Sam Peckinpah's 1971 rape-revenge classic "Straw Dogs" was, and still is, pretty damn controversial, due to its pessimism, violence, the performance of Dustin Hoffman, and a shocking rape scene. What in the world makes somebody think they can remake it? Well, someone has done it, and made it work! Rod Lurie's 2011 remake of "Straw Dogs" gets it right. Screenwriter David Sumner(played by Dustin Hoffman in the original) and his actress wife, Amy, take a break from the big city life and head to Amy's old town of Blackwater. Her presence is welcomed by most, especially Charlie, her ex-boyfriend. But as soon as David hires Charlie and his crew to fix their roof at the house, things go wrong. Charlie blasts his radio at the crack of dawn, creating …show more content…
Like Cronenberg's "The Fly," Craig Gillespie's "Fright Night," and Matt Reeves' "Let Me In," Rod Lurie's version of Peckinpah's film sticks very closely to the original while still doing some new things with it. The first difference between 1971's "Straw Dogs" and the remake is the setting. Taking it from a British village to a house on the coast of Mississippi, Lurie brings more eeriness to the film than the original did. There are no inbred monsters, like in "Deliverance," but there certainly are creepy locals who we are never quite sure of who they really are inside. Another difference is tone. While Peckinpah's film rubbed your face in its graphic content, Lurie allows the audience to experience a more humanistic and suspenseful approach. He creates a wonderful build-up of tension until things finally take you on the roller-coaster ride you are expecting. There isn't much shown in the rape scene, which makes it all the more effective (the remake trades disquieting ambivalence for a restrained and terrifying assault on the …show more content…
Many will go to see "Straw Dogs" because of "True Blood" heartthrob Alexander Skarsgard's performance as Charlie. With a perfect southern accent, Skarsgard is menacing without going over the top. Like Colin Farrell's performance in the remake of "Fright Night," just a stare can really frighten somebody. James Marsden is not Dustin Hoffman, but he is able to step into some pretty big shoes and surprise people, especially after such comedic films as "Enchanted" and "27 Dresses." I believe in his performance. Kate Bosworth is also great as Amy. More of a victimized survivalist than a whiny damsel in distress(Susan George's characterization in the original was good, but far from greatness), Bosworth understands Amy and hits all the right buttons. Another awesome performance is given by James Woods as the football coach with a seriously bad attitude, drunk or
In these dark hours, perhaps the worst in the history of the farm, I find that I only see unhappiness amongst each other. The cause of this unhappiness you ask, is the pig who you trusted, Napoleon. If he stays in power than the farm won’t be the only thing we will lose. Just take it from Boxer, He is a trustworthy horse Who never did any of us wrong. And Where is he now?, Oh right Napoleon had him killed just to pay for his whiskey. Now I don’t know about you but I think having ruler who would choose whiskey over an animal isn’t fit to rule.
One of the main differences involves the main character, Tristran. In the movie, Tristran’s name is changed to “Tristan”. This appears to have been done for simplicity reasons, as one could easily mistake “Tristan” for “Tristran”. It may have also been changed so that the actors don’t mispronounce
Also, it shows the Valmont character as being more heroic, which in Dangerous Liaisons, he was not quite so heroic. In the movie, it does not really say what happened to Ronald (Danceny). He fights with Sebastian, and that is the last we see of him. Catherine (Merteuil), like in the book, also has her reputation ruined, but she gets humiliated in a more dramatic way (in front of the student body and faculty). Also, there is the issue of drugs.
The Manchurian Candidate, Johnathan Demme directed the remake. Both films portray paranoia, mind control, and conspiracy. Frankenheimer utilizes satire, humor, and symbolism to convey the themes, whereas, Demme uses modern fears, camera angles and focus, and mental illness to achieve similar results.
It becomes even more complicated when Irving’s and Sydney’s scams becomes uncovered by the FBI and an overambitious agent, Richie DiMaso, played by an energetic and curly haired Bradley Cooper. He pushes them to take part in scamming supposedly corrupt politicians with the help of a fake sheikh and his fictional millions. Richie is blinded by his wishful thinking and falls for Sydney and her fake British accent, and he begins to woo this imitation lady even during the arrest. To top it all, Irving starts feeling genuine friendship for one of the politicians who is supposed to be scammed, a loved honor dot (Jeremy Renner), who is mayor of Camden.
...a great American movie. There are notable similarities and the spirit of Tomas Alfredson is present. But Let me in puts the emotional pressure in different places and stands firmly on its own legs. Like the Swedish movie it made me cry, but not at the same points. Let me in is a dark and violent love story, a beautiful piece of cinema and a respectful rendering of my novel for which I am grateful. Again." However, one can't help but compare the two and in doing so the Swedish film is just regarded better by most, me included.
...d coloring of certain images. The novel, however, puts much greater emphasis on the imagination and creativity, and on the main character Tita. The novel really makes the reader feel Titas pain and grow with her as she discovers her freedom, whereas the movie failed to achieve this. Moreover, the movie tends to ignore the significant of 3 integral motifs, cooking, tears and sensuality.
Some actors in this movie do a good job of portraying their character. However, a few take away from the overall experience, such as Tony Ross and Claudia McNeil. Tony Ross, who is an actor known for Pancho Villa, plays Stacey Logan. Claudia McNeil was an actress known for her role in Raisen in the Sun, and she portrays Big Ma. Both of these
One major and the most notable difference in the films is the setting. The setting of the 1968 version is set in Verona, Italy with buildings, courtyards, and streets similar to the middle ages. It follows the play as closely as possible that effectively brings us back to
Though the events and a lot of the dialogue are the same in both the book and the movie the crux of the two are completely different. The book focuses a lot more on sexual tension and sexual exploration. The...
and the film was made in 1994. It was much more surrealistic because this version of the film was based on a young boy's dream. Setting The biggest difference between the two film is the setting and place.
“All the Pretty Horses”, a novel written by Cormac McCarthy tells the tale about a man and his friend travelling the plains of Mexico after leaving their homes in Texas. As the novel’s name alludes to, horses are a central theme in the story as they represent manhood and freedom when John Grady, the protagonist, and his friend Rawlins get thrown in jail. McCarthy’s novel became critically-acclaimed which gained him more recognition, as well as a movie adaptation directed by Billy Bob Thornton. Even though Thornton’s adaption has the basics of the novel’s story it does not appropriately grasps its depth. While Thornton’s version stays faithful to the dialogue from the book’s included scenes it does fall short by having an erratic pace, having
...rtrayed differently in the movie. Lennie is shown as being very mentally challenged, whereas in the book he is just a little slow and has a mind of a young child. Although some changes are made in the movie to make it flow better, it is still based on the same story as the book. The movie has the same plot line and characters, and some of the scenes are told in the exact same way as they are in the novel. As well, the movie and the book give out the same themes. This story is about how all the people in the Great Depression were trying to escape their unhappy, lonely lives, but weren’t capable of doing so. The movie stays very true to the book even though some things are removed or added. Everything that is added or changed still works very well and captures the film perfectly.
The cinematography creates a suspenseful genre that is created through the editing, lighting, and sounds. The score of this film is by James Newton Howard. His music is composed with a mellow and suspicious tone. The costumes and makeup are very ordinary, as Michael is seen in a suit and tie in the majority of the movie.
Most directly one would say that Animal Farm is an allegory of Stalinism, growing out from the Russian Revolution in 1917. Because it is cast as an animal fable it gives the reader/viewer, some distance from the specific political events. The use of the fable form helps one to examine the certain elements of human nature which can produce a Stalin and enable him to seize power. Orwell, does however, set his fable in familiar events of current history.