Thanks for the snark. They remake movies that don’t need to be remade. The project has already been done and done well. If they wanted to remake a movie, there are hundreds out there that could benefit from a good director/producer/screenwriter to make them better viewing. This isn’t one of them. I’m sure the film will be good, but it just seems unnecessary.
As King Lear said, “Reason not the need.” No movies are absolutely necessary if it comes down to it; books, music, what need anything?
Of course, the truth is necessity has nothing to do with it. The Coen brothers simply wanted to make this movie, they clearly believe they can bring something fresh to it, and given their track record they may well be right, I await the movie with interest.
Perhaps they needed a commercial vehicle, since their latest effort hasn’t done so well. Something has to pay the bills, I suppose.
You’re the one with the snark, saying “This is what movie makers do when they run out of ideas” which, considering you’re talking about the great Coen Brothers, is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever read on this message board (outside of right-wing nuttery). The Coen Brothers! The Coen Brothers, whose A Serious Man, a delightful, original, unique movie, is still playing in theaters (at least, here in Chicago, because I just saw it for the 2nd time yesterday) and whose previous movie was the also delightful, original and unique Burn After Reading!
The only other remake they’ve done in their career is The Ladykillers. Maybe that didn’t turn out so well, according to some, but it certainly had its moments.
I certainly agree with you there, but the movie is old and there’s nothing wrong with reviving the book with fresh blood. And by the way, there were some major changes in the movie from the book, so while the Wayne movie was pretty faithful, it changed a lot of things, for one being that the main character was changed from Mattie Ross to Rooster Cogburn. I’ll always love the original movie, but dammit, I want to see the BOOK adapted for a new generation.
They want to do it. They have the clout and backing to think “I’d like to do that” and then get it done. Wouldn’t we all like to have that kind of clout? They can do it. Let them do it without tearing down their entire future career. Out of ideas? Their next movie after True Grit is their original screenplay Hail Caesar. (after that, according to IMDB, an adaptation of Michael Chabon’s novel The Yiddish Policemen’s Union, then a remake of Gambit, which doesn’t need to be remade either because that’s a brilliant film, but I’m fine with seeing their take on the story).
On preview I see you’re snarking about their box office. Did the Coen Brothers kill your dog or something?
Also, I doubt that the Coens have ever even cared about their box office take. Virtually none of their films has been what anyone would classify as a blockbuster, but they clearly don’t care.
I happen to like most of what the Coens have produced. Truth is not snark. A Serious Man, while considered by the majority to be their masterpiece (see my thread about same, which, I may note, you - as apparently their largest fan - couldn’t be bothered to comment on), has had limited release and limited box office receipts. What I was attempting to say is that making movies like ASM is possible if you also make commercial successes such as No Country and the forthcoming True Grit, which is likely to be a large hit for them. But take offense if you wish.
I will admit that my remark was made in haste and probably should have been followed by a smiley, although I detest the little buggers.
He’s the perfect age.
Perhaps I was less than clear. This remake is a Thing Which Should Not Be. It is an abomination before all that is right and holy. It is cheap, disrespectful, rude, and tacky. It should be stopped. I curse it, the Coen Brothers, and all attached or involved with this blasphemy in any way, shape, manner, or form. A pox on their houses down to their children’s children.
So don’t see it, already. Yeesh.
You don’t understand. Far more than my own tender sensibilities are at stake. This is leisure suits with big hair wrapped in tofu with shiny rims and boom-boom speakers that rattle the windows of innocent football fans. This is a Wrongness so vile, twisted, and irretrievably evil it is sure to waken the Elder Gods who will unleash their wrath upon us all. DOOOOOOOOOOOM!
Sorry Chefguy, I didn’t realize that was your thread. I was all kinds of wrong and wouldn’t have posted what I did upthread if I’d re(membered/alized). I didn’t post in your thread or even pay much attention to it because until yesterday I’d only seen A Serious Man once and didn’t have much to say other than that I liked it and thought it was original and funny (and a bit sad). I’ve seen it twice now and still don’t know what to say except what I just said, and that I think it’s a great film, one of their best, but I could never explain why. As much as I love movies, I’m not very good at talking about them.
Remakes of great movies piss me off. Sounds a bit lazy to me. Now, if the Coens wanted to make a Charles Portis movie, imagine what they could do with The Dog of the South? Goddamn that would be so cool!
That was my thought too. The plot cries out for a Coen brothers adaptation. From the amazon.com review:
*"“My wife Norma had run off with Guy Dupree and I was waiting around for the credit card billings to come in so I could see where they had gone.” *In another author’s hands, this opening sentence might lead straight to a bloody, noir-ish denouement. Here it’s merely the excuse for a meandering, semi-pointless quest, during which the fussbudget protagonist is assailed by tropical storms, grifters, hippies, car trouble, and even an assortment of airborne trash: “I had to keep the Buick speed below what I took to be about sixty because at that point the wind came up through the floor hole in such a way that the Heath wrappers were suspended behind my head in a noisy brown vortex.”
It’s all good. The film is a tough nut to crack: even my Jewish friends have had difficulty shedding a lot of light on things. But perhaps we’re just making too much of it. Critics seem to have difficulty analyzing it, as well. They either categorize it as a comedy with serious religious underpinnings, or as a religious comedy with serious life underpinnings. It bears repeat viewings, for sure.
“MISTER Rat…”
I’d like to see that part.
And what was the name of that lawyer that chick kept name-dropping?
J. Noble Daggett, played by John Fiedler .
I just finished watching it. I don’t believe I’ve ever seen the whole thing before now. Wayne and Darby were great together, the dialog was really well done, and those wide open western vistas were fantastic.
Fantastic, but totally wrong considering where the story is set.
Yeah, the story had Maddie living in Arkansas, right?
One reason I liked those vistas is because of Hathaway’s choice to film at Hot Creek. I’ve spent many an hour soaking there; too bad it’s not safe anymore.
Dear Messrs. Coen:
Please put Paul Schneider in the movie somewhere. He can do the accent and he’s a hell of a good actor. (See Lars and the Real Girl, Elizabethtown, and The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford).
He was also pretty good in Bright Star this year. I totally bought him as a brit. Good movie as well, incidentally.