The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Foreign films are having a bit of a rough time at the moment. Aside from the usual mixture of people either being too dumb to read subtitles or (often rightly) accusing the films of being pretentious, there is a new threat. This comes from Hollywood, which keeps its eyes peeled for a successful or interesting foreign film and then completely re-makes it badly and pretends that it's an original idea.
Yes, believe it or not, Vanilla Sky was a fairly shoddy re-make of a Spanish film called "Abre los Ojos", which was not only better but featured Penelope Cruz topless for much longer. And with this I will start my defence of foreign films. French and Spanish people aren't afraid of nudity; they don't have a Mary Whitehouse mob who believe that flesh is sinful and set up rigorous barriers to letting anyone under the age of 18 see a bit of nudity. Admittedly the standards are falling over here, mean 12 year olds could watch Kate Winslet's baps in Titanic, but the thing about foreigners is that they really don't care about it at all. Adverts on French daytime TV regularly feature naked women and no-one bats an eyelid. I think this is a fairly strong point to start on. If you watch a foreign film that's been rated above a 12 you're pretty much guaranteed a lot of nudity. And everyone knows that the best films feature fit women naked :-)
But it's not just that. See foreign films can get away with more. More sex, more violence, you name it, and they can be excessive because there's no studio pressure to make the films commercial, and because the ratings aren't greatly affected. This is carried over into our own rating system; partly because if French children are deemed old enough to watch naked people, then British children should be too, but also because nobody watches foreign films. This means that films like "Battle Royale", which would be slaughtered by the Daily Mail brigade if they were made over here get through the BBFC with little problem (pfft Japanese film with subtitles - no-one's going to watch it anyway). This means that in comparison to American films, foreign films rock.
The other reason that they're better than most American films is that not all foreigners speak English, which is a blessing. You see because we speak English, the British film industry is pounded into submission due to everyone watching American-made films. The last good Brit-flic I saw was "The Lawless Heart", which nearly didn't get made because it couldn't get funding. In France they don't suffer the same problem. Their attitude to American films is the same as ours is to French films ("ooh subtitles I don't want to watch that") and what's worse is that the subtitles are done very quickly and very badly rendering many films completely different. I saw Armageddon in France a week after it came out in Britain. At one point someone, possibly brucey-boy, said "That asteroid is a million miles away yadda yadda yadda" - the subtitler had given an exact figure in kilometres for the "million miles" part. So instead of watching dumb American movies they make their own - same thing in Spain and Germany and Denmark and Sweden. All over the world. Because these films are on smaller budgets and more indepedently funded, most of them actually turn out very well indeed. Sure you get incomprehensibly poncy films (stand up Dogme '95 directors and "Y tu mama tambien") but you also get films that rock a lot.
Many of these films are now under threat from Hollywood, which has decided to let them be re-made my plebs and morons for a mass commercial audience. And we all know what commercialism means...
*waves bye bye to Steve Lamacq*
Take a danish TV series called "The Kingdom". It was made by Lars von Trier, who was a director of some considerable talent before he decided that Dogme was the way to go ("You can see the boom mike and I'm shooting on handheld and all that means my film is free of over-the-top direction and concentrates only on human emotions. Ohh ohh aahh I think I'm having an orgasm from my own brilliance." - No Lars the films suck. A lot.) "The Kingdom" was basically a "Twin Peaks" for Danish TV - a soap that was self-consciously a soap and played on the fact directed by a surrealist auteur-director with just the right amount of pretentiousness. It was set in a hospital filled with weird and wonderful characters but was a ghost story at the same time and it featured a Swedish doctor who hated Danes, a hypochondriac clairvoyant patient, a female doctor pregnant with a full grown man, and a greek chorus effect involving two children with Downs Syndrome who comment on the action while washing dishes in the hospital basement. And it rocked.
Now Stephen King saw this and thought righty-o then I'm having that one. And as I write "Kingdom Hospital" is slated in for a 2003 release as a TV series. If King has any grasp of irony he will probably remove the storyline about the consultant neurosurgeon who steals other doctors' research and publishes it under his own name. I'm pretty sure that King's version will stink. Not because I dislike Stephen King, but because he's got some jumped up ex-stuntman to direct it; a jumped up stuntman who transformed from Craig Baxley to Craig R. Baxley when he decided to be a director. Now isn't that pretentious? Well, no, not by Lars von Trier standards and that's the problem. Baxley will probably look at the jaundiced colouring and the shaky camera and think that he can do it much better with a good ol' steadycam, and he'll have missed the point. He'll Americanize the series and so crap it up. As to americanize is to dumb down and homogenize something until it appeals to as many people as possible.
Von Trier isn't the only one who's about to get bum-raped by the Hollywood moguls. A guy called Gilles Mimouni is really in for it, not only is his baby of a film "L'Appartement" being re-made as an American blockbuster called "Wicker Park", but Vincent Cassel's role has been taken up by Josh Harnett - a 'no-talent ass-clown' to borrow an insult from "Office Space". The French version wasn't in the least bit poncy; it was just a satisfyingly twistily plotted thriller which featured fit women with their baps on show. Think the Coen brothers with more nudity in French and you're there. The French version was a great film and no mistake, but however you play it, the American version just isn't going to work. Someone as spectacularly ugly as Vincent Cassel can be can't rely on his looks to get him a role, which tends to lead to his being cast on acting merit rather than looks. Josh Harnett is a pretty boy, and while it is more plausible to believe that a pretty boy like Josh would become embroiled in three relationships simultaneously with three attractive women - he's going to muck it up by being crap just as he has done in every single film I've seen him in.
And to top it off Hollywood producers announced that they were going to re-make an Argentinian film - "Nine Queens" - before it had even been released over there. Why? Because it was an intelligent heist movie in a Guy Ritch-ish-ish way (more like Mamet actually but how many people have heard of him?) and because no-one would watch such a film unless it was in English they could do so.
My problem is one of respect. Time and time again foreign directors have their films bastardised by some talentless Hollywood hack, who gets kudos for doing so and the foreign director - often the author of the film as well - gets no credit at all. In fact he gets shafted every which way. Cameron Crowe pretended in interviews that "Vanilla Sky" was his baby and even had the audacity to give himself prominence as the scriptwriter. "Vanilla Sky" sucked. "Wicker Park" will suck. "Kingdom Hospital" will suck. "Nine Queens Remake" will suck. For me, that is, because I have seen the originals. For other people they will be fair to middling, maybe even good because they will have no basis for comparison. So do yourself a favour and have the individuality to go and watch "L'Appartement" or "the Kingdom" before the trashy American versions come out. I'll promise you more nudity, more flair and more individuality.
The problem with current cinema releases is that anyone whose films will not pull in audiences is suffering. David Lynch couldn't get "Mulholland Dr." commissioned as a TV series, despite the success of "Twin Peaks", Sam Raimi had to fight tooth and nail to make "Spider-man" his way and not the studio's. Instead films with Vin Diesel grunting and blowing things up get ludicrous budgets at the expense of more worthwhile films. So do what I do and take solace in the dusty foreign section of blockbuster, or the awkwardly-placed world cinema section in MVC. Because there, along with the poncy films, you'll find some damn good films which you would only watch otherwise when they get re-made.
Yes, believe it or not, Vanilla Sky was a fairly shoddy re-make of a Spanish film called "Abre los Ojos", which was not only better but featured Penelope Cruz topless for much longer. And with this I will start my defence of foreign films. French and Spanish people aren't afraid of nudity; they don't have a Mary Whitehouse mob who believe that flesh is sinful and set up rigorous barriers to letting anyone under the age of 18 see a bit of nudity. Admittedly the standards are falling over here, mean 12 year olds could watch Kate Winslet's baps in Titanic, but the thing about foreigners is that they really don't care about it at all. Adverts on French daytime TV regularly feature naked women and no-one bats an eyelid. I think this is a fairly strong point to start on. If you watch a foreign film that's been rated above a 12 you're pretty much guaranteed a lot of nudity. And everyone knows that the best films feature fit women naked :-)
But it's not just that. See foreign films can get away with more. More sex, more violence, you name it, and they can be excessive because there's no studio pressure to make the films commercial, and because the ratings aren't greatly affected. This is carried over into our own rating system; partly because if French children are deemed old enough to watch naked people, then British children should be too, but also because nobody watches foreign films. This means that films like "Battle Royale", which would be slaughtered by the Daily Mail brigade if they were made over here get through the BBFC with little problem (pfft Japanese film with subtitles - no-one's going to watch it anyway). This means that in comparison to American films, foreign films rock.
