Spike Lee to direct Oldboy remake

roboshatner

shocking that is....

I asked a friend of mine to watch the original Total recall....he said no I said why he said I came out before he was born.

you should try watch it

it is very good and so is christine the song from it really makes the movie but.

Mr Freeze wrote: »

Just like the Carrie remake, instead of watching it, I just read the wikipedia synopsis.

Saved myself 105 minutes.

Links234

I'm actually enjoying some very, very sweet schadenfreude after learning this flopped.

Mr Freeze

roboshatner wrote: »

shocking that is....

Well I've seen the original, and like others here, feel there was no need to remake it, and when this was remake was getting panned, rather than watch it, I'd just read the synopsis.

I can't say I am a big fan of the original, and the only thing I wanted to know about the american remake was how they were going to handle the big reveals what were in the original.

LuckyLloyd

spacecoyote wrote: »

The thing about it to me is...the type of people that this is aimed at are all likely people who have seen the original, so it holds basically no surprises for them and not necessarily any appeal

I absolutely loved the original OldBoy, but theres no way I would bring the missus to see it in the Cinema. Its very much an acquired taste. I gave it to a lad in work who I thought would enjoy it, but it turned out that

if you have kids

it gives you a very different perspective on the movie

Fysh wrote: »

Having seen (and loved) the original, there's no way I'm arsed watching this. I've read some of the original comics and will get around to finishing them, but this pointless remake will remain forever unwatched, as far as I'm concerned.

The news about the graphic designer who claims to have come up with the design used in the poster being screwed over and not paid doesn't exactly make me keener on seeing the film either, especially given Lee's "I don't give rat's ass, I got mine"-style responses...

Marty McFly wrote: »

It got unanimously panned on BBC Film 2013 last night,not one of them could even find one positive thing to say about it. Sounds like a complete disaster of a movie which most people expected.

sheehy83 wrote: »

Without spoilering for people, can anyone tell me does it keep the same ending as the original?

PanaDrama wrote: »

Utterly pointless movie remake from a director who hasn't made anything remotely passable in years.

No huge surprise that this turned out to be a crapfest.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

I saw the trailer in the cinema recently, and for anyone who's seen the original, it seemed to be a by the numbers remake, which thus alienates the large audience of those who've already seen it, who would arguably have made up a large portion of the cinema going audience.

roboshatner wrote: »

I am so glad it did terrible.....Brolin is a good actor but he should have stayed well clear of it.

Love the Orginal and managed to stay the test of time dispite all the controversy it has had.

Mr Freeze wrote: »

Just like the Carrie remake, instead of watching it, I just read the wikipedia synopsis.

Saved myself 105 minutes.

Mickeroo wrote: »

I probably will watch this out of curiosity at some point but I won't be going to the cinema in order to do so.

Links234 wrote: »

I'm actually enjoying some very, very sweet schadenfreude after learning this flopped.

:rolleyes:

Lots of posts about how you're all not going to see a film.

Raf32 wrote: »

never saw the original but just back from this today, found it very enjoyable with a genius twist in it, good acting too!

I saw the original, thought it was magnificent, and am really looking forward to catching this on Thursday evening. The snobbery in here is stifling tbh.

e_e

Snobbery does not equal people having different opinions to you.

Maybe on Thursday you'll realize just what a bad film this is.

Mr Freeze

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The snobbery in here is stifling tbh.

But its the boards film forum, snobbery is a requirement.

LuckyLloyd

e_e wrote: »

Snobbery does not equal people having different opinions to you.

Maybe on Thursday you'll realize just what a bad film this is.

Watch the film and you may hold any opinion you like! A position of 'I assume this film is dreadful and it is an affront to the art of cinema that it was made' is not a worthwile opinion.

Mr Freeze wrote: »

But its the boards film forum, snobbery is a requirement.

Ha. The original is a masterpiece and this remake will probably fail to come close, but I'm happy to go check it out anyway. People tripping over themselves to note how they won't go and see it is, well...strange?

Mickeroo

If you look back in the thread you'll see i was curious about this and even happy with some of the casting. I've decided not to see the film in the cinema based on the responses of those who have seen it and the less than flattering reviews its receiving. The only person on this thread who liked it hadn't seen the original as far as I can see. By all accounts its a completely redundant remake that offers nothing new over the source material and since I can't afford to go see every film in the cinema I have decided I'll save my money for something I have a better chance of actually enjoying. I will still probably watch it when it makes it onto dvd/netflix.

This is very similar to the train of thought that prevented me from going to see the likes of Grown Ups 2 i the cinema also.

Does that equate to snobbery these days?

LuckyLloyd

Mickeroo wrote: »

If you look back in the thread you'll see i was curious about this and even happy with some of the casting. I've decided not to see the film in the cinema based on the responses of those who have seen it and the less than flattering reviews its receiving. The only person on this thread who liked it hadn't seen the original as far as I can see. By all accounts its a completely redundant remake that offers nothing new over the source material and since I can't afford to go see every film in the cinema I have decided I'll save my money for something I have a better chance of actually enjoying. I will still probably watch it when it makes it onto dvd/netflix.

This is very similar to the train of thought that prevented me from going to see the likes of Grown Ups 2 i the cinema also.

Does that equate to snobbery these days?

That isn't snobbery. This is though imo:

PanaDrama wrote: »

Utterly pointless movie remake from a director who hasn't made anything remotely passable in years.

No huge surprise that this turned out to be a crapfest.

Fysh wrote: »

Having seen (and loved) the original, there's no way I'm arsed watching this. I've read some of the original comics and will get around to finishing them, but this pointless remake will remain forever unwatched, as far as I'm concerned.

The news about the graphic designer who claims to have come up with the design used in the poster being screwed over and not paid doesn't exactly make me keener on seeing the film either, especially given Lee's "I don't give rat's ass, I got mine"-style responses...

e_e

Not wanting to see a film for the terrible reviews its gotten (not to mention it being a part of one of the worst Hollywood trends of the last decade) is snobbery now?

pixelburp

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

That isn't snobbery. This is though imo:

Those comments aren't snobbery, just personal choices. I don't intend seeing this remake, it seems utterly redundant and pointless having (relatively) recently seen the original. But I guess that makes me a snob for some unfathomable, vague reason?

LuckyLloyd

Please continue suggesting that 'it got poor reviews, I'll give it a miss' and 'they should never have made this film, I would never see it and I'm glad it has flopped and been panned' are one and the same thing.

e_e

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Please continue suggesting that 'it got poor reviews, I'll give it a miss' and 'they should never have made this film, I would never see it and I'm glad it has flopped and been panned' are one and the same thing.

Again, nobody is saying anything like this. You're just piling straw men on top of straw men now.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

I might never have said it but I was thinking it pretty hard

Marty McFly

Snobbery I think you may need to look up the definition, since you highlighted my post and me saying " it sounds like a complete disaster" yea that just reeks of snobbery :rolleyes:.

The trailers are hardly inspiring an American remake of a film like Oldboy are hardly inspiring either then add in the fact it is pretty much getting universally panned does not inspire one to go see it.

Since when is that considered snobbery? Had it looked good in the trailer been receiving rave reviews yes I would be interested to see Spike Lee's take on it but since it seems to have failed on all fronts why go spend my hard earned cash on it?

Will my curiousity get the better of me when it is released on Blu Ray yes probably but to say people in here reek of snobbery because they won't go see it in the cinema or because the trailer was awful or because it is getting bad reviews is just plain stupid imo.

Fysh

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Lots of posts about how you're all not going to see a film.

I saw the original, thought it was magnificent, and am really looking forward to catching this on Thursday evening. The snobbery in here is stifling tbh.

If this had been a good remake (like Carpenter's Thing, or The Departed) I would quite happily have watched it and praised it if I felt it was worth it. I don't object to all remakes, I object mostly to the ones which aim to take a story well told in a foreign film and retell it in a dumbed-down way with white English-speaking cast members.

However, as details of the remake trickled out at the nature of the project became apparent, any notion I might have had about watching it evaporated like so much morning fog.

I'm not sure:
a) why you think this is snobbery, or
b) why it's "stifling".

If you've seen the film and enjoyed it (either on its own rights or in relation to the original) I'd be interested in reading your thoughts on it, or what you enjoyed about it. I'm not saying I'd agree with you or that it would change my mind of the film, but we're all here to share opinions on films, right?

LuckyLloyd

Can't understand it being panned tbh. It's not a patch on the original, but in a vacuum it's above average fare. First half hour and denouement is very well handled. There's no doubt that it flags in the middle and feels a bit clunky, but overall it's a good effort with some nice Lee touches throughout.

The person I saw it with hadn't seen the original and thought it was very good, which I think justifies remaking it.

Fysh

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Can't understand it being panned tbh. It's not a patch on the original, but in a vacuum it's above average fare. First half hour and denouement is very well handled. There's no doubt that it flags in the middle and feels a bit clunky, but overall it's a good effort with some nice Lee touches throughout.

The person I saw it with hadn't seen the original and thought it was very good, which I think justifies remaking it.

Thematically, how do you think the ending works in relation to the rest of the film? One of the many things I appreciated about the original is the way in which it takes a taboo subject, makes it intensely personal for the protagonists, and then presents them with awful choices to make. I can't see the changes made to the ending being anywhere close as effective as the original.

e_e

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Can't understand it being panned tbh. It's not a patch on the original, but in a vacuum it's above average fare. First half hour and denouement is very well handled. There's no doubt that it flags in the middle and feels a bit clunky, but overall it's a good effort with some nice Lee touches throughout. I struggle to think of a worse movie villain that I've seen.

The person I saw it with hadn't seen the original and thought it was very good, which I think justifies remaking it.

I'd agree with you up until to first half-hour but after Elizabeth Olson and Samuel L Jackson come into it the film really sags and the denouement is so poorly handled imo. It'd be laughable if it weren't so repellent, the whole situation is just ridiculous. Sharlto Copley is so bad in it too.

Park's kinetic filmmaking and operatic/surrealist touches made the violence and twists in the original artful and provocative, in Lee's world it's just ugly and leaden. Brolin just about saves it from being bottom of the year material for me.

LuckyLloyd

Fysh wrote: »

Thematically, how do you think the ending works in relation to the rest of the film? One of the many things I appreciated about the original is the way in which it takes a taboo subject, makes it intensely personal for the protagonists, and then presents them with awful choices to make. I can't see the changes made to the ending being anywhere close as effective as the original.

It's not as cohesive, but it is important to take into consideration the fact that Lee's cut was 140mins and he removed the 'Spike Lee Joint' titling because he was unhappy at the final 105mins cut so who knows?

e_e wrote: »

I'd agree with you up until to first half-hour but after Elizabeth Olson and Samuel L Jackson come into it the film really sags and the denouement is so poorly handled imo. It'd be laughable if it weren't so repellent, the whole situation is just ridiculous. Sharlto Copley is so bad in it too.

Park's kinetic filmmaking and operatic/surrealist touches made the violence and twists in the original artful and provocative, in Lee's world it's just ugly and leaden. Brolin just about saves it from being bottom of the year material for me.

In both cases I also think that, while you may be right in the relative ratings you are assigning, if this film was an original we'd be much kinder to it. It doesn't hang together perfectly but it's a strong enough effort in its own right. I tried to enjoy it for what it was.

Brolin is very good in it mind, and I didn't think Copley was as bad as you're making out tbh.

sjoyce87

Just thought I would let people know the original is on film 4 tonight at 1.30 am

Ash.J.Williams

Overall i enjoyed it, I thought the original kicked it's ass right up to the end, but I quite enjoyed the villian in the US version. The violence let the film down. As mentioned here earlier, Parks violent scenes had a touch of class and art about them, whereas Spike's was akin to Final destination 2,3,4,5.....Would love to hear the views of people who haven't seen the original!

Ash.J.Williams

Fysh wrote: »

If this had been a good remake (like Carpenter's Thing, or The Departed) I would quite happily have watched it and praised it if I felt it was worth it. I don't object to all remakes, I object mostly to the ones which aim to take a story well told in a foreign film and retell it in a dumbed-down way with white English-speaking cast members.

However, as details of the remake trickled out at the nature of the project became apparent, any notion I might have had about watching it evaporated like so much morning fog.

I'm not sure:
a) why you think this is snobbery, or
b) why it's "stifling".

If you've seen the film and enjoyed it (either on its own rights or in relation to the original) I'd be interested in reading your thoughts on it, or what you enjoyed about it. I'm not saying I'd agree with you or that it would change my mind of the film, but we're all here to share opinions on films, right?

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...

spacecoyote

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

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...

That post makes me sad

LuckyLloyd

spacecoyote wrote: »

That post makes me sad

It's the truth

Skerries

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

It's the truth

Testify!

e_e

"I don't like subtitles" is every bit as narrow-minded as outright rejecting black and white movies or anything made before ten years ago. It should stop being an acceptable excuse not to watch something, it's also based on the fallacy that every film must be overloaded with dialogue.

Ash.J.Williams

e_e wrote: »

"I don't like subtitles" is every bit as narrow-minded as outright rejecting black and white movies or anything made before ten years ago. It should stop being an acceptable excuse not to watch something, it's also based on the fallacy that every film must be overloaded with dialogue.

I wouldn't hold that view, i've encountered it enough times in my life to have accepted it...it started years ago when i recommended battle royale to a mate, and i asked him what he thought..."came back from xtravision, watched the trailers, movie started ....mrs said "subtitles....i'm not watching it""
end of battle royale!

e_e

That does not make any sense to me at all, I'm actually going to start taking exception to anyone who says it to me IRL. It's such an arbitrary reason for avoiding a movie, I'd at least understand if it was in the wrong aspect ratio or was dubbed or something along those lines.

Sam Mac

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

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...

It's ridiculous, but unfortunately true. I know a guy who does this. Crazy.

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.

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:.

e_e

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

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?

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.

e_e

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

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.

LuckyLloyd

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

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...

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

LuckyLloyd

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.

LuckyLloyd

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

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.