Remakes, a rant

I, like anyone who is interested in reading this blog, love films. There is no better evening to me than watching a film and the having a discussion about it afterwards. Sometimes I am lucky and get great conversation, other times I get the "Yeah that was cool." blanket statement with no follow up (But that is a topic for another rant).

So with that in mind you can tell I get excited to see a film when it comes out, or when I find one on sale that I had never watched before. This excitement, which I can compare only to a small child finding a treasure trove of chocolate bars, is great - that is until I realize that this "new" film is nothing more than a remake of an older film.

Call me crazy, but do we really need remakes of classic or foreign films? Was there someone who said;
"Hey you know what, no one alive has seen Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece 'Psycho' lets do a shot-for-shot raping of that original and shit it out onto the fans of film. They wont even know it's a remake, no one sees old movies anymore!"
This has to be the reasoning behind their motivations to remake films. No one will see the original, we'll make it better.
Bullshit.

What usually happens is someone rapes the corpse of a classic film and then drags the mutilated body over to another place and smears it's remains on an "updated concept" and calls it a
re-imagining of the original.
Bullshit.
Call it what it is, a way to cash in on a good idea and shit on it while you're at it. Unoriginality at it's worst.

I have never, ever, in all my life, heard someone say; "Oh hey that film is old, what we need is an updated version of it, I can relate to. Throw in cursing and nudity and sponsors. That will appeal to my generation."
Hell No! These films don't need to be updated, they were perfect the way they were, and if not, then don't try to fix them, leave them alone! If it sucked and tanked the first time, guess what, logic states it will probably suck a second time around.

Think about it, if this continues to happen, eventually we'll see "re-imaginings" of remakes of old films, a third generation inbred bastard of cinema! I really do not want to live in a world where someday, some suit out there while clutching a stress ball and kicking back on his huge desk, thinks of updating The Dark Knight for an audience that never saw the original, so it will be "new to them".

How about you keep your greasy fingers off the classic films, and think of something new. I'm sure there are plenty of great scripts just dying to be read and turned into films. Why do you have to update an older film? Did anyone want The Poseidon Adventure updated? How about Psycho? What about those classic Asian horror films, did anyone want to see a remake of The Eye? No, I didn't think so.

So there's my rant, people will see the classic films if they were good enough to see, and if they don't like Black & White because they live in a fast paced colorful society filled with I-Pods and blackberries, well fuck them. Let them watch Moulin Rouge.

Moulin Rouge, the film equivalent of a giant shit.

There is not a lot that you can say about a person who watches MTV, they no longer have a grasp of music, as MTV has ceased to be a music station. The average viewer's attention span lasts about as long as a fly's and they no longer can appreciate a good film.

This is why Baz Luhrmann's film Moulin Rouge did so well with this audience. Baz, a known music video director decided to add to his list of accomplishments a musical film geared towards those who can't sit still long enough to enjoy a film.Moulin Rouge is what would happen if someone wanted to make a film for a crow, bright shiny objects flash across the screen at breakneck speeds and the colors are so vibrant you'd think the skittles rainbow vomited all over the place, I'll go more into what I think of Baz's directing in a little bit.

The plot for this film revolves around Christian (Ewan McGregor) a budding playwright who moves to Paris with the hopes of writing a wondrous play about love. Christian is so fascinated with the notion of love, you would think he is actually a fourteen year old girl drawing hearts on her school notebook. While in Paris he joins a theatre cast headed by Toulouse-Lautrec (John Leguizamo) who informs Christian that they are attempting to put on a play, but need funding. So where else to go but that infamous brothel/dance hall the Moulin Rouge.

Here the movie starts to get terrible. True it didn't start off all that great, but Ewan McGregor and John Leguizamo do lend to the film a certain comedic air that is enjoyable. Once the viewer enters the Moulin Rouge however, all of that is thrown in a wastebasket and lit on fire.

The Moulin Rouge is what would happen if a five year old ate a box of crayola crayons and vomited all over everyone. The colors are drastic, and too vibrant, you can tell that this film was geared towards those who get easily distracted ("Oooh look at the pretty colors!"). Once the music starts I began to cringe. We are given samples of famous songs, done in a dance beat remix as the stars of the film make their way across the stage in various dance numbers. Honestly after hearing two sampled songs I began to realize that this movie could have been better with original songs in it, and maybe a better director . . . more on that later. . .

Soon we see the Moulin Rouge's star performer Satine (Nicole Kidman) who descends from the ceiling in a shower of sparkles and begins an atrocious version of Diamonds are a girls best friend. We come to learn that a Duke (Richard Roxburgh) has his sights, and sex drive, set on Satine and his financing the Moulin Rouge depends on his night with Satine.Through some sneaky dealings Toulouse gets Christian the interview with Satine instead of the Duke and the two fall in love instantly. Ah, love, how sweet . . . when the actors have chemistry that is.

As the film progresses The Duke is tricked into financing the Moulin Rouge so that it changes from a brothel to a playhouse overnight. Soon enough the Duke catches on to the fact that he is being played by Satine and Christian and forces Satine to sever ties with Christian if she wants to be more than just a common whore. Of course, love prevails, and in an interesting final number the pair are reunited on stage and the Duke is thwarted at his own game. However, plot twist!, Satine's illness (I'm guessing it was Tuberculosis) comes forth and kills her as she lies in Christian's arms. So sad, love, she is a cruel mistress.The film ends with Christian writing the story of Satine and the Moulin Rouge, getting his emotions out on paper, and finally writing that great play about love.

Did that sound vague, Confusing, or move too fast? That was basically how watching Moulin Rouge was. The film moved at a pace only a hyperactive child could appreciate. Honestly when the camera wasn't whirling around, or the film speeding up, the directing was decent and you got to appreciate the visuals and backgrounds. Those moments were so few and far between however, that mostly it was all a blur of colors, music, and dancing.

To say that the directing was bad is only a half-truth. Baz Luhrmann is a good director, of music videos, his film effort is like watching a music video for almost two hours, nauseating and boring. Baz Luhrmann would be better suited to sticking to music videos and staying far, far away from film efforts. If you don't believe me, watch his other "famous" film Romeo & Juliet. I can say that Baz has a style all to his own, and he does it quite efficiently, however his reputation comes from those who enjoy MTV and fluff films with no depth.

The acting wasn't bad at all, everyone did a good job and that saved this film from complete disaster. Ewan McGregor is an excellent actor, and singer, and I enjoyed his presence on the screen. I didn't feel that he and Nicole Kidman had any chemistry, but she still did a fine job in her role as well.Really the acting was the best part of this film, everyone did incredibly well, and they looked to be very happy doing it.

The score bothered me mainly because it was all remixes of famous songs. I think that had this film gone with original content it could have been much, much better. The rehashing of music just makes it seem lazy, it was like being at a high school prom where the DJ hits the remix button nonstop.

In the end I did not like this film at all, perhaps if the directing wasn't so hectic, or geared towards ADHD patients, and the songs were original I would have liked it better. At the heart of the film is an interesting story, but the presentation is so bad that it's hard to even make it through to the end.

Grade: D

An explanation

While browsing through a friend's excellent movie review blog ( http://jfrazier57.blogspot.com/ Check it out! ). I came across one of his older posts where he comments on how he rates movies, and what his system means. This got me thinking on what a good film is to me, is it something that changed the film world forever? Or just merely a stupid comedy that made me laugh so much that I, and probably only I, found it great. Honestly I pondered this for awhile, what does my system mean to me? Why is one movie better than the next? What gave it that edge? And what should I use for a rating system?

I thought of being original, perhaps rating on a scale of one to five frogs, or cats, or some other animal. Maybe a scale of one to ten stars, but the more stars you add the less impact a scale has. Then I thought of percentages, one to one-hundred percent, but really that only makes it harder to review something.

In the end I settled on one of my favorite rating systems, Grades. A film I watch, or anything else I will review, will be graded on that standard system of grading A-F, that way it is a system that everyone is familiar with and there will be no confusion.

So, with that in mind, I will now give my explanation of what those letter grades mean on my system of reviewing.

A: When a film touches me personally, or makes me think harder about a subject or life itself, I grant the coveted "A" on it. Now, this isn't for every film that gets released, some films are great, but lack that certain something that makes them an "A" film. An "A" film is a great film, thought-provoking and excellently filmed, casted, and presented, very little to nothing about this film detracts from the experience. My "A" reviews might be few and far between, but unlike in school, getting a "B" from me is an excellent thing.
(Ex: Fight Club, Taxi Driver)

B: A great film, highly enjoyable, and totally worth seeing twice or more. This grade in itself is my recommendation to see the film that gets this grade, with the thought that you too will enjoy it as much as I did. It didn't get an "A" because it lacked something, or because there may have been one too many flaws that stopped it from reaching the pinnacle of film greatness.
(Ex: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, 300)

C: A mediocre attempt at a film, something that may be interesting the first time you watch it, but more than likely will not be something you ever plan on seeing twice. There may be plot holes, bad directing, or bad acting that dragged this film down to the level of mediocrity that is the Limbo for so many films.
(Ex: Dare Devil, The Punisher)

D: A film that was vomited onto the screen in an attempt to capture someones attention or just to make money. These films are usually doomed to reside in the five-dollar bin at your local department store. Nothing worth watching here, and not recommended at all.
(Ex: Next, Hackers)

F: The worst film that could possibly have been made. This is a movie so terrible, so awful, that it makes you wonder who would ever green-light this film. Lacking in every department, and having nothing good about it whatsoever, this is a film that should be tied to the one ring and dropped into the volcano in Mordor never to be seen again. This film is a failed abortion birthed from the anus of Hollywood and destined to be flushed down to hell.
(Ex: Showgirls, Fahrenheit 9/11)