I wouldn’t have known that. I don’t think it’s really fair to necessarily expect Washington’s character to know that either. He’s not a plumber. But then, I’ve never seen the original Manchurian Candidate (which I really ought to remedy) and I quite liked the remake.
I am no plumber. A plumber might forgive, and I do not!
“My Big Fat Greek Wedding”: when you get past all the interesting characters, look at the guy. He’s a guy giving up his entire identity for the woman he loves. Great theme, folks!
The remake of “Manchurian Candidate”: I felt like the original was quite daring for its time, but the remake was busy trying to avoid offending people.
The remake of “Miracle on 34th Street”: I didn’t see the whole movie. I came in at the ending, when a judge gives a lengthy speech about faith and belief. This utterly ruined the original “wink of an eye” ending.
I can agree with many of the other recent ones, particularly Blindness, but I thought of another film to add to the list.
Funny Games (the 2007 version, which is a shot for shot English language remake of the original 1997 Austrian film of the same name.) I watched this movie because I’m a fan of Tim Roth, and he himself has said that he will never watch the movie, because he felt abused by the making of it.
I understand that the movie is a meta exercise in examining horror, but watching it made me feel violated, and I still feel disgusted when I even think about the movie.
I think that’s the point of this one. Haneke, who made both versions, wanted to criticize American pro-violence sensibilities. The remake was prompted by the low likelihood that we Americans saw the German original.
But in doing so he made a movie that is more horrifying than what he was commenting on. It literally is a cruel joke that is being played on the audience, (and even the actors, if Tim Roth’s comments are anything to go by.)
I don’t think you understand the point of this thread. Funny Games accomplished exactly what it was trying to do. That makes it a successful film, while this thread is for films that failed. The more it revolted you, the more successful it was.
I’m not sure that this thread is just for films that failed, or else Transformers 2 wouldn’t really apply. Or does anyone really think its producers (my God, Stephen Speilberg? Really?) and Michael Bay had anything else in mind other than ‘make fuckloads of money’.
Hell, back on page 1 xtien had the Passion, which succeeded in doing everything its director wanted it to do, and Tom had A Beautiful Mind, which made money and won an Oscar. There’s no forgiving these movies, especially Mel Gibson’s odyssey of antisemetism and torture porn, but it’s hard to call them failures. Just unforgivably terrible.
But I don’t think it was successful. It did succeed in disgusting me, but I don’t think it offered any actual commentary on the genre of films that it was trying to comment on. What it did was sink to their level by literally terrorizing the audience.
Edit: yeah, what Bahimiron said. It’s a terrible movie for which I will never forgive the makers for creating. I would never willingly watch another film written or directed by Michael Haneke.
Well, presumably Transformers 2 was supposed to be good. So in that sense it failed. Funny Games was never intended to be an enjoyable or pleasant film.
I haven’t seen the American version of Funny Games, but presumably this feature of the German one carried across. The only on-screen violence is where the Wife/Mother shotguns one of the invaders. All the rest is implied.
Its hook is to draw you into wanting righteous violence done to the 2 boys, and then on the verge of giving it to you, taking it all away. “I will not give you this, and shame on you for wanting it!”
I felt cheated by that scene. But when I sat back a little and thought about why, I realized I had fallen into Haneke’s trap. It was a smart play on his part, and caught me by surprise. I think he succeeded masterfully.
For me this thread is about movies that were terrible ideas in concept and should never have been greenlighted. Not because they were stupid or bad, but because there’s something fundamentally pointless, disrespectful, or repugnant about their existence.
Oh, it’s about Baby Geniuses.
Well, it’s a shot-for-shot remake, (down to the crew using the blueprints from the original production,) so if you saw the 97 version you know what the 2007 version is. Just because much of the physical violence isn’t shown on screen, it doesn’t make it any less of a vile film.
I think it’s interesting to look back at what some of the critics said about this film. It got a very mixed review on RT back in the day, and many of the critics say that while it is a well crafted film, many of them also criticize it for basically punishing the audience.
I understand that not all films are meant to be enjoyable or comfortable, but there literally is just nothing redeemable about this film in any way, unless you like watching people suffer.
Not even the integrity of the performances? Fictionalized suffering’s the cornerstone of drama. Haneke wants to evoke unease and growing resignation and disgust (as did Mel Gibson with Passion). The movie’s sick-making, but intentionally. It’s about tragedy befalling likable people confronted by a stacked deck and remorseless universe a la Stephen Crane in the form of well-groomed antagonists who aren’t cuddly sociopaths like Dexter. This and White Ribbon (the only two Hanekes I’ve seen) are at least trying to make a point or two (like maybe that replacing your wet cell-phone batteries with the ones from your TV-remote would’ve solved multiple problems), as opposed to those dumb-ass Saw movies, which release dates notwithstanding Funny Games can be arguably viewed as a Hitchcockian satire of. Worst Sentence Ever alert.
What Kelly Wand said, even though I’ve never seen a cell phone that could take the same batteries that work in a TV remote. I know this and I don’t even have a cell phone.
I get where Athryn’s coming from, but I include Funny Games among the movies that get unfairly written off as torture porn. Irreversible as well. Also Wolf Creek.
-TomI haven’t seen Irreversible but I agree about the other two. The distinction I would make is that ‘Funny Games’ and ‘Wolf Creek’ are about something while most torture porn is about violence for violence’ sake.
Or cable.
Haneke is trying to say that you do like watching people suffer. If you are a fan of American movies, then you are quite probably predisposed to cheer when the “righteous” violence starts flying. But it’s all just violence, and we should be equally disgusted by all of it, according to him.
I wrote off Funny Games entirely the moment I heard it described as the audience being hectored for the entire running length about how horrible they are for wanting to see a movie like that. I don’t feel a need to be told off for liking horror movies.