In This Section
TV Guide Spotlight
Also on TVGuide.com
|
« Ask FlickChick
Ask FlickChick: A Phantom of the Paradise remake and more movie questions
Ask FlickChick: Movies affected by the writer's strike, dubbed performances, what's that movie and more movie questions answered!
I'm a big fan of Brian De Palma's The Phantom of the Paradise. Recently, I've been hearing rumblings that there was talk of a remake. Any truth to these rumors? I can't really imagine a remake of this movie being successful, because part of the fun was how absolutely '70s it was. Thanks! – Kim
FlickChick: At this time, talk of a Phantom of the Paradise remake seems to be little more than that. The title is listed on the website of Pressman Films , at the bottom of a list of in-development projects.
That said, Pressman Films is a legitimate company, Edward R. Pressman has a strong track record as a producer and he's already backed a remake of Brian DePalma's Sisters (1973). Though the film hasn't opened in the US, it's got a great cast -- Stephen Rea, Chloe Sevigny and Lou Doillon, daughter of '60s icon Jane Birkin – and an interesting writer-director in Douglas Buck (2004's Family Portraits: A Trilogy of America).
Coincidentally, Variety announced today that Fox 2000 is remaking DePalma's 1978 The Fury. Hollywood's wholesale strip mining of the past continues!
Is it true that movie directors film the love scenes first in case the actors don't like each other as shooting goes on, or is every film different? -- Curious in Texas
FlickChick: No. In fact. most filmmakers try to schedule sex scenes for later in production, on the theory that it's easier for actors to simulate passion if they've had some time to work together and establish some kind of rapport.
And frankly, in the end it doesn't matter whether or not actors like each other: Mickey Rourke and Kim Basinger hated , but they're hot together in Nine 1/2 Weeks (1986). And there are plenty of examples of couples with zero onscreen chemistry – I'm sure my readers can think of many examples. I'll kick off with Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman in Eyes Wide Shut (1999) – can you say "cold fish?"
When I was a kid I remember a movie where this woman in white was glowing and no matter what she touched it was glowing too do you know the name of the movie. Thanks -- Dave
FlickChick: I'm going with the ultra-low budget Terror from the Year 5000 (1958), which features Salome Jens in a glittery white jumpsuit as a time traveler from the radiation-blasted future.
The original Smokey and the Bandit was a childhood favorite of mine, but the sequel disappointed me so I never bothered to watch part three. I recently caught Smokey and the Bandit 3 in the middle of the night and had nightmares later – what a train wreck. Somebody at work said the third film was originally titled "Smokey Is the Bandit," but it had to be completely reworked when test audiences didn't understand that the Sheriff was also the Bandit. Do you know anything about this urban legend?
FlickChick: It's not an urban legend. "Smokey is the Bandit" was greenlighted on the strength of the first two films' box office, but neither director Hal Needham nor Burt Reynolds was interested in participating (though Reynolds eventually relented to the tune of a cameo appearance).
So the second sequel was built around Jackie Gleason's Sheriff Buford T. Justice. Someone clearly thought it would be really clever if the Bandit's nemesis accepted a bet involving some insane feat of high-speed driving with filthy rich Texans Big and Little Enos Burdette (Pat McCormick, Paul Williams), thereby making himself both a smokey (highway patrolman) and a bandit.
Apparently test audiences just didn't get the concept and after some disastrous screenings more than half the film was reshot, with Jerry Reed – the bandit's sidekick, Cledus Snow – assuming the bandit mantle. It was still a flop.
There's a small group of Smokey and the Bandit completists holding out hope that the original version of Smokey 3 will one day turn up, perhaps as a DVD extra on some special edition of Smokey and the Bandit--Part 3.
Send your movie questions to FlickChick.
See Maitland McDonagh and Ken Fox review this week's new flicks on the Movie Talk vodcast.
|
TVGuide Links:
|
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2008 5:28 PM
|
I know remakes are annoying, but they're not a recent phenomenon. Studios have been remaking their earlier films all along, sometimes with only a few years between versions. A lot of silent films were remade as talkies, a number of pre-Hayes Code films were remade post-1934 in versions that fit the Code, and plenty of foreign films were given American remakes. For instance, the 1941 version of The Maltese Falcon is the best-known now, but it was the third version of that film, all of which were based on the same Dashiell Hammett novel. There was a version in 1931, and another called Satan Met a Lady in 1936.
The main reason they did this is because movies were not perpetually available to the public like they are now. A movie made its initial run, and then went away. The biggest hits were revived occasionally, but many fell into obscurity. When television came along, it helped keep more of the older movies in circulation, but it wasn't until home video came along that the average person could access older movies very easily. I think this accessibility makes the remakes seem more egregious and unnecessary since I can usually find the original version of a film just as easily as seeing a new one.
Many remakes are a product of laziness, it's true, but some do take the material and give it a unique spin or do something to make the exercise worthwhile. John Carpenter's The Thing is a good example of this -- both it and the 1951 version were based on a short story. Scarface is a wild, loose update of the 1932 film version, which was based on a novel. The same for 3:10 to Yuma, but I doubt many people look at those pairs of films and declares them interchangeable.
|
|
Apr 24, 2008 7:15 PM
|
I agree about John Carpenter's The Thing. I love the original version, but Carpenter's really just sings to me...not just 'cuz of Kurt Russell, either!
One of the worst remakes I've ever seen (recently anyway) was When A Stranger Calls. Except for the fantastic house, I absolutely HATED it.
|
|
Apr 24, 2008 7:21 PM
|
|
The thing about the modern habit of remaking not-so-old films is that so little effort is put into the remakes. They want to lure in teenagers and 20-somethings who refuse to seek out anything from before they were born, but no imagination or artistic vision is invested in the remake--they sign a few current movie actors, put out a lackluster movie, take in their 30-50 million bucks, and toss the whole thing on the scrapheap of history. A few months later, almost no one even remembers the remake happened.
|
|
Apr 25, 2008 8:37 AM
|
This cycle of horror remakes is out of control. What's the point of a PG-13 remake of Prom Night? Did the Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Halloween do-overs accomplish anything in the name of American filmmaking?
And isn't there a Friday the 13th remake on the way? Why? These movies are so of their time these "re-imaginings" have no hope of being worthwile.
Speaking (typing) of "of its time" and another topic of this column, why don't I like Phantom of the Paradise? I like Brian De Palma, the '70s, rock musicals, and Jessica Harper. But I've seen this movie twice, and it does nothing for me.
|
|
Apr 25, 2008 8:43 PM
|
|
|
