Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Spike Lee to direct Oldboy remake

Options
123457»

Comments

  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    a lot of people don't like reading and/or aren't very good at it, trying to keep an eye on the actual goings on of a movie all the while reading all the dialogue at the bottom of the screen before it disappears can be a bit much.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,224 ✭✭✭✭Marty McFly


    I know a guy who likes his films but will not watch any subtitled film claims there all "crap" when I listed of a load of brilliant films with subtitles shrugged his shoulders and said meh there probably all crap :mad:.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,464 ✭✭✭e_e


    a lot of people don't like reading and/or aren't very good at it, trying to keep an eye on the actual goings on of a movie all the while reading all the dialogue at the bottom of the screen before it disappears can be a bit much.
    I think this "You have to read while watching!" stuff has been massively overexaggerated to be honest. Again it's based on the fallacy that every film has dialog that needs to be followed thoroughly too, if a film is in good it should be able to tell its story clearly through visuals anyway. You also have a peripheral vision so it's not like your eyes are jumping up and down throughout to entire film to catch everything. Honestly while I imagine it is a problem for a select few I find a lot just use it as an easy excuse, it's a nonsense excuse in most cases imo. What does it take to read a line of dialog for most? A portion of a second?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,464 ✭✭✭e_e


    I think it also may be a problem of audiences wanting everything handed to them on a silver plate, whereas if they invest only a little extra they'll get so much more from the film (and cinema in general). I guess it marks the difference between the passive viewer (the kind who may watch with an eye on their phone too) and one who really gives the film their fullest attention.


  • Posts: 15,814 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    e_e wrote: »
    I think it also may be a problem of audiences wanting everything handed to them on a silver plate, whereas if they invest only a little extra they'll get so much more from the film (and cinema in general). I guess it marks the difference between the passive viewer (the kind who may watch with an eye on their phone too) and one who really gives the film their fullest attention.


    Honestly I think people underestimate the average cinena goer. Film snobs love to look down on anyone who enjoys a little dumb fun or isn't demanding that the local cineplex show the latest 6 Serbian morality tale. The cinemas on galway regularly get in subtitled fare and they're well attended. I know that The Raid did huge business here, as did both of Mel Gibsons subtitled films and there's big interest in the Japanese film festival.

    People seem to think that knowing one or two people who won't watch foreign films means that no casual film fan wants to. Sure there's people who won't, my girlfriend's father would watch the hard of hearing voice over than he would aubtitles but that's a rare case. Most people, if the film interests them will watch a subtitled film


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,464 ✭✭✭e_e


    Yeah I'd agree with that, I do hope The Raid 2 is a big success. :)

    I do see less of this "I don't read movies!" stuff than I did a decade ago which is nice at least. I think the likes of Netflix allows people to go out of their comfort zone too.


  • Registered Users Posts: 36,165 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    some people just don't like subtitles and they never will and they will switch off a movie as soon as they see them...that's why movies are remade...
    Honestly I think people underestimate the average cinena goer. Film snobs love to look down on anyone who enjoys a little dumb fun or isn't demanding that the local cineplex show the latest 6 Serbian morality tale. The cinemas on galway regularly get in subtitled fare and they're well attended. I know that The Raid did huge business here, as did both of Mel Gibsons subtitled films and there's big interest in the Japanese film festival.

    People seem to think that knowing one or two people who won't watch foreign films means that no casual film fan wants to. Sure there's people who won't, my girlfriend's father would watch the hard of hearing voice over than he would aubtitles but that's a rare case. Most people, if the film interests them will watch a subtitled film

    Fine, but the original point still stands. A percentage of people who watch films won't watch subtitled films and, as such, remakes in English will be a Hollywood staple for some time to come.

    Some people's musical landscape is the current top 40. Some people only read pulp thrillers. Some people receive their news uncritically from the likes of the Daily Mail, Sky News, etc. Whatever my personal opinions on any of these things, it would be silly to pretend they aren't the case. 'That makes me sad' type pouting is quite lol in that context.


  • Posts: 15,814 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    Fine, but the original point still stands. A percentage of people who watch films won't watch subtitled films and, as such, remakes in English will be a Hollywood staple for some time to come.

    Some people's musical landscape is the current top 40. Some people only read pulp thrillers. Some people receive their news uncritically from the likes of the Daily Mail, Sky News, etc. Whatever my personal opinions on any of these things, it would be silly to pretend they aren't the case. 'That makes me sad' type pouting is quite lol in that context.


    It's hardly a Hollywood only thing. American films are routinely remade across the world and its not always due to the fact that people won't read subs. Remaking a film is far cheaper than developing a new ip. It's also not a new craze either, remakes are as old as cinema and some of the most renowned and respected films are in fact remakes.


  • Registered Users Posts: 36,165 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    It's hardly a Hollywood only thing. American films are routinely remade across the world and its not always due to the fact that people won't read subs. Remaking a film is far cheaper than developing a new ip. It's also not a new craze either, remakes are as old as cinema and some of the most renowned and respected films are in fact remakes.

    Yep, though I bet the Hollywood remakes are the one that grate on here.

    In anycase, while you're right some remakes are undoubtedly to take an idea and open it up to a different market not reached via a subtitled print. Just as some scene by scene remakes (take the pointless Psycho remake) are cash ins to cater for the fact that some people won't watch movies of a certain vintage.


  • Posts: 15,814 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Wasn't in the mood for anything too demanding so I stuck this on and it's not quite the travesty many hoped. It's been years since I saw the original and much like with the Unforgiven remake, I've held off on a re-watch so I can give the remake a chance. I imagine that were the original fresher in my mind then my enjoyment of the film would be rather lessened.

    Thematically the film is something of a mess and the ending, while interesting and a little bit daring could have been far more affecting. There's a madness to it that works but it does feel like a cop out and the whole martyrdom of the flawed hero grates. There's a way that the ending could have been far superior had a few subtle changes been made to the film though it's hard to judge it considering that Lee's 140 cut of the film was reedited by the studio.

    Speaking of Lee and I'm struggling to remember the last time that one of his films has been anything other than fluff. The 25th Hour is perhaps the last time that Lee challenged himself and Oldboy isn't a patch on it. The inventiveness of the cinematography and editing is missing here and instead we get Lee at his flattest. Everything looks nice and shiny but it's so perfunctory that you'd skip past it if channel surfing. The few interesting shots are fleeting and the worst crime of all is that there is absolutely no sense of time passing. We're supposed to believe that Brolin has been locked up for 20 years but it feels like he's there all of 10 minutes. Utilising imagery of historical events from the time-frame is a cheap hand holding exercise for the audience, we really don't need shots of Clinton's inauguration or the Twin Towers falling to know that time is passing. Any decent film maker would do it without being so obvious.

    Even the violence feels limp by comparison to the original or any decent action thriller of the past decade. There was a deranged glee present throughout the original, none more so than in the hallway scene. There's no sense of glee here, rather a blunt brutality that seems to revel in the viciousness of it all. Which, isn't particular a bad thing but in Lee's incapable hands the violence is just crass and off putting. The use of cheap CGI doesn't help matters. The only moment involving violence that feels in anyway interesting is the hallway set piece which manages to capture much of the madness of the original while at the same time taking things up a notch. It's a rare moment of insanity in a film that feels far too constrained. T

    Much like the rest of the film, the transformation of Brolin from overweight drunk to lean, mean fighting machine is again a lost opportunity. As is his descent into madness. There's no weight to any of it and it feels like Lee is simply ticking off a check list. Once free Brolin seems content to simply stalk old adversaries and hit on the cute nurse. There's no sense of urgency to his quest for answers, which is odd considering that throughout the film we have a ticking clock ever counting down. When the villain is finally presented to us, he's less majestic and bombastic than he is rat faced and sniveling. Whoever told Copley that his accent was a good idea was wrong. It sounds false and repeatedly slips throughout the film. It's not quite Fassbender in X-Men bad but it's pretty damn close. Neither Copley or Jackson come out off as anything other than silly, with Jackson in particular embarrassing himself. It's almost as if he's treating the whole thing as an extended audition for The Spirit 2.

    Even with all that said, there's still some enjoyment to be had here. Brolin is rather good and is obviously having a lot of fun breaking bones and knocking heads together. It's also fun to see Michael Imperioli and Max Casella, who I can't not picture as Daxter every time he appears on screen. I can't see anyone looking back on the film as anything other than a missed opportunity. There's a real feeling of a director playing it safe and while it's no some slavishly loyal imitation it's so lacking in a voice of it's own that you're better off just throwing on the original.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement