I am watching the new The Lion in Winter - the one with Patrick Stewart and Glenn Close - and it is pretty good. Well done, well acted, well presented, but you know, I sincerely don't understand the reason for (re)making this movie. Is there a single mortal soul out there in the world, who thinks that there was something wrong with the first one or that someone could do it better ?!! I mean ... how could you possibly play Henry and Eleanor better than Peter O'Toole and Katharine Hepburn ? Isn't that ... well ... impossible ?
No, seriously ... I am asking.
2 comments:
I thought the reason to remake it was to make more money. A lot of people don't like watching 'old' movies with actors they don't know. I don't think this is a good reason though. After all, "The Lion in Winter" is not the sort of movie to appeal to the younger, doesn't-like-old-stuff, viewer. Who is the target audience? Is there really somebody who wouldn't want to watch the old version, because it is old, but would want to watch the movie in the first place?
Did they explore new territory in the new version? Is it is like Shakespeare where every production has some unique quality or addition? Or did they just remake the film for a new generation? I've only seen bits of the new version, but I didn't think it was bad, but I didn't think it was superior to the original either.
I agree with you. I think the target audience would pretty much prefer the old version.
As far as I know, they don't explore any new territory in this movie. It is exactly the same movie with just a different cast.
Post a Comment