Remake versus Original
-
alanbovay — 19 years ago(February 27, 2007 11:21 AM)
Pun intended, the original beats the remake to a pulp. The 2004 version is nothing more than a clich-riddled comic book for kids whose parents allow them to watch Smackdown. There is nothing realistic, gritty, emotional, or believable about it. A real disappointment, for had it been handled rough, rugged, and raw like the original, it could have proven to be the Rock's breakthrough role. The running time is only 84 minutes, including 12 minutes of closing credits, leaving a mere 1-hour-and-12-minutes for the rest. Then again, such a brief running time seems appropriate, for the movie barely packs the depth of a weekly syndicated TV episode. Always be cautious of a PG-13 remake of a R-rated classic (Walking Tall, The Longest Yard, When a Stranger Calls), for it's a sure-fire sign that the studio is relying only on youth marketing and not the product itself (a once adult-oriented product). The originals were never made for kids, so why should their remakes be?
As David Spade once asked, "Why do we need all these remakes? So we can see how the characters behave with cell phones?" -
RicShepherd — 18 years ago(January 14, 2008 10:57 AM)
I just finished watching the original for only the 2nd time and its so much better than the remake. I may not look as good and its a little dated but still its a great movie. For those who have only watched the remake rent the first one and you will understand.
-
Killer_Bee — 18 years ago(February 15, 2008 07:17 PM)
You have to take into account that the so called remake wasn't really a remake. It's what I call "Film in a box". WWE has been gnawing at the bit to get into the film business as a way to further expose their product and stuff more cash into their balance sheet so they bought the rights to "Walking Tall" at a bargain, opened the box and picked out a few plot pieces, Changed some names and locales then wrote in some scenes with the star ripping off his shirt and bulging his eyes before bodyslamming someone and sent it off to the theaters. The final product was garbage but when the audience you are trying to attract is more than willing to pay for that garbage, have at it. That's the beauty of the WWE and the genius of Vince McMahon. Vince could slap a fan then charge him for entertaiment and the fan would probably pay him and ask for more.
-
cwg2779 — 17 years ago(May 11, 2008 07:28 PM)
I just finished watching the original and I can't believe I never heard about it before the remake came out. This was an awesome show and is so much more elaborate than the remake. If they keep making remakes they should at least try not to insult the original.
-
gsxrrules — 16 years ago(September 26, 2009 09:24 PM)
I actually saw (and liked) the remake before the original (which I finally just watched today). I can honestly say now that the remake sucks in comparison. I was amazed at how violent the original was (for a movie made in 1973)! Had the remake been about 20 minutes longer & Rated R, I might feel different. But as it stands now, the original is superior in every way. No contest.
-
wmjahn — 16 years ago(September 29, 2009 12:22 PM)
Yeah, the 70ies were THE decade! Thanx for agreeing. You might want to read my comment on the original WALKING TALL:
"Walk softly and carry a big stick.", 31 July 2009
BTW, same regarding PELHAM 123, OK the re-make is better than the WALKING TALL-remake, but again the original rules!