Road House remake

[LilyWaters]

The Kurt Russell version is the remake. The one you're talking about is a prequel to the Russell remake. I thought it was a really good movie, but it is not a remake.

Oh my goodness, I completely forgot about the 1930s film. And the more recent one is a prequel? Ok, I think I've got it now.

 

[MillieDynamite]

The original The Thing, was called The thing from outer space, and Matt Dillon, I mean James Arness, played the monster.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Oh my goodness, I completely forgot about the 1930s film. And the more recent one is a prequel? Ok, I think I've got it now.

You're thinking of Things to Come, I think, which has nothing to with The Thing. It's based on an H.G.Wells novel.

Wikipedia - Things to Come

 

[SimonDoom]

Oh my goodness, I completely forgot about the 1930s film. And the more recent one is a prequel? Ok, I think I've got it now.

No, no. There's no prequel. They're two completely separate interpretations of a classic sci fir/horror novella, Who Goes There, which was written by John Campbell and published in 1938. It's about a shape-shifting alien that threatens the occupants of an Antarctic research station after they dig it up out of the ice, where it's been trapped for a long time after crash landing on Earth. It's very good and I strongly recommend it to anyone who likes science fiction stories from the mid-20th century.

The first movie, The Thing From Another World, came out in 1951. It resets the adventure to the arctic, and the alien is no longer a shape-shifter. Probably because of the limits of special effects on a low budget. It's a classic in its own right, and for its day set the standard as a great "jump scare" movie. It has a decidedly Cold War-era vibe. But it's not at all faithful to the written story.

John Carpenter remade The Thing based much more closely on the original story in 1982, and he took advantage of advancements in special effects (although this was pre-CGI). Ennio Morricone wrote the music! It got mostly bad reviews at the time but its reputation has improved a lot since then.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Today I found out a remake of the cult-trash classic Road House is being remade, with Jake Gyllenhall playing the Dalton role. Part of me thinks this is nuts. Road House, starring a mullet-wearing Patrick Swayze as a martial-arts fighting, zenmaster bar cooler, is one of the stupidest movies ever made, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Maybe my favorite trash movie ever. But I don't get the point of remaking it, even though I think Jake Gyllenhall is a very good actor.

It got me to thinking, what's a good remake, and what's a bad remake?

One of my picks for a good remake: John Carpenter's 1982 remake of The Thing, starring Kurt Russell. It flopped at the box office, but I think it's one of the most underrated sci fi/horror movies. It's much more faithful to the source material short story, Who Goes There, than the early 1950s original movie (which starred James Arness from Gunsmoke as the monster/alien).

Bad remake: The Day the Earth Stood Still, with Keanu Reeves. Another update of a 1950s classic sci fi, but it's dull and flat (not surprising, with Reeves as an actor, although I've enjoyed him in many things where emotional range isn't an issue, like Speed, The Matrix, and John Wick).

Remake I'd like to see: a remake of Forbidden Planet, another 1950s sci fi classic which, though cheesy in some ways, has some cool themes that could be explored profitably in a more contemporary way.

Well, since the late 80s Hollywood hasn't had an original idea and they started to remake old movies with different 'stars' of the current time. Then they even ran out of those and started making movies out of comic books. And it's not to further the 'art' but to put bucks in their pockets pure and simple.

 

[SimonDoom]

Another Good Remake: the Coen Brothers' True Grit. A big improvement on the John Wayne original. It fees much more authentic. It's an example of how you can make a completely different sort of movie from the earlier version without changing the story that much. Hailey Stanfield as Mattie Ross is one of the more enjoyable, quirkier performances I've seen by an actor in recent years.

 

[lovecraft68]

The most infamous line in Road House, wonder if they'll bring it back?View attachment 2171907

 

[SimonDoom]

The most infamous line in Road House, wonder if they'll bring it back?View attachment 2171907

It's a great line. That movie is chock-full of cheesy quotes, if I can remember:

"You're too stupid to have a good time."

"The name is Dalton."

"Be nice."

"It's my way or the highway."

To quote just a few. I hope the new movie keeps some of the lines.

 

[lovecraft68]

It's a great line. That movie is chock-full of cheesy quotes, if I can remember:

"You're too stupid to have a good time."

"The name is Dalton."

"Be nice."

"It's my way or the highway."

To quote just a few. I hope the new movie keeps some of the lines.

As a fight scene snob, believe it or not the choreography was pretty good, nothing too over the top (except for using a pool cue as a pole vault cause um...no.)

It was a great fun movie, good sound track too.

As for quotes I love the "What if someone calls my mama a whore?" "Well, is she?"

 

[SimonDoom]

As a fight scene snob, believe it or not the choreography was pretty good, nothing too over the top (except for using a pool cue as a pole vault cause um...no.)

It was a great fun movie, good sound track too.

As for quotes I love the "What if someone calls my mama a whore?" "Well, is she?"

Yes, that was a great line, too.

