I’ve just read seen a couple of threads about the new (2004) Ladykillers film, and I was wondering how it compared to the original?
(Before anyone says ‘just go and watch it’, it isn’t out here until the end of June :mad:, it’s even out in Poland a week before it’s out here)
I loved the original; the black humour and subtle jokes really appealed to me, as did the absurdity of it all, so is the new film similar in that way, or has it been ‘Hollywoodised’ with over-emphasis on style over substance?
I saw the new one first (last Friday night). I saw the old one last night.
Still 5 musicians, an old lady that keeps interrupting and messing things up for them. The actual crime is different, and they don’t involve the lady. (In the old one the lady goes to the train station to pick up the trunk.)
There is all this African-American gospel music which is cool, and also a bunch of rap music. It is set in the the south (of the U.S.) in a sleepy little town so the police are found sleeping, etc. The Peter Sellers character is replaced by one of the Wayans brothers (African-American) who has a foul mouth. The reviewer said that it played off the very carefully correct language of the “professor” (Tom Hanks).
There is also the girlfriend of one of the guys. They met at an IBS convention, so there are these references to IBS (the guys has to run to the bathroom at inopportune moments).
The end result was basically the same.
I really liked the new one. I bought the CD because I love the gospel stuff. It has the rap stuff too, which I don’t identify with much! It is the first time I have ever bought any rap music.
Well, I just got back from seeing the new one, and while there were some really wonderfully funny lines, the audience barely laughed. While I liked it, without the audience’s appreciation there is really something lacking. Lillith Fair, if you haven’t returned your copy of the original, maybe I can borrow it to compare.
Tom Hanks was both wonderful in his performance and at times unintelligible. If you are used to seeing films that you really have to listen to closely, then you’ll appreciate some of the nuances of language that the script allowed him. Some really wonderful verbal work. But unfortunately, I was laughing a lot when no one else was.
The gospel music was great, and the choir was a treat to watch. The supporting cast just didn’t have the charisma and cohesiveness a caper movie needs.
And now a word about the audience…we saw the movie in a great, clean, suburban theater were everyone is usually so well behaved. In the first five minutes they escorted out some teens who were doing God knows what, and they talked the whole way out…then the person behind me’s cell phone went off…played almost a whole damn song and they didn’t move very quickly to shut it down…and then ten minutes later, an encore performance. Then the woman in front started talking loudly…“oh, no, he’s gonna shoot him! What do you think is going to happen? Why did that happen?” She didn’t do it often enough that I would be compelled to kick her seat, but just enough to ditract. And this kind of stuff never happens at this theater. Okay, during Dragonfly there were too many junior high kids and it got a little noisy, but usually there is very good behavior. Maybe if they’d been laughing at the movie I wouldn’t have noticed…
I remember seeing the original on television a long time ago but I don’t remember much about it, I do remember I liked it. I saw the new one on Friday and I enjoyed it. There were some rather stupid parts but I laughed through most of it and so did the other people in the theatre. I went with my mother and she enjoyed it, too, I was expecting her to complain about all the swearing but she agreed it was part of that character (played by Marlon Wayans). The other guy that swore only did so when he was arguing with Wayans’ character.
I could have done without the IBS jokes, I don’t see that they helped the plot at all and just gave it a bathroom humor feel, and IBS is decidedly very NOT funny. I wasn’t crazy about the constant use of the “F” word either but it was at least in keeping with Wayans character. Although, once that movie gets censored for TV there won’t be anything left of his part. And Tom Hanks was wonderful, as usual.
From my impression of the new film and reviews I have read, it seems people either love it or hate it. I didn’t exactly love it but I liked it and I enjoyed it. I think if you go in expecting just a cute, silly film with some strange humor, not an Oscar-quality Tom Hanks production, you won’t be too disappointed.
Well, one thing you have to remember is who made the movie: the same guys who made Fargo and O Brother, Where Art Thou.
I could not watch Fargo after that policeman got shot in the head.
We saw O Brother at the theater and I didn’t really get it. I kept worrying that someone was going to get killed. hurt, etc. Now it is a favorite movie that we own on DVD.
So if someone went in to see Ladykillers without that tongue-in-cheek realization, they might not like it. Also, I understood all the words. Do you think this is because I have lived in Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Virginia and North Carolina?
We saw it in a theater full of older people. Don’t want to offend anyone…these were all retirement age people. They were laughing their heads off. This surprised me.
KittenBlue, I will bring the movie to Purl Girls on Wednesday if I am not in the hospital having a heart transplant. If I’m in the hospital, don’t forget to bring me a good book to read. Also, the Widor is out for Sunday. No way am I playing that with my heart pounding.
The main differences: the first version is a 1950s British comedy, and the second version is a 2000s American comedy.
The first is very understated… and perhaps a tad more grounded in reality. The current version is more graphic, a bit faster paced, more vulgar (both language and irritable bowel jokes), and somewhat more slapsticky (although that’s not quite the right word.)
Both very funny, but despite the enormous plot similarities, they’re completely different movies. Crummy analogy: Think of the several different versions of MACBETH, for instance – same script, same plot, but different movies.
Ok, I thought they were (literally) bashing us over the head with the E.A. Poe references. It wasn’t until I got in the car and was half-way home did I realize that the whole movie is basically a tribute to Poe. Direct references, indirect references, subtle references, Tom Hanks’ character is remarkably similiar to Poe’s protagonist/antagonists…
Is it so obvious that nobody else has mentioned it? Or am I the only one who sees it? Was the original also full of similiarities and references to Poe or is that what the Coens did to make it “theirs”?