spotting the smallest space in the back. It’s just not fair!

Make up in bed or at the gym – An episode of “Chuck” helped me think of this one. It looks funny when women in the movies are wearing obvious makeup when they first wake up or while they’re at the gym. And I don’t mean the makeup that helps the actors not look shiny or a little bit of eyeliner, but full on lipstick, fake lashes, eye shadow of an unnatural color, etc. I wish it were that easy, it would save a lot of time in the morning getting ready for work, but makeup smears and it’s bad for your skin if you leave it on. So what do women actually do? They take off their make up!

All people know how to use guns and hit their targets – As seen recently in ‘Eagle Eye’, any person, including children can, in a high crisis situation, acquire a random gun, know how to shoot it and hit their intended target. For once, I want to see someone try that in a movie and get knocked on their rear because of the kick back from the gun.

Sports movies have one of two endings – the underdog wins or the underdog looses and learns a lesson – Watching an underdog succeed is a wonderfully uplifting experience…except when it’s predicable from the start of the opening credits. The two possible endings to sports movies are terrible and someone should come up with a new one because the sports’ industry deserves more than a clichéd ending.

Too much is revealed in the trailer – Have you ever seen a trailer for the latest Will Farrell or John C. Riley film and thought it looked hilarious, which peaked your interest in the movie only to be disappointed by the film because all the funny parts were already in the trailer?! It’s just something to expect now a days, along with the disappointment that follows when the movie is ruined for you.

“Basically, I'm for anything that gets you through the night - be it prayer, tranquilizers or a bottle of Jack Daniels.” – Frank Sinatra
So may the prayers, tranquilizers and JD be with you and see you next time.
http://moviesworketc.blogspot.com/

Read more!

“I’m Not There” – Movie Reviews – DVD Edition

I don’t know much about Bob Dylan. Regardless, “I’m Not There” is one of the best biopics and movies I have seen in awhile. Director Todd Haynes takes a Dylan type route and creates a collage of beautiful images that are symbolic and literal to show the singer's career. The DVD offers clever navigation of the film - either by scene or by song. The movie can be appreciated by Dylan fans and non Dylan fans, like myself, because it alone can be admired for the originality, genius and beauty that flashes on the big screen.

Pros:
- Its One of a Kind-ness: There has never been a movie and/or bio-film like “There.” If you’ve ever read any of my other reviews, you know I’m a HUGE fan of originality, so I just fell in love with “There” because of its unmatched ingenuity. Every aspect, time line, the characters, the narrative style, the writing, all of it, is creative and inspired.


- Don’t Have to Be a Fan: Although, I’m sure the movie makes a lot more sense if you know a little bit about Bob Dylan. I don’t, but adored the film anyway. Along the way there are small subtleties reflective of Dylan’s life, regardless, it is fascinating to watch. You might as well assume it’s about a fictional character and admire it for other things. I found the Wikipedia article most helpful in understanding nuances between what I was seeing and how it correlated to Dylan.


- Not a Real Biopic: Not too many specific details are revealed about the singer’s life. It is more of a kaleidoscope of events and themes that occurred throughout his early career.


- The Acting: 6 actors (all of whom have been nominated and/or won film or acting related awards) are so transformed into the man they represent. I didn’t even recognize Christian Bale at first. They take the spirit of the singer and make a new character out of him to deliver an honest performance.


Cons:
- Obscurity: “There” is a little out there. It may be difficult to follow and isn’t really meant for the “Transformers” type audience, which is fine! Just know that before hitting the Play button.

- Subtitles: Once again I had to turn on the subtitles to an English speaking movie.

- Needed Help: I did need a little bit of assistance to understand what events were taking place. As mentioned above, the Wikipedia article about the movie is EXTREMELY helpful in deciphering the film.

Summary:
If you like films with some imagination to them as well as terrific cinematography and a familiar soundtrack, you will love “I’m Not There.” Even if you know nothing about Bob Dylan, like me, you can still enjoy the all star cast and writing. It’s mesmerizing and artistic.

“Basically, I'm for anything that gets you through the night - be it prayer, tranquilizers or a bottle of Jack Daniels.” – Frank Sinatra
So may the prayers, tranquilizers and JD be with you and see you next time.
http://moviesworketc.blogspot.com/

Read more!

Movie Review on DVD – The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

For a Western, there aren’t a lot of shoot outs, scooping up screaming women, or “high noon” type talk. “Assassination” is more original than that. In fact, it doesn’t much resemble a Western genre movie at all. It’s about obsession over a celebrity. A common word I’ve read in other reviews is “haunting.” I can’t think of any better a word to describe the lives that Ford and James lived. It’s as if Jesse James read the title of the movie and just accepted his fate. Brad Pitt and Casey Affleck star as the fated duo and they take us through a different side of the infamous Jesse James’ life.

Pros:
- Casey Affleck – we see Ford go from trip-over-yourself, star struck fan to drunk, “what did I do” guilt riddled adult and semi celebrity himself (“semi” being the key word). There is something slightly pathetic about Ford and how he works his way into James’ life. Ford is strategic about getting close and remaining close to his idol and you can see it in Affleck’s expressions as he looks on at Pitt.

- The Cinematography – A common element that is mentioned in just about every review I’ve read. Its recognition is much deserved because the film is beautiful watch. There are effects such as blurring the edges of the screen and leaving the center clear that create an old timey mood as well as the illusion of an insider looking in. This creativity is admirable and in a different way than the admiration for the teams that create such images as the Transformers. Both images are remarkable, but there’s just something about the simplicity of the blurring visual technique that grabs me more than a giant robot.

- Did Jesse See the Movie Title? - As mentioned above, it’s as if James read the title of the movie. He even relates a story to star struck Ford about a fellow who seemed to overly admire James but really wanted to kill him.

- As reviewer Sean O'Connell points out ““Jesse James” rightfully becomes the Robert Ford story.” And I completely agree. The point is to see why Robert Ford shoots James in the back and not in some more dignified, dramatic fashion. It tries to show why he would kill James at all. These questions and more arise as we see the path the outlaws take to their inevitable futures.

- A Different Look at a Legend – When you think of Jesse James you think of train robberies, innocent victims, Wanted posters, etc. But after this movie more is added to the mental image of the bandit. He loved his wife and children. He was smart and knew who his friends and enemies were (or going to be). It’s a fascinating “day in the life” type look at a myth.

- Going Beyond – The film goes beyond Jesse’s death. It is revealed how Ford led a life after he murdered his hero, his idol, his icon. Guilt sets in, he starts to miss the man. He attempts to justify and explain himself by touring in a play about the murder. The narration at the end of the movie is the best part, “There would be no eulogies for Bob, no photographs of his body would be sold in sundries stores, no people would crowd the streets in the rain to see his funeral cortege, no biographies would be written about him, no children named after him, no one would ever pay twenty-five cents to stand in the rooms he grew up in. The shotgun would ignite, and Ella Mae would scream, but Robert Ford would only lay on the floor and look at the ceiling, the light going out of his eyes before he could find the right words.” Summing up the emptiness, the patheticness that was Robert Ford and how he so lamely killed the most notorious outlaw.

Cons:
- Time – It’s waaaay too long! It took me two days to watch, not because its 48 hours long, but because it was difficult to dedicate a lot of one day to watching the whole thing.

- Subtitles – Yes, it is in English, but the accents are very strong and therefore I had to enable the subtitle button on my remote.

- Getting Lost – Within the extra moments, none that are horribly acted or poorly written, just excessive, your attention wonders. So audiences may feel like they get lost within this film.

Summary:
It’s worth renting or ordering on Demand. This is a perfect example of what film making, acting, cinematography, script writing and the like is all about. It’s not CG robots or making a sequel for the profit, it’s telling a story. A tale of a haunting life as a celebrity and how, even back in that time, people were fascinated by fame.

“Basically, I'm for anything that gets you through the night - be it prayer, tranquilizers or a bottle of Jack Daniels.” – Frank Sinatra
So may the prayers, tranquilizers and JD be with you and see you next time.
http://moviesworketc.blogspot.com/

Read more!

Movie Reviews – “Eagle Eye”

Contacted by a stranger, Shia LaBeouf and Michelle Monaghan are now considered “activated,” which means they have to complete a series of tasks in order to help the greater good and see their loved ones again. This absurd plot has some well written dialogue and is convincingly acted by the lead and main support cast. I was impressed, I have to say, even though I was continuously thinking “that could never happen.”

Pros:
- The Acting – Shia LaBeouf rises to the occasion to show audiences a multidimensional character. Not only does he kick some bad guy booty but he also sheds some believable tears. He’s showing real promise especially under the wing of veteran Steven Spielberg. Michelle Monaghan’s “Rachel” is a divorcee with a son. Called to action while out with girlfriends, she’s motivated by the threat of her son being killed. Monaghan is gorgeous (a little too much if you ask me because by the end she’s still got perfect make up on and her hair isn’t flat – amazing how that happens, huh?) as well as genuine.

- Billy Bob Thornton - He adds a lot to the movie (and admittedly I am not a Billy Bob fan) but I liked him here. As the head of the FBI, he doesn’t deliver the conventional formulaic one liners. He has funny lines and delivers them without us laughing at how ridiculous he sounds.

- They Don’t Do it All on Their Own – You know in a movie and Mr. Bob Smith is randomly picked to help with the county’s largest heist, hostage situation, disarming a Presidential assassin, etc and he accomplishes the task unaided and without dying?! Well that doesn’t happen in “Eagle Eye.” Without whoever is on the other end of LaBeouf’s and Monaghan’s phones these two would be in for it. But because the voice controls the traffic lights, arranges for transportations, makes sure they have directions, and other helpful hints, these two actually have a chance at getting to their secret destination.

- The Action – And there’s A LOT of it. Cars flip, explode, cranes move on their own, there’s jumping onto barges, jumping out of buildings onto busy metro tracks, and more. Most of the scenes require a stretch of the imagination, but they are well shot.

Cons:
- Some Unanswered Questions - The voice on the phone at first refers to Monaghan’s character as “the female” and not by name. LaBeouf’s character makes a point to distinguish how odd that is, yet we never find out why.

- A lot of Innocent People Die – This is another movie pet peeve of mine, where there are just an extraordinary amount of random people who die because of car chases, planes flying through tunnels or bombs intended for someone else. “Eagle Eye” is no exception to that. A lot of those innocent victims are cops in this movie (I’m not saying the movie makers are doing that on purpose or anything – I think it just happened that way), but cop cars are launched in the air left and right, getting rolled over, you name it.

- Can Shoot a Gun – Another pet peeve to add to the list is movie character who have no experience with guns shoot them with accuracy. Even small guns give a lot of kickback and it’s very hard to control. So in movies when people just pick up guns and know how to use them and shoot their intended target and don’t get knocked on their butts, I laugh (quietly and to myself). But it takes any sort of realism out of the situation.

- The Action – As mentioned above, there’s a lot of it and with a cast of great actors, some of their talent goes to waste because they’re constantly shushed by the concentration it takes to shoot a moving vehicle, jump out of a car, evade the enemy, and other “look but don’t speak” conditions.

Unique Qualities:
- The Characters – LaBeouf’s character could just be your everyday 20 something year old slacker, rebellious guy, but he’s not. Monaghan’s character could just be another “feeling guilty” single mom, but she’s not. Thorton’s character could be as cliché as CSI Miami’s David Caruso, but he’s not.

In the end, I found myself wondering “What crazy, outrageous thing could happen next?” as opposed to “Wow, I wonder where this story is going.” That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but “Eagle Eye” did leave a little to be desired with its lack of a cohesive, semi-plausible plot.

Are the stunts outrageous? Is there a real plot to this film? What did you think?

“Basically, I'm for anything that gets you through the night - be it prayer, tranquilizers or a bottle of Jack Daniels.” – Frank Sinatra
So may the prayers, tranquilizers and JD be with you and see you next time.
http://moviesworketc.blogspot.com/

Read more!

“My Best Friends Girl” – Movie Review

“Good Luck Chuck” meet “How to Loose a Guy in 10 Days” – you two will get along and make a baby and call it “My Best Friend’s Girl.” “Girl” stars Dane Cook, Kate Hudson and Jason Biggs playing the same characters as every other movie we’ve seen them in. Yes, it’s funny, in a very vulgar way, I confess I laughed, but the rest of the film is uninspiring and pretty insulting to women. There are overly romantic, could-never-happen-in-real-life moments as well as bland dialogue with the exception of some jokes. Overall, this is really a wait until its on cable type of movie.

Pros:
It’s funny – kind of: I really like Kate Hudson and Dane Cook and I like them together, but man, I wish they had done a different movie. The potential is there for them to make a great flick together. I like “How to Loose a Guy…” and I REALLY like “Mr. Brooks” where Cook doesn’t play the usual comedic lead, he actually acts, seriously and is pretty good at it. This pair does have chemistry too, so hopefully they will try again, just with a better story.

Alec Baldwin – This was a pleasant surprise. Although, I could have done without his description of a certain escapade with his secretary the night before. He’s a talented comedic actor and brings a different element to the film. Portraying Cook’s character’s father, his character gives the audience an insight into the behavior of Dane Cook’s character.

Cons:
The story – It’s cliché, it’s been done a handful of times and it’s just unoriginal. The end isn’t a surprise, and neither are the events that lead to it. The only surprises are the words each actor says and the ridiculous stunts Dane Cook pulls to push women away.

The Dialogue – Boring, only funny because of the shock, offensive, etc.

Unique Qualities:
None

I’m not sure if I would even recommend this film for video. Sorry. I love Kate Hudson, she’s cute and funny! Dane Cook’s standup it terrific, wonderful social commentary! Jason Biggs is vulnerably adorable in every thing he makes. Alec Baldwin is a comedic genius on 30 Rock. So it doesn’t make sense why this movie sucked so badly. I’m terribly disappointed and once this posting is up I’m going to forget I even saw this movie.

What did you guys think of it? Was it really that funny and I’m just loosing my sense of humor or something?

“Basically, I'm for anything that gets you through the night - be it prayer, tranquilizers or a bottle of Jack Daniels.” – Frank Sinatra
So may the prayers, tranquilizers and JD be with you and see you next time.
http://moviesworketc.blogspot.com/

Read more!

Movie Reviews – “Burn After Reading”

I saw “Burn After Reading” before “No Country for Old Men” (I know, it’s a shame it took so long) but seeing “No Country” helped explain some of the aspects of “Reading” that caught me off gaurd. The Cohen Brothers certainly have an imagination, don’t they? “Reading” is a goofy tale acted out by some of our favorite serious actors and I just love that, ya know. This hilarious ensemble flick is as good as they come these days with talented crew from the editing room to the extras. Beware though, all is not funny in the world of Cohen, but the surprises make a second trip to the theater to see “Burn After Reading” worth the extra money.

Pros:
The Cohen Brothers – I think I’m an official fan. They are great with humor and violence as well as catching you off gaurd (I wonder if one brother is more violent/funny than the other?). There is always a certain off balance aspect to their films too, making them so distinctive.

The laughs – There’s a lot of them, some that aren’t in the trailers either. Go figure!

The cast – Brad Pitt’s hair is great, well, and, yeah, so is he. He doesn’t say a whole lot but it doesn’t matter, he’s still a big personality in this tale. George Clooney is the most complex character – happily married/cheating on his wife, wants to please everyone/chronic liar, creative & can built things/destroying his life. His is the most interesting storyline. This is possibly the most angry role for John Malkovich that I’ve ever seen, yet somehow still hilarious like when he stands up to his boss and in shock and pissed off confusion and blurts out “WHAT THE (BLEEP) IS GOING ON HERE?”, which ends up being the theme of the movie. Tilda Swinton plays cold and sexy very well and leaves the question “Why is Malkovich’s character married to her in the first place? She’s kind of a (“b” word).” And Frances McDormand, our leading lady who could lead any comedy with her wide eyed banter. She’s sweet and likable and very funny. She makes head slapping mistakes without the obvious and squeamish mishaps seen in movies like “Meet the Parents.”

The Surprises – Have I mentioned how much I love when huge plot lines AREN’T revealed in the trailers? And I wonder how many times I’ve said “surprises” in this review.

The Ending – It ends with head of Malkovich’s CIA department stating something to the effect of “I don’t know what just happened,” which is what the movie feels like by the end.


Cons:
The chair – there is a devise introduced briefly in the middle of the movie and it just throws the whole pace of the movie off. It’s so random, that I remained bewildered for the rest of the movie and completely changed the good way I was feeling about it (it later redeems itself, but at that moment and for a few after, I was completely put off by it.)

The F Bomb – Again, the overuse of the “f word” gets annoying by the time the credits roll.

Unique Qualities:
It is undeniably a story never heard or seen before and one of the most important characteristics of a “good movie” is originality. “Reading” certainly steps up to the plate. It’s a “need to see it twice” kind of movie simply because of the surprises. Personally, they threw me off and I wasn’t able to laugh at that time because I was recovering from the shock.

In the end, yes it’s violent, yes it’s hilarious and how can anyone not check out a movie with such an incredible cast with such reputable writers and directors? In comparison to a lot of the other movies that are out right now, this one is better than most and ranks in my top 3 of current films.

Do you think the surprises are too over the top? Did they catch you off guard like they did me? Comment, please, even if it doesn’t answer those questions :)

“Basically, I'm for anything that gets you through the night - be it prayer, tranquilizers or a bottle of Jack Daniels.” – Frank Sinatra
So may the prayers, tranquilizers and JD be with you and see you next time.
http://moviesworketc.blogspot.com/

Read more!

Great Movie Remakes

The “remake” is an interesting entity. It can either be a great revival of an old classic or it can be a total disgrace to a wonderful film. Either way, remakes allow the creative people involved to update or refresh appealing storylines and plots. Some argue that there’s no creativity in remakes and I can understand that point of view, however, it does take major innovative thinking to revive old films and make them relevant for today’s movie goers.

Some of the Good Ones:
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) – Modernized with a darker look into Willy Wonka’s life, Tim Burton recreates the chocolate waterfall, the gum that tastes like dinner, Oompa-Loompas, sorting animals, and all the memorable iconic items from the original movie without making a duplicate film. What more could you ask for? The original 1971’s “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory” stared Gene Wilder.


Dawn of the Dead (2004) – With the basic plot same as the original, survivors of a zombie attack hold up in a mall. This recent version takes on a more video game feel than its predecessor welcoming a classic screamer flick into the modern age. The original was released in 1978 and is considered one of the best horror films ever made.

The Departed (2006) - A remake of a Hong Kong movie, Departed, with good reason (a cast staring Leonardo DiCaprio, Jack Nicholson, Matt Damon and Mark Wahlberg, directed by Martin Scorsese), won Best Picture and Best Director Academy Awards in 2007. The Hong Kong original “Internal Affairs” was released in 2002.


I am Legend (2007) - In general, the story is the same as the two original movies, Robert Neville is the only man (he knows of) immune to a disease turning everyone into zombies. The details, such as setting up manikins and the zombies being deformed with see-through skin differ from the other films, but the fight to survive a daily deadly enemy and battling the loneliness are still the main storylines. The first movie, 1964’s “The Last Man on Earth,” was an Italian film starring Vincent Price and the 1971 version “The Omega Man” starred Charlton Heston.

The Italian Job (2003) - It’s noted that this particular remake differs greatly from the original with the exception of the mini cooper. Both films have more of a romanticized view of the crime world in the respective cities they are set in. The original released in 1969 was poorly received in America, with the remake being the bigger success of the two.

King Kong (2005) - A monumental film based on an even more monumental film. There’s just something about King Kong that’s larger than life. Even if critics didn’t reflect too positively on the film and even if box office numbers were low, there is nothing larger than “King Kong.” The original released in 1933 made huge waves in the special effects field, especially for that era.

The Manchurian Candidate (2004) - Revered by a lot of critics as a terrific reimagining, this version holds true to the founding idea that manipulation and brainwashing are influencing this particular political race. However, the modern version doesn’t leave the audience wondering about brainwashing, it’s outright with it, but is mysterious with other conspiracy strategies. Originally a movie in 1962 starring Frank Sinatra and Laurence Harvey had communists at the core instead of the right wing versus the left in the updated version.

Ocean’s Eleven (2001) - Another reimagining with roots grounded into the main theme of multiple Las Vegas casino heists, this crime caper flick offers an all star cast (just as the first movie did), but, most notably offers a very different ending than the original. Fun and frolic ensue in this updated Rat Pack movie making it my personal favorite on the list. The 1960’s version starred the Rat Pack who on occasion got to showcase their singing (and lady charming) abilities.


Planet of the Apes (2001) - Receiving mostly negative reviews when it premiered in 2001, this remake was a disappointment, but lands on the "Good" list because it is such a known remake. Part of that disappointment had to be from recreating an already iconic film. Again, the endings differ between the remake and the first film, but the remake stuck more to the book that the movies were based on. The original in 1968 starred Charlton Heston and was a ground breaking film for its use of makeup and other special effects.


Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007) - A bloody musical based on a theatrical musical based on a play based on an old movie based on an urban legend – with that type of history it’s no wonder Benjamin Barker and cronies turn out so odd. This version of the film is almost completely different in that the original was not a musical and the lead character (named Tod Slaughter) was a villain, not a broken man with revenge in his heart. Both films were positively received by critics and audiences. The original film was released in 1936.

War of the Worlds (2005) - Wikipedia states that the 2005 version isn’t an actual remake, but when reading a description of the 1953 movie, the main themes are definitely the same. Taking “mass destruction, fleeing masses of refugees, the failure of humans to stop the invasion, and the final death of the Martians from bacterial infection” from the H.G. Wells story, Steven Spielberg takes the audience on a fight to survive - “I don’t know what to do” thrill ride. Some differences between the two films are the locations and the main characters. Both films were hugely successful and were relevant to “war” situations around the time of their debut.

And the Bad:
Yes, we must (briefly) discuss some of the bad remakes that have been created in recent years.

When a Stranger Calls (2006) - Staring Camilla Belle, the remake is considered bad and it differs from the original in that the source of the scary calls is revealed too soon (and by that I mean it’s revealed in the trailers). The original was released in 1979.

The Wicker Man (2006) - Again, a remake of an already very highly regarded film – it only sets things up for disappointment. The original was released in 1973.

Bad News Bears (2005) - This film held pretty closely to the original but was still a box office strikeout (pun intended). The original was released in 1976.


The Fog (2005) - Veering far from the course of the original, the scare factor just wasn’t so clear for this remake. The original was released in 1980.

House of Wax (2005) - Gore for gore’s sake (and Paris Hilton) although wax figurines will always be a little creepy, this was a bomb of a movie. The original was released in 1953.

School for Scoundrels (2006) - Two different endings - guess which one was better (and British)? The original, “School for Scoundrels or How to Win Without Actually Cheating,” was released in 1960.

The Time Machine (2002) - This love story version received not ALL bad reviews, but seemed to be more sappy-ish than time travel wonder-ish. The original was released in 1960.

“Basically, I'm for anything that gets you through the night - be it prayer, tranquilizers or a bottle of Jack Daniels.” – Frank Sinatra
So may the prayers, tranquilizers and JD be with you and see you next time.
http://moviesworketc.blogspot.com/

Read more!