CGI has ruined fight scenes. Modern audiences are accustomed to seeing participants in fight scenes doing back flips and moving in slow motion and doing things real human beings can't do. They expect it now. There's a constant disconnection from anything real. For instance, on one level I can enjoy the John Wick movies, as absurd fun, but on the other I feel like as a moviegoer I'm being treated as an idiot, like I can swallow anything and pay for it. In The Matrix, it worked (at least, in the first movie), because the whole point is that they were fighting in a computer-generated world. The problem is that so many movies now are like The Matrix even though it's supposed to be reality.

 

[Voboy]

Anyone remaking Road House can go fuck themselves with a barbed-wire dildo.

That's my main take on that...

There are good remakes out there. But not many. And honestly, there are a lot of movies that get remade (and songs that get covered) that just don't need to be remade. Road House is one of those, and frankly so are most films.

I hope the remake crashes and burns with a red-hot fire.

 

[CthuluLives]

Dune by Villeneuve is unbelievable and cannot wait for the 2nd part, I love David Lynch but apart from a few scenes I don't think its a good movie

I love the remake of Ocean 11 remake, was slick, efficient and absolutely amazing to watch

I prefered Vanilla Sky to Abre Los Ojos

Dredd is a million times better than Stallones Judge Dredd, a billion times better!

Bad remakes for me is quite a list but I'd go with

Coppola's Dracula, maybe I'm biased with that but Christopher Lee's Dracula is much better, that being said that in itself is a remake..

The latest Magnificent 7 is not as good as Yul Brynner, Charles Bronson etc, again a remake of 7 Samurai which better than both..

Dawn of the Dead (Snyder), sorry, not as good as Romero"s

Get Carter, Ben Hur and Nicolas Cage in The Wicker Man are all massive stinkers..

 

[Comshaw]

Another Good Remake: the Coen Brothers' True Grit. A big improvement on the John Wayne original. It fees much more authentic. It's an example of how you can make a completely different sort of movie from the earlier version without changing the story that much. Hailey Stanfield as Mattie Ross is one of the more enjoyable, quirkier performances I've seen by an actor in recent years.

I disagree, whole heartedly. Like I said in an earlier post, the remake was so devoid of emotion as to make it like eating dust. That ain't the way real things play out. Even under the most extreme circumstance's people rarely act that way.

I also don't understand your "it feels much more authentic" comment. How? The only scene from the remake that I could think of that was more authentic was the bear guy offering to sell the corpse minus teeth because he already took those. Back in those days human teeth brought a pretty good price for use in false teeth.

I think Kim Darby did a great job as Mattie Ross. The character was supposed to be an irritating little twit, which Kim portray perfectly. I will say Matt Damon did a much better job then Glen Campbell did.

Most of John Wayne's movie characters, if you've seen one you've seen most. But his portrayal of Rooster was different. He hit a perfect balance between bellicose bravura and drunken clown.

Yeah, I'll have to disagree with you on this one.

Comshaw

 

[MillieDynamite]

Weighing in on True Grit. While the 2010 version was closer in point of view that the focus of the story is Matty and not Rooster, the original version held closer to the source material on what happened. The horseback gun fight in 2010 was identical to the book. The twirling rifle was pure John Wayne indulgence to show off his spinning skills. Unfortunately, in the real world, when you-spin cock a model 92 rifle, you lose the bullet along the way and dryfire. I know this because of my father. He showed me how it doesn't work after we watched the original movie.

 

[Comshaw]

Weighing in on True Grit. While the 2010 version was closer in point of view that the focus of the story is Matty and not Rooster, the original version held closer to the source material on what happened. The horseback gun fight in 2010 was identical to the book. The twirling rifle was pure John Wayne indulgence to show off his spinning skills. Unfortunately, in the real world, when you-spin cock a model 92 rifle, you lose the bullet along the way and dryfire. I know this because of my father. He showed me how it doesn't work after we watched the original movie.

Yeah, I have to agree. There are ways you can work a lever action with one hand, but whirling it ain't it. There is a reason that horse mounted cavalry carried multiple pistols.

After thinking on it, I believe I'm gunna have to back up and admit that Simon has a point about the remake being more authentic when it comes to presentation of the era. But as much as I like Jeff Bridge acting I still think the original "True Grit" was a more entertaining movie over all.

"Mr. Rat, I have a writ here that says you are to stop eating Chen Lee's cornmeal forthwith. Now, It's a rat writ, writ for a rat, and this is lawful service of same!"

[to Mattie] "See? He doesn't pay any attention to me."

[shoots the rat] "
You can't serve papers on a rat, baby sister. You either kill him or let him be."

Comshaw

 

[SimonDoom]

I disagree, whole heartedly. Like I said in an earlier post, the remake was so devoid of emotion as to make it like eating dust. That ain't the way real things play out. Even under the most extreme circumstance's people rarely act that way.

I also don't understand your "it feels much more authentic" comment. How? The only scene from the remake that I could think of that was more authentic was the bear guy offering to sell the corpse minus teeth because he already took those. Back in those days human teeth brought a pretty good price for use in false teeth.

I think Kim Darby did a great job as Mattie Ross. The character was supposed to be an irritating little twit, which Kim portray perfectly. I will say Matt Damon did a much better job then Glen Campbell did.

Most of John Wayne's movie characters, if you've seen one you've seen most. But his portrayal of Rooster was different. He hit a perfect balance between bellicose bravura and drunken clown.

Yeah, I'll have to disagree with you on this one.

Comshaw

Disagreement makes things interesting.

I thought Kim Darby made no sense in this role, starting with her haircut. She looks anachronistic. Her manner. Her style of speech. To me she seems like a 60s person plopped down into another era. Maybe I'm focusing on the look and feel of the two movies. The first True Grit to me seems like a dated 60s movie. Glen Campbell? The second movie looked like it took place in the 19th century. The first movie, to me, did not.

 

[lovecraft68]

Oh my goodness, I completely forgot about the 1930s film. And the more recent one is a prequel? Ok, I think I've got it now.

1950's was the movie, based on a story "who goes there", but didn't do it justice as far as the paranoia aspects. The 1982 version really did well with that and I love the nihilistic ending. Not sure how much of a horror fan you are, but its the first in Carpenters Apocalypse trilogy, three mostly unrelated films all ending with a possible doomsday. The other two are Prince of Darkness and In The Mouth of Madness(which is a great HP Lovecraft homage)

I admit the prequel in 2011 confused me a little, still not sure where that ended got us to where the Thing opens. Maybe I need a second watch.

 

[lovecraft68]

Movies I'm glad they haven't remade and hope they never do
The Original Exorcist-it simply cannot be equaled, especially in modern society
Jaws(first)
Alien(first)

Also hope they never try Silence of the Lambs or Se7evn

That short lived Clarice show made me double cringe at what they would do if they tried to remake the original.

 

[lovecraft68]

Another Good Remake: the Coen Brothers' True Grit. A big improvement on the John Wayne original. It fees much more authentic. It's an example of how you can make a completely different sort of movie from the earlier version without changing the story that much. Hailey Stanfield as Mattie Ross is one of the more enjoyable, quirkier performances I've seen by an actor in recent years.

I'm in the very tiny faction of people who after No Country for old Men see the name Coen and keep going. That movie was so dull, so stupid, and that serial killer? My 5 year old grand daughter is scarier. I really think the hype over it was people who wasted money seeing it who wanted to be sadistic and encouraged others to do it.

Like the con/carnies that Huck and Tom hooked up with in Tom Sawyer who put on an awful show all week, but people said it was good so they didn't look bad, then the last night they were supposed to show they skipped out so they wouldn't get things thrown at them by the townspeople.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Kim Darby and Glen Camble could not act a'tall!

 

[Voboy]

I'm in the very tiny faction of people who after No Country for old Men see the name Coen and keep going. That movie was so dull, so stupid, and that serial killer? My 5 year old grand daughter is scarier. I really think the hype over it was people who wasted money seeing it who wanted to be sadistic and encouraged others to do it.

Like the con/carnies that Huck and Tom hooked up with in Tom Sawyer who put on an awful show all week, but people said it was good so they didn't look bad, then the last night they were supposed to show they skipped out so they wouldn't get things thrown at them by the townspeople.

I'll just agree to disagree.

Once you realize what the Coens do with space and light, and what they were trying to accomplish relative to the source material, you realize what a masterpiece No Country is. Read the book, then watch the film, and think about both. It's brilliant.

And their True Grit was FAR better than the original. '60s Westerns were entertaining, but I find them painful to watch today. They don't age well.

 

[Voboy]

Dune by Villeneuve is unbelievable and cannot wait for the 2nd part, I love David Lynch but apart from a few scenes I don't think its a good movie

I can't see the Villeneuve Dune as a remake, certainly not of Lynch.

Villeneuve's is good because he went back to the source material. He made an original movie. So did Lynch, but the difference is that Lynch's film strayed too far from the source and into cliche.

Some people like the Lynch Dune. I do not understand such people.

 

[MetaBob]

I haven't seen the first half of Villeneuve's Dune yet, and won't until the second half is out and I can see both back-to-back. I thought Lynch's Dune was fun, especially the visuals, but it only scratched the surface of the book. I loved Linda Hunt in it (I love her in everything) and I enjoyed seeing Sting in an acting role, but other than that, I much preferred the subsequent Syfy TV miniseries adaptation: less special effects, more time to tell a richly imagined story, and Julie Cox > Virginia Madsen as Irulan. I haven't managed to see their adaptations of the next two books, however.

 

[Voboy]

Again,

Some people like the Lynch Dune. I do not understand such people.

"Weirding modules?" Fuck that noise.

 

[SimonDoom]

2011 is a prequel. It tells the story of the Norwegian team that got wiped out before the Russell/David team arrive.

OK. I never saw that. I was just referring to the first two movies. is that any good?