Recently I had opportunity (and reason) to watch 3 different versions of the same movie: Ten Little Indians(1), based on Agatha Christie’s play and book of the same name.
- 1965 with Wilfrid Hyde Wight, Fabian, Hugh O’Brien, and others.
- 1974 with Oliver Reed and Richard Attenborough. Badly directed.
- 1989 with Donald Pleasance, Frank Stallone and others. Mediocre.
From the 1965 original movie. Fabian in the back. Hugh O’Brien looking smug, 3rd from the right. These were all name-brand actors at the time.
There might be more versions, but given the evolution of these three, that was all I was willing to risk.
Much to my Horror (and it’s a murder mystery, not supposed to be horror) each version was worse than the last one. The only good version was the first one, 1965. Wilfrid Hyde White was always delightful. Hugh O’Brien , though certainly a good actor, did his usual filling-the-entire-screen thing, no matter if he was “in the background” at that moment or not. Fabian was fun, certainly a better actor than he was a singer, as he even said of himself. Direction was good, faithfulness to the book was good. Story felt tight.
So, the first version was Good, though not Great.
The second version, 1974, was strangely set in the desert, instead of on an isolated snow-packed mountain retreat. Most interesting thing about that version was that it had Gert Fröbe in it, as one of the characters. You know: Auric Goldfinger from the third James Bond movie? And that’s really the best that can be said about that version.
1989, in the “Jungle” instead of in the Snow. Crowded positioning of the actors, and no evidence of Jungle. The director managed to make those professionals look like amateurs.
The third version was even more strangely set in the “jungles” of Africa, though no jungle was actually visible at any point. A lot of very strange “African” behavior, difficulties with getting to their destination, and other stuff that has nothing at all do with the story, like they didn’t think they had enough script to go around. Donald Pleasance was the only good part of the third movie, though he was never on my “A” list of actors, enjoyable as I always found him.
Same story in each one, even many of the same lines, yet the two remakes feel very sloppy, bereft of logic. Figure that one out (direction and editing, I assume).
Here’s what I don’t get, here’s what Hollywood does, over and over and over, and I don’t get:
They spend money to remake a Good Movie, then
make it badly, not even as good as the original.
Why would you do that?
Like the 1999 remake of the Haunting, which was OK, and certainly not cheap, but not nearly as good as the 1965 original, Liam Neeson and Katherine Zeta-Jones not withstanding. (And quite ironic — see my other posting some where around here about that one.)
Or the 2002 remake of the 1975 movie Rollerball. The remake had everything except a story, a purpose, a message or a point. The original was a hard-hitting masterfully told anti-totalitarian movie, and about the power of the Individual, should he chose to exercise it. It was also very exciting. It was also James Caan. The remake… eew.
The 2014 remake of 1985’s Robocop was arguably an improvement over the original, though it failed as sci-fi, where the original’s was more defensible. (The remake left the path of Believable Tech, and that’s Verboten in science-fiction, always. Otherwise it’s Fantasy. Otherwise it’s unworthy of the title “Sci-Fi”). One might also grade it as a failure because the rest of the story was never told; the original was 3 movies and a much longer story.
Stallone’s interpretation
“Bones'” Interpretation
The remake of the Stallone’s 1995 Judge Dredd (slight name change, the remake was simply Dredd, done in 2012 and staring Karl Urban, the new “Bones” from JJ Abrams Star Trek movies), was very good, but the sequel — and the rest of the story — was cancelled, even though there were setups for it in the movie. Why? For reasons never made clear. Politics and Ego one assumes, not very Professional but that seems to be normal in Hollywood (read it either way).
The Jason Statham remake of the Charles Bronson movie the Mechanic was well done and even improved the story a notch, though perhaps that was only to allow a sequel, which was impossible for the original, so it actually extended the story over the original. Nice. It worked quite well, followed the same story line up to that one critical moment and Hit the Mark, dead center (so to speak).
The 2017 Johnny Depp remake of the 1974 Murder on the Orient Express (Agatha Christie, again) was quite well done. A little confusing even, in that it was neither better nor worse than the original. It was a Good Remake that stands on its own without affecting nor being affected by the original. Nice trick, that. Very nice(2).
Since they were both based on a book, perhaps that’s understandable. Oh, but so were the three Ten Little Indians, so I guess that doesn’t hold water.
Ok, there’s a couple examples of movies that were improved by remakes, but by and large my experience with remakes makes me awfully cautious about “risking” one. Will it be so bad that it will ruin the original for me? That has happened; remakes I wish I had never seen.
Why would you do that? Why? It’s a waste of money, of resources, of actors’ time that might have been far better spent on a far better story.
Bad Story Telling. That’s Bad Business. Is not Hollywood’s Business story telling?
Isn’t it?
Why would you ever do it badly, then?
[30]
(1) In researching this article, I found out something. The original title did not use the word “Indians” but another word which was fairly benign then but definitely not considered so now. In fact, it’s considered so very non-benign now that I don’t even want to put it in print. So there… the Herd has its influence even on me. Go figure… The book was based around a children’s nursery rhyme that was itself published in 1868. The Agatha Christie novel was published 1939. Words… they mean only what you think they mean; otherwise they mean nothing at all.
(2) Some viewers will enjoy the fact that Johnny Depp played the victim (Sean Connery’s part in the original movie). I don’t really understand the need to confuse an actor’s private life with his professional one. What in your life would not stand close scrutiny? Anything? I love his work. He’s a Genius. He’s one of the all time greats Hollywood has ever had. His private life is his own, and none of my business.