Reshoots, contrary to the concept that many have about them, can be an interesting cinematic aspect. What happens is the following: movies and cinema are products of their times, which say a lot about the current thinking of society. When thoughts and the way we behave within this same society changes, it is natural that a work that was created within the parameters of the past begins to be seen as something outdated; and often something even offensive. But before we start “cancelling” movies, “burning books” or wanting to censor art, a less passionate detachment is needed to perceive only how we have evolved and changed – to the point where certain narratives are no longer accepted.
This introduction points precisely to the best aspect of a remake: reimagining a work for modern times and standards. See, for example, what the filmmaker Nate Parker (owner of his own personal problems) made with the birth of a nation (1915), a technological improvement studied in several film universities around the world, but which contains a crooked speech, praising the racist institution Ku Klux Klan. Parker took this concept, and in its reimagining turned the racist work into a highly representative production, giving the slaves’ vision of a revolt. Something just brilliant.
The problem with Hollywood’s constant remakes is that they do not even have this social reinterpretation proposal. No. There, the proposal is solely financial. The countless remakes and reimaginings aim to keep a product’s brand in the minds of its consumers. This often backfires, as reproducing the magic conquered at a specific time proves to be a more than thankless task. In this way, the general “rancidity” is introduced in any mention of the term remake (reshoot). With that in mind, we’ve decided in this new story to revisit some very famous Hollywood remakes (containing big names in front of and behind the camera) that turn 10 in 2021. And yes, we have good remakes on the list. Check it out below and comment.
We start with a remake of ten years ago that achieved the feat that few reinterpretations can: being better and more successful than an already beloved cult work. Based on the author’s work Stieg Larsson which caused a stir among suspense literature aficionados, the story was originally adapted to film in a 2009 production of the same nationality (Danish) starring Noomi Rapace – who would go on to become a Hollywood star. The film spawned two sequels released in the same year, which complete the trilogy of books and would receive American treatment two years later. At that moment many fans could have turned up their noses, however, it was soon announced that who would be in charge of the American adaptation would be none other than the established and multifaceted David Fincher, one of the most interesting filmmakers today. With four Oscar nominations, including best actress for Rooney Mara (in an even more impressive delivery than Rapace on paper) and a victory in editing, it still hurts my heart to think that Sony didn’t have the courage to fund the sequels that everyone and everyone involved wanted to do (from the director to the cast ).
Now we take an abysmal leap in quality. The thing is, as much as they were cult productions dear to moviegoers, the Swedish films of the trilogy Millenium are not as well known to the general public, and the film of Fincher it was the entry of many people into this universe. Here, the reverse happens. The older ones especially treasure the success that Scared time (Fright Night, 1985) made it in the 1980s – becoming an unexpected hit from that summer in the US. Here we also had a prestigