Saw this a couple of nights ago. It's not as bad as people say. Dont just blindly listen to people, go see it for yourself and judge the film. Then if you dont like it, fine.
I liked things about it. Brolin and Olsen were good and so was Copley.
It was just OK. I didnt like Spike Lee's style, trying to do a gritty American version of an artistic masterpiece. The beginning had some shaky cam stuff that was a little irritating.
I shouldnt judge this movie though and the same goes for everybody else who is saying this movie was bad or average. Because 1 hour and 20 minutes were cut. And it's very noticeable. Ill wait to see the full 3 hour film on blu-ray.
shauner111 wrote:
I shouldnt judge this movie though and the same goes for everybody else who is saying this movie was bad or average. Because 1 hour and 20 minutes were cut. And it's very noticeable. Ill wait to see the full 3 hour film on blu-ray.
Hours are cut from every movie. That's filmmaking. Spike Lee just didn't know how to tell the story. The original wasn't 3 hours long - and it was brilliantly told. Because it was guided by a vision that had been worked and tighten for a long time.
I actually think Spike Lee could have cut MORE of the movie down. The first 15 minutes is completely irrellevant. All it tells us is that he is a drunken asshole. Something the original told us in 2 minutes in the police station scene. The only other character we are really getting to know there is Daniel Newcombe, and he is written out of the script within the first 15 minutes of Joe getting out.
shauner111 wrote:
I shouldnt judge this movie though and the same goes for everybody else who is saying this movie was bad or average. Because 1 hour and 20 minutes were cut. And it's very noticeable. Ill wait to see the full 3 hour film on blu-ray.
Hours are cut from every movie. That's filmmaking. Spike Lee just didn't know how to tell the story. The original wasn't 3 hours long - and it was brilliantly told. Because it was guided by a vision that had been worked and tighten for a long time.
I actually think Spike Lee could have cut MORE of the movie down. The first 15 minutes is completely irrellevant. All it tells us is that he is a drunken asshole. Something the original told us in 2 minutes in the police station scene. The only other character we are really getting to know there is Daniel Newcombe, and he is written out of the script within the first 15 minutes of Joe getting out.
Yes, but Spike Lee's vision was 3 hours long and it was cut down to 1 hour and 40 minutes. In that case, it makes no difference what Park did with the original or what his vision was. If DePalma's Scarface was cut down from 3hrs to 1:40 i would say that we shouldnt judge the film based on its theatrical release. I would judge what i saw but i would still give his real cut a chance and REALLY make my final call.
Now, as for what i saw, it wasnt a well made film. Im not even a fan of Spike's movies or style. I liked the performances but that's all i can say now that it's been a few days since ive seen it.
shauner111 wrote:Yes, but Spike Lee's vision was 3 hours long and it was cut down to 1 hour and 40 minutes. In that case, it makes no difference what Park did with the original or what his vision was.
True. Maybe he should have been a little more clear with his producers about his vision to begin with.
shauner111 wrote:
If DePalma's Scarface was cut down from 3hrs to 1:40 i would say that we shouldnt judge the film based on its theatrical release. I would judge what i saw but i would still give his real cut a chance and REALLY make my final call.
Perhaps a bad example in my case. Since I actually think Scarface is terribly paced, and overall overrated. But I get your point.
But let me make this clear, I don't hate the film. I just think it's an extremely unnecessary remake - and it let me down on the things I actually thought Hollywood were good at. For instance the special effects looked SO cheap. It constantly threw me out of the story.
Come on man, the studio doesn't give a shit about the movie, Lee implied in a recent interview that they don't get it (by cutting the famous fight scene) and is not happy with the cut. Film District just dumped the movie like a steaming turd in the middle of Catching Fire & Frozen, it did 1.2 f*** million on OW.
Jax_Teller wrote:Come on man, the studio doesn't give a shit about the movie, Lee implied in a recent interview that they don't get it (by cutting the famous fight scene) and is not happy with the cut. Film District just dumped the movie like a steaming turd in the middle of Catching Fire & Frozen, it did 1.2 f*** million on OW.
Lee got screwed.
I dig that Lee got screwed, but I'm still trying to figure out why he thought that making this film was a good idea in the first place. Thoughts?
He explained that him & Brolin wanted to work together for a while. Brolin is a huge fan of the original movie and asked for Chan-Wook's blessing, he said yeah. Lee loved the movie as well and wanted to do something different, calls it a reinterpretation and not a remake They did it.
shauner111 wrote:Yes, but Spike Lee's vision was 3 hours long and it was cut down to 1 hour and 40 minutes. In that case, it makes no difference what Park did with the original or what his vision was.
True. Maybe he should have been a little more clear with his producers about his vision to begin with.
shauner111 wrote:
If DePalma's Scarface was cut down from 3hrs to 1:40 i would say that we shouldnt judge the film based on its theatrical release. I would judge what i saw but i would still give his real cut a chance and REALLY make my final call.
Perhaps a bad example in my case. Since I actually think Scarface is terribly paced, and overall overrated. But I get your point.
But let me make this clear, I don't hate the film. I just think it's an extremely unnecessary remake - and it let me down on the things I actually thought Hollywood were good at. For instance the special effects looked SO cheap. It constantly threw me out of the story.
Scarface is one of my favorite films of all time, so i guess that's a debate for another day .
But yeah man, it's an unnecessary remake. What specific effects? Im trying to remember what scenes you're thinking of.
Jax_Teller wrote:Come on man, the studio doesn't give a shit about the movie, Lee implied in a recent interview that they don't get it (by cutting the famous fight scene) and is not happy with the cut. Film District just dumped the movie like a steaming turd in the middle of Catching Fire & Frozen, it did 1.2 f*** million on OW.
I just got back from seeing it. I haven't seen the original, I didn't read reviews, I just checked out the RT score. I have to say... I loved it and I can't really understand the hate it's getting. It may be a little "distasteful" for some, and maybe not as good as the original but judging it on it's own merit I thought it was fantastic. I'm not going to say much about the film other than performances are very good (although some a bit cartoonish/freakshow). I really think if you haven't seen the original, unfamiliar with the story and are planning on seeing this, disregard the reviews and go in with an open mind. The less you know about this the better.
They did it.
.
