Posted in: Musicouching by NAMILLER on July 21st, 2009 | 0 Comments
Some good and Bad remakes in Hollywood. Older is actually better.
Who says a remake is not a good thing? This film I thought was good because of the depth it portrayed for the remarkable life of Jesus. It does have a bit of gore and blood, but those times were not nice. It did not candy coat those brutal times. It is recommended to watch, although it was very complex and hard to follow in alot of areas. (Jeffery Hunter eat yer heart out) 
Another good remake, that showed alot of the truth behind Pearl Harbor and what really happened during the big war that brought the United states into World War II. It used alot of footage from the original films TORA TORA TORA and actual shots from Bremerton Mothball and Suisun Bay mothball fleet out of San Francisco. It is a romance movie, and showed more about the raids by General Doolittle onto Japan after the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
To be or not to be, that is the question. A full version of Hamlet that follows the play as it was written from beginning or end. It is a complex web of deciet and murder most Foul. Great use of many big names in Hollywood. It surpasses Hamet that Mel Gibson starred in in 1996 with absolutely FABULOUS music. It was spectuacular, although there are some historical errors of costuming that 1996 version were more accurate on.
Okay how many times can you tell this story. It is a legend of military strategy. It reminded me too much of Hercules movies and the string of Sinbad the Sailor movies with Swartzenneger and Reeves even Ferrigno.
Bunch of buff guys against a million turks.
Gorey and bloody but if you have seen one movie like this you have seen them all. As a storyline it was not bad, a very slow film to grasp in my opinion.
A gorey, harsh and good tale about William Wallace and how the Scottish Rebellion happened in 1350. A story of romance and war between men in kilts vs. the british. Historically accurate account of the times although modified very slightly from accurate history timeline.
Good film, alot of gore though, not for the faint hearted. With light humor in places. I thought the lead actress (wallace’s wife) and the cast was well picked for this movie.
Noted veteran actors
A powerful performance by Patrick McGoohan for Edward Longshanks King of England who is known for his roles in Disney films but other feature films like “Ice Station Zebra” with Rock Hudson, Escape from Alcatraz with Clint Eastwood, and Silver Streak with Gene Wilder and Richard Pryor. He was also known for many Hitchcock films.
Although it picks up from the the original timeline after “Superman IV:The quest for peace” 5 years, I am undecided on if this really was a necessary film. Perhaps for closure to an era for Chris Reeves passing. It was not overall a bad interpretation to the original film. It is not a comedy as the others and is a bit darker than the first films. I would classify it as a “Drama.”
Okay another batman movie, probably the most remade movie there is and superhero. It is much darker than the 1989 version, but why do we need another one.
1966 with Adam West and Burt Ward
1989 (michael keaton)
Then with Val Kilmer and George Clooney.
I did like the remake to tell how he became Batman (batman Begins) but it is rehashing the timeline for the 89 film and later villians and villianess. Is this trip really necessary?
