Pacino set out to produce a remake, but the project clearly morphed into something else. I can understand the studio wanting to keep the title, possibly to cash in on the former film's reputation. But why is this still considered a remake when it obviously has nothing to do with the 1932 Al-Capone-inspired film?
shareI suppose in the sense that Tony Montana is a gangster, and goes from rags to riches and wipes out anyone in his way, like the original film.
The Russians had the case made. It was made. The Russians had it made. They made the case.
Agreed. I'd say you have a complete rundown of the similarities there, again, which make a fairly weak case for a remake.
shareIt was originally intended to be a remake, but Sidney Lumet decided to make it more timely by basing it on headlines coming out of Miami back then. It really was like that in Miami at that time -- that violent, right in broad daylight, all of it.
The title was retained for the same reason a lot of movies do, that morph into something else during preproduction -- convenience and recognizability. This, despite the fact that the final product has nothing to do with the initial script.
I think this is the way to do remakes. Bu using the same theme and telling the same basic story in a different way.
shareWell.what did u want him to do...make a film about alcohol prohibition? Lol
share