The other reason that they're better than most American films is that not all foreigners speak English, which is a blessing. You see because we speak English, the British film industry is pounded into submission due to everyone watching American-made films. The last good Brit-flic I saw was "The Lawless Heart", which nearly didn't get made because it couldn't get funding. In France they don't suffer the same problem. Their attitude to American films is the same as ours is to French films ("ooh subtitles I don't want to watch that") and what's worse is that the subtitles are done very quickly and very badly rendering many films completely different. I saw Armageddon in France a week after it came out in Britain. At one point someone, possibly brucey-boy, said "That asteroid is a million miles away yadda yadda yadda" - the subtitler had given an exact figure in kilometres for the "million miles" part. So instead of watching dumb American movies they make their own - same thing in Spain and Germany and Denmark and Sweden. All over the world. Because these films are on smaller budgets and more indepedently funded, most of them actually turn out very well indeed. Sure you get incomprehensibly poncy films (stand up Dogme '95 directors and "Y tu mama tambien") but you also get films that rock a lot.
Many of these films are now under threat from Hollywood, which has decided to let them be re-made my plebs and morons for a mass commercial audience. And we all know what commercialism means...
*waves bye bye to Steve Lamacq*
Take a danish TV series called "The Kingdom". It was made by Lars von Trier, who was a director of some considerable talent before he decided that Dogme was the way to go ("You can see the boom mike and I'm shooting on handheld and all that means my film is free of over-the-top direction and concentrates only on human emotions. Ohh ohh aahh I think I'm having an orgasm from my own brilliance." - No Lars the films suck. A lot.) "The Kingdom" was basically a "Twin Peaks" for Danish TV - a soap that was self-consciously a soap and played on the fact directed by a surrealist auteur-director with just the right amount of pretentiousness. It was set in a hospital filled with weird and wonderful characters but was a ghost story at the same time and it featured a Swedish doctor who hated Danes, a hypochondriac clairvoyant patient, a female doctor pregnant with a full grown man, and a greek chorus effect involving two children with Downs Syndrome who comment on the action while washing dishes in the hospital basement. And it rocked.
Now Stephen King saw this and thought righty-o then I'm having that one. And as I write "Kingdom Hospital" is slated in for a 2003 release as a TV series. If King has any grasp of irony he will probably remove the storyline about the consultant neurosurgeon who steals other doctors' research and publishes it under his own name. I'm pretty sure that King's version will stink. Not because I dislike Stephen King, but because he's got some jumped up ex-stuntman to direct it; a jumped up stuntman who transformed from Craig Baxley to Craig R. Baxley when he decided to be a director. Now isn't that pretentious? Well, no, not by Lars von Trier standards and that's the problem. Baxley will probably look at the jaundiced colouring and the shaky camera and think that he can do it much better with a good ol' steadycam, and he'll have missed the point. He'll Americanize the series and so crap it up. As to americanize is to dumb down and homogenize something until it appeals to as many people as possible.
Von Trier isn't the only one who's about to get bum-raped by the Hollywood moguls. A guy called Gilles Mimouni is really in for it, not only is his baby of a film "L'Appartement" being re-made as an American blockbuster called "Wicker Park", but Vincent Cassel's role has been taken up by Josh Harnett - a 'no-talent ass-clown' to borrow an insult from "Office Space". The French version wasn't in the least bit poncy; it was just a satisfyingly twistily plotted thriller which featured fit women with their baps on show. Think the Coen brothers with more nudity in French and you're there. The French version was a great film and no mistake, but however you play it, the American version just isn't going to work. Someone as spectacularly ugly as Vincent Cassel can be can't rely on his looks to get him a role, which tends to lead to his being cast on acting merit rather than looks. Josh Harnett is a pretty boy, and while it is more plausible to believe that a pretty boy like Josh would become embroiled in three relationships simultaneously with three attractive women - he's going to muck it up by being crap just as he has done in every single film I've seen him in.
And to top it off Hollywood producers announced that they were going to re-make an Argentinian film - "Nine Queens" - before it had even been released over there. Why? Because it was an intelligent heist movie in a Guy Ritch-ish-ish way (more like Mamet actually but how many people have heard of him?) and because no-one would watch such a film unless it was in English they could do so.
My problem is one of respect. Time and time again foreign directors have their films bastardised by some talentless Hollywood hack, who gets kudos for doing so and the foreign director - often the author of the film as well - gets no credit at all. In fact he gets shafted every which way. Cameron Crowe pretended in interviews that "Vanilla Sky" was his baby and even had the audacity to give himself prominence as the scriptwriter. "Vanilla Sky" sucked. "Wicker Park" will suck. "Kingdom Hospital" will suck. "Nine Queens Remake" will suck. For me, that is, because I have seen the originals. For other people they will be fair to middling, maybe even good because they will have no basis for comparison. So do yourself a favour and have the individuality to go and watch "L'Appartement" or "the Kingdom" before the trashy American versions come out. I'll promise you more nudity, more flair and more individuality.
The problem with current cinema releases is that anyone whose films will not pull in audiences is suffering. David Lynch couldn't get "Mulholland Dr." commissioned as a TV series, despite the success of "Twin Peaks", Sam Raimi had to fight tooth and nail to make "Spider-man" his way and not the studio's. Instead films with Vin Diesel grunting and blowing things up get ludicrous budgets at the expense of more worthwhile films. So do what I do and take solace in the dusty foreign section of blockbuster, or the awkwardly-placed world cinema section in MVC. Because there, along with the poncy films, you'll find some damn good films which you would only watch otherwise when they get re-made.
Page:
You don't like Robin Williams? What about...
Hook?
Mrs Doubtfire?
Bicentennial Man?
Oh.
Hook?
Mrs Doubtfire?
Bicentennial Man?
Oh.
He seems to have gone in for a new line playing serial killers, both in Insomnia and Snapshot (or something like that to do with cameras)
Imagine Robin Williams trying to sound sinister.
Maybe I just can't take him seriously, but the trailer for snapshot made me laugh for that very reason.
Imagine Robin Williams trying to sound sinister.
Maybe I just can't take him seriously, but the trailer for snapshot made me laugh for that very reason.
How about how poncy he was in Hook?
"Jack! Jack! I found my happy thought!"
*voice dripping with over emotional acting*
"It was you!"
*emotional music plays*
Urrrgh
"Jack! Jack! I found my happy thought!"
*voice dripping with over emotional acting*
"It was you!"
*emotional music plays*
Urrrgh
Stryke wrote:
>
> What about Good Will Hunting? Superb film.
Never seen it.
I can't stand his over-sentimental trashy side, as displayed in What Dreams May Come, I also can't stand him when he acts a fool in movies like Jack.
:o)
Sorry, I'm a stubborn person when it comes to actors I don't like.
>
> What about Good Will Hunting? Superb film.
Never seen it.
I can't stand his over-sentimental trashy side, as displayed in What Dreams May Come, I also can't stand him when he acts a fool in movies like Jack.
:o)
Sorry, I'm a stubborn person when it comes to actors I don't like.
Meka Dragon wrote:
?
>
> Actually, I saw the trailer, was thinking "this looks good!"
> then I saw Robin Williams and held my head in my hands.
>
> I shalln't be in too much of a hurry to see it now. I haven't seen a
> film with him in that I've enjoyed yet. Or if I have I've blocked out
> the memory of him being in it.
--
What about Good Will Hunting? Superb film.
And Jumanji.
Only joking.
?
>
> Actually, I saw the trailer, was thinking "this looks good!"
> then I saw Robin Williams and held my head in my hands.
>
> I shalln't be in too much of a hurry to see it now. I haven't seen a
> film with him in that I've enjoyed yet. Or if I have I've blocked out
> the memory of him being in it.
--
What about Good Will Hunting? Superb film.
And Jumanji.
Only joking.
Meka Dragon wrote:
> Isn't this a remake of a Norwiegan/Norweigan/film from Norway?
--------
Indeed it is a remake of a Norwiegan film
> Isn't this a remake of a Norwiegan/Norweigan/film from Norway?
--------
Indeed it is a remake of a Norwiegan film
Stryke wrote:
> This doesn't really have anything to do with the post, except maybe
> success/good director//budget thing. Chris Nolan, Brit director of
> Memento, is releasing Insomnia soon, starring Al Pacino and Robin
> Williams. Supposed to be a bit like Memento. Worth a watch I think.
Surely you jest?
Isn't this a remake of a Norwiegan/Norweigan/film from Norway?
Actually, I saw the trailer, was thinking "this looks good!" then I saw Robin Williams and held my head in my hands.
I shalln't be in too much of a hurry to see it now. I haven't seen a film with him in that I've enjoyed yet. Or if I have I've blocked out the memory of him being in it.
> This doesn't really have anything to do with the post, except maybe
> success/good director//budget thing. Chris Nolan, Brit director of
> Memento, is releasing Insomnia soon, starring Al Pacino and Robin
> Williams. Supposed to be a bit like Memento. Worth a watch I think.
Surely you jest?
Isn't this a remake of a Norwiegan/Norweigan/film from Norway?
Actually, I saw the trailer, was thinking "this looks good!" then I saw Robin Williams and held my head in my hands.
I shalln't be in too much of a hurry to see it now. I haven't seen a film with him in that I've enjoyed yet. Or if I have I've blocked out the memory of him being in it.
I plan on making good films, the sort of films I want to see. There's a good chance that producers won't agree with that sort of risk, so my stuff would be low budget and unable to rake in the cash at the box office anyway.
But if I got the go ahead to do what I wanted, sure I'd be hoping it would do well, mostly because it would mean more confidence in me to do my next film
But if I got the go ahead to do what I wanted, sure I'd be hoping it would do well, mostly because it would mean more confidence in me to do my next film
Stryke wrote:
> But what is the reason a director makes a film? Each time he's got to
> be thinking about how much it's going to put in his pocket. I don't
> think someone can make a film on a big enough scale to be released in
> cinemas and not think about the money it's going to make.
To be fair, it's not normally the directors who think like that, 90% of directors (worth their salt, anyway) will make the film they wanna make, regardless of how much cash it makes. It'll be the distributers and studios who care about how much dollar the movie makes, and they'll have their wicked way with Mr Director.
> But what is the reason a director makes a film? Each time he's got to
> be thinking about how much it's going to put in his pocket. I don't
> think someone can make a film on a big enough scale to be released in
> cinemas and not think about the money it's going to make.
To be fair, it's not normally the directors who think like that, 90% of directors (worth their salt, anyway) will make the film they wanna make, regardless of how much cash it makes. It'll be the distributers and studios who care about how much dollar the movie makes, and they'll have their wicked way with Mr Director.
Stryke wrote:
> But what is the reason a director makes a film? Each time he's got to
> be thinking about how much it's going to put in his pocket. I don't
> think someone can make a film on a big enough scale to be released in
> cinemas and not think about the money it's going to make.
If that's what you mean, I don't think will make a good film just for the money. In fact, a lot films aren't necessary made for money. It can be for oscars, future prospects etc, or also for themselves. For example, when I'm handing in English stories to my teacher, it's not so I can get some prize at the end of the year, it's just because I want people to like it. Same thing goes with my "band", I've thought about it's future, and money has not once crossed my mind. It's because I'd pretty pleased if people liked our music.
It's when sequels are made not as originally intended (eg. Godfather II was intended before Godfather 1 was made) that you know it's for pure cash. A la Jaws 2.
> But what is the reason a director makes a film? Each time he's got to
> be thinking about how much it's going to put in his pocket. I don't
> think someone can make a film on a big enough scale to be released in
> cinemas and not think about the money it's going to make.
If that's what you mean, I don't think will make a good film just for the money. In fact, a lot films aren't necessary made for money. It can be for oscars, future prospects etc, or also for themselves. For example, when I'm handing in English stories to my teacher, it's not so I can get some prize at the end of the year, it's just because I want people to like it. Same thing goes with my "band", I've thought about it's future, and money has not once crossed my mind. It's because I'd pretty pleased if people liked our music.
It's when sequels are made not as originally intended (eg. Godfather II was intended before Godfather 1 was made) that you know it's for pure cash. A la Jaws 2.
Page: