June 27, 2005
Don't Look Now remake
ARGGHHH! More remakes of perfectly good films, in fact way more than perfectly good, I mean excellent. MovieWeb is talking about the remake of the superb Don't Look Now:
According to The Hollywood Reporter, Mark Gordon is planning to produce a remake of Don't Look Now for Paramount Pictures......Andrea Berloff will write the screenplay for the adaptation...
...Gordon said that Berloff's script will contemporize the 1973 version, which was penned by Allen Scott and Chris Bryant. "The original was very atmospheric, so we'll provide a little more of the narrative that audiences expect," he added.
McLaughlin said he was attracted to the project by its basic focus on a couple dealing with their grief. "I don't think there's been a film that deals more intelligently with the loss of a child," he said.
The 1973 original starred Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie and was a superbly visual story centering on the loss of a child and the affect on the parents. It's very strong throughout, featuring a pretty amazing sex scene, strong death scenes and very tough emotional scenes. The performances from Christie and Sutherland are superb, and I really can't see them being outdone.
Oh, and what's this about contemporising the original?! More narrative I think will damage the film, the original thrived on the mystery and some confusion, letting the viewer work some things out for themselves.
Are remakes just getting too much? Touching ground where they really shouldn't? What about this movie, isn't it perfect already?
Posted by at June 27, 2005 08:01 AM
Comments
Posted by: dparker2.0 at June 30, 2005 01:37 PM
It's another addition to the cancerous lump taking over some of the head honchos in Hollywood at the moment.
Just when a shot of originality is most probably what it'll take to get audiences back in cinemas producer and studios are cowering into their leather clad shells and checking out where the money was made in the past.
Don't Look Now has been heralded a classic which means it has a readymade audience when it comes to a remake: those who've never seen the movie and never even heard of it will be sold the idea by a summary of it's former glory plus the sparklyness of a contemporary cast; those who've never got round to seeing the original will now just go see this version; and those who saw the original and most likely are looking for a simple reminder (as if one were needed) that 21st century Hollywood sure can mess up a great picture.
I'm horrified that this is up for remake, just like I was Texas Chain Saw was jazzed up for the kids. And The Amityville Horror. And House of Wax. And come to mention it War of the Worlds. But like a sheep I was there in the audience - mostly scoffing while the teenagers around me either chewed gum or played on their mobiles.
Horror cinema in particular used to say something about the society producing it. This decade is turning into an apathy pit with remakes clogging up the system.
I think I'm gonna convert to rom-coms or musicals - at least then I know from the outset it's all a load of tosh.
Posted by: Justin Merritt at July 1, 2005 12:34 PM
I'm guessing that one of the reasons to keep remaking perfectly good films like this one (besides the opportunity to make more money) is because the studios think that young people can't relate to a "classic" film:
"Donald Sutherland? Who's that? Is he related to that guy on '24'? Julie Christie? Is she the woman who wrote all the mysteries?"
So, instead of enjoying the experience of watching Donald and Julie's spellbinding performances (just thinking about that little woman in the red coat still gives me chills), we'll get to see a new, over-hyped version, probably starring people like Gwyneth Paltrow and Tom Cruise.