The Mummy Returns and The Mummy's Dragon King oriental derivative and the Scorpion King (spinoff) sucked like straws in cheap sodapop! Not only that, Jeepers, they sucked every dick in moviedom and then some, without the benefit of mouthwash.

Sorry, that's silly and off topic but you made me laugh so hard my third ex-wife heard me in the apartment next door.

Kortpeel (imported) wrote: Tue Mar 01, 2011 7:21 am If that's the version with Richard and Liz (Burton and Taylor) I sat through it enthralled. Of course I was much younger and even got a hard on in places.

But how could anything with Richard and Liz be crap? Next thing you'll be criticising "Who's Afraid of Virgina Woolf."

Yes that's the one I am talking about, I saw both the films you listed thought both were at best overrated. However Who's afraid of Virgina Woolf was much better then Cleo.

As for remakes, some are good, some better, some not so good.

Oliver the musical in the late 60's was a remake won best picture, The front page with Walter Matthau and Jack Lemmon was a remake. Johnny Depp in both Alice in wonderland and Charlie and the chocolate factory were remakes and it can be said both were better then the original. And one I watched just last week the New Karate Kid with Will Smiths kid Jaden Smith and Jackie Chan and it was very good. Clash of the Titans was better then the first one.

Some that were not, Cleopatra with Liz Taylor, Batman the dark night with heath ledger playing the joker, was not even as good as Jack Nicholson but in the wisdom of tinsel town they gave an Oscar to a dead druggie, go figure. The flight of the Phoenix, the first one was not only better but more real. 12 angry men, the first was better by far.

And some where all were good, around the world in 80 days. Both Mame's, All of the Oliver's.

None of the Cleopatra's.

What can I say, I never saw a Cleopatra movie I liked, I never saw a Liz Taylor movie I liked either.

River

Slammr (imported) wrote: Tue Mar 01, 2011 11:32 am I heard that "The King's Speech" won the best picture award, but I've heard nothing else about who won; nor do I care. Of all the nominated movies, I've only seen "True Grit," and while it was good, it was a remake of an Academy Award winner and was not much better than the original. For that reason, I didn't think it should win either.

I believe it is in California Suite that Maggie Smith plays an actress nominated for an Oscar and says "Oh of course I gave a good performance, but what actress with a decent script can't do that? To win an award you have to have a major disease."

You can read My Shining Star by Joe Keenan a funny novel about Academy Awards.

True Grit was not a remake. The Cohn brothers based their script on the novel, not on the John Wayne movie. And for that matter John Huston's The Maltese Falcon was the fourth time that novel was turned into a screenplay. Sometimes it takes a while to get it right.

A

Riverwind (imported) wrote: Tue Mar 01, 2011 9:46 pm Clash of the Titans was better then the first one.

, I never saw a Liz Taylor movie I liked either.

River

I take the first Clash of the Titans over the second.

Bravo Claymation.

The remake was too dark. It may as well been Beowulf or a trapped Chilian miners video.

How about Liz Taylor in, "Giant" with Rock Hudson and James Dean.

Moi

BTW seems the reviews of the Academy Awards program have been, thumbs down.

Riverwind (imported) wrote: Tue Mar 01, 2011 9:46 pm As for remakes, some are good, some better, some not so good.

Johnny Depp in both Alice in wonderland and Charlie and the chocolate factory were remakes and it can be said both were better then the original.

Clash of the Titans was better then the first one.

Some that were not, ... Batman the dark night with heath ledger playing the joker, was not even as good as Jack Nicholson but in the wisdom of tinsel town they gave an Oscar to a dead druggie, go figure.

River

Ok, I'm gonna have to disagree with you on at least three of these.

I quite liked Alice in Wonderland, you have that one. Quite well done.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory though.... nobody will ever top Gene Wilder in that role. Depp came across more like Michael Jackson than anything.

Clash of the Titans, well, both versions were far from stellar, but at least the claymation of the original was something to have fun with.

As for Nicholson vs Ledger as the Joker, I have to say Ledger takes it hands down. To me he better portrayed what the Joker should be, namely complete chaos, an utter madman that you absolutely cannot predict from one moment to the next. Admittedly, both portrayals are accurate to the comics, depending on who was writing the Joker at the time.

As for the drug reference.... I personally feel that Heath got too far into the role while the movie was filming. Found himself a little too far into the character, as it were, and had troubles getting back out. Some roles can be like that, if you take a step too far into their head. Especially if you're portraying a psychopath as over the top as the Joker.

I admit, if he'd lived, he likely wouldn't have gotten an Oscar for that role. However... he was of a calibre to earn one for the work he did overall. Much as "Return of the King" won best picture in tribute to all three movies, he won it for the work he did, and the work he would have done. At least, that's my opinion.

BossTamsin (imported) wrote: Wed Mar 02, 2011 8:34 am Ok, I'm gonna have to disagree with you on at least three of these.

I quite liked Alice in Wonderland, you have that one. Quite well done.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory though.... nobody will ever top Gene Wilder in that role. Depp came across more like Michael Jackson than anything.

Clash of the Titans, well, both versions were far from stellar, but at least the claymation of the original was something to have fun with.

As for Nicholson vs Ledger as the Joker, I have to say Ledger takes it hands down. To me he better portrayed what the Joker should be, namely complete chaos, an utter madman that you absolutely cannot predict from one moment to the next. Admittedly, both portrayals are accurate to the comics, depending on who was writing the Joker at the time.

As for the drug reference.... I personally feel that Heath got too far into the role while the movie was filming. Found himself a little too far into the character, as it were, and had troubles getting back out. Some roles can be like that, if you take a step too far into their head. Especially if you're portraying a psychopath as over the top as the Joker.

I admit, if he'd lived, he likely wouldn't have gotten an Oscar for that role. However... he was of a calibre to earn one for the work he did overall. Much as "Return of the King" won best picture in tribute to all three movies, he won it for the work he did, and the work he would have done. At least, that's my opinion.

There are certain roles in Hollywood considered cursed.

Caligula for one.

As for the Liz Taylor "Cleopatra" movie.

REMEMBER: In those days it was cast of thousands. No computers.

Consider that not only with GWTW, but also Spartacus, Ben Hur, and the spectacular cast of thousands movies of that time.

Considered in the context of their times, they may seem more meaningful accomplishments. Personally, I do not like the over use of CGI as in movies today. So flat compared to casts of thousands or claymation.

Moi

Child of Hollywood

I am most gratified that you all agree with me about Cleopatra, or should I say Liz Taylor and my other comments like Bat Man movies.

River

Riverwind (imported) wrote: Wed Mar 02, 2011 8:02 pm I am most gratified that you all agree with me about Cleopatra, or should I say Liz Taylor and my other comments like Bat Man movies.

River

Moi? (pun intended)

moi621 (imported) wrote: Wed Mar 02, 2011 3:19 pm Considered in the context of their times, they may seem more meaningful accomplishments. Personally, I do not like the over use of CGI as in movies today. So flat compared to casts of thousands or claymation.

The Lord of the Rings trilogy used real people, and put all of them into full costume and battle gear, not just the ones closest to the camera. That gave them a lot of latitude to make shots from angles that were decided on-the-fly, and gave the films a better "look".

They still make films that reflect these sentiments. Just, not as frequently.