I note with extreme displeasure that a retreaded version of The Day Of The Jackal has been made, fortunately only on Brit TV so we won’t be subjected to it Over Here.
Why am I so dismissive? As I wrote on this here website many years ago, I consider Forsyth’s novel to be quite possibly the greatest thriller ever written, and Zinneman’s movie adaptation likewise excellent, for the simple reason that he followed the novel’s format almost to the letter.
Would that other directors followed his example; his, and that of the late Franco Zeffirelli (Romeo and Juliet). But no they don’t, of course: mostly, the novels are twisted beyond all recognition into something else, something else of far lesser value (e.g. the dreadful remake of Jackal, with Bruce Willis and Richard Gere).
I’m sorry I mentioned that; I too have the faint taste of near-regurgitation in my mouth now.
Anyway, I think it’s time to do something more valuable with my time, like heading off to the polling booth.
Hollyweird and that entire industry should re-write, recast and refilm movies that went off the rails and were terrible.
I haven’t seen too many remakes that are better than the original flicks
Yes, that Bruce Willis remake of Jackal was bad….
But didn’t you grin a bit as he used a 50cal to part Jack Black off into smaller bits o’asshole? Aaaaalmost worth a rewatch. Well, that scene anyways.
Which is why the Apple TV version of Slow Horses is off putting and not saved by Gary Oldman’s excellent portrayal of Jackson Lamb.
Duly noted. Will not watch.
I saw the trailer for that dumb remake and it set me off. A stronk black woman is included, of course.
I’m with you, the original was a classic. I see crap like this and wonder why they can’t make original movies any longer. They have to crib from an old one and ruin it. I’m the same with sequels. It was a good story – leave it. We don’t need to wear it out with a girlboss or magic negro.
The movie Jaws was better than the book. They removed the affair between Brody’s wife and Hooper that served no purpose.
I thought I’d forgotten that.
Since you mentioned that, Yes, it did not help the story move at all. I wonder what Benchley’s purpose was including that detour. Or, what was the editor thinking?
That scene in the book was not in the original draft; the editor/publisher required a sex scene before they would publish it.
Remakes can be good. Almost certainly, your favorite take on DRACULA is a remake, unless you have a fondness for the silent NOSFERATU. FISTFUL OF DOLLARS is effectively a remake of YOJIMBO, and both are excellent. The Heston BEN HUR is a remake of a 1925 film, itself a remake of one made in 1907.
Hell, EL DORADO is very close to being a remake of RIO BRAVO, and they were both by the same director.
Yes, sometimes the remakes surpass the original. the 1939 version of “The Four Feathers” is far better than the 1914 version, the 1921 version, and the 1929 version. The next remakes have been acceptable, but the 2002 version with Heath Ledger as the hero was execrable. It might as well have been completely different movie using the same name — like “The Italian Job”with Mark Wahlberg, Ed Norton and Charlize Theron.
I formulated what I call “Schofield’s Law of Popular Culture”;
We remember the popular culture of eras past so fondly because, mercifully, we don’t actually remember all that much of it.
This applies to remakes, especially remakes of films when technology has moved on and made the old versions hard to watch. It takes effort to watch a black-and-white film if you’re used to color. It takes more to watch a silent, particularly if they haven’t projected it at the right frame-rate. If you aren’t exposed to old films early, it can be hard to make the adjustment.
Now, for some films the poor quality of the remake swamps the improved technology. But the revers is also true; a remake can be so good that we either don’t notice or forget the original.
Another example of a TERRIBLE book-to-movie was Robert Heinlein’s Starship Troopers. Book was excellent, movie wasn’t good enough to be called abysmal.
The book was about (in part) soldiering as an honor and a duty. The film was made by somebody who thought that attitude made Heinlein a Fascist. Not too surprisingly, the result would have had to improve by several levels to merely be awful.