Must Have Movies: The Italian Job
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/filmreviews/3663193/Must-have- movies-The-Italian-Job-1969.html
http://www.myspace.com/taffy1967
Taffy, do any of your posts relate to THIS version of The Italian Job???
shareYes some do, but what's wrong with bringing the wonder and legendary status of the original to non believers anyway?
Plus the 2003 so called version, really should have been called 'The LA Heist' (like the Playstation game), then there'd be less confusion.
But hey ho to endless remakes I guess.
http://www.myspace.com/taffy1967
"Yes some do, but what's wrong with bringing the wonder and legendary status of the original to non believers anyway?"
You might be building up people's expectations that it can't satisfy. I watched the original a while back and actually couldn't finish it. Didn't like the characters, or the tone. So I started fast-forwarding through it. The famous car chase seemed to be shot entirely in wide shots so you couldn't see who was driving what. And I didn't dig the ending at all.
"Plus the 2003 so called version, really should have been called 'The LA Heist' (like the Playstation game), then there'd be less confusion."
Well, the Italian Job gets the story started and informs what happens later, so it still works. In this case, I think they took the right approach: take some general concepts and create a new story that works for the current audience.
You might be building up people's expectations that it can't satisfy. I watched the original a while back and actually couldn't finish it. Didn't like the characters, or the tone. So I started fast-forwarding through it. The famous car chase seemed to be shot entirely in wide shots so you couldn't see who was driving what. And I didn't dig the ending at all.
It's all a matter of personal opinions really and by fast forwarding the film surely means you haven't given it a fair go.
I've only watched the 2003 film once and that was enough.
Well, the Italian Job gets the story started and informs what happens later, so it still works. In this case, I think they took the right approach: take some general concepts and create a new story that works for the current audience.
No they just used the idea and the name of a classic film, which is what they tend to do now they've run out of fresh ideas.
As for the current audience, well that may be the case for the average insular America. But the whole point of the 1969 original was it related to the British and how cool and clever we once were.
So I pity those who can't grasp it's meaning, or appreciate it's classic status over yet another dreary remake.
http://www.myspace.com/taffy1967 share
"No they just used the idea and the name of a classic film, which is what they tend to do now they've run out of fresh ideas."
Would you rather they do a slavish remake, ala Psycho? Personally, if they're going to do a remake of a "classic," I'd rather they go in a new direction. At least they have a chance at creating a new vibe, which is what the 2003 film does. When they stick too close to the source material, the shortcomings are just more obvious.
As for running out of fresh ideas, Hollywood has always recycled. How many times has Ben Hur been made? Phanton of the Opera? This has been a part of the game plan since the silent days.
Oh yes there's been remakes in the past and there always will be, but many seem unnecessary and aren't a patch on the originals (as in the original 'Black Christmas' (1974) which is far more frightening than the recent predictable gory slasher remake for instance).
But perhaps the remakes do a service to the original films because they say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery?
And perhaps they'll make the teenagers of today more aware that these old classics exist?
http://www.myspace.com/taffy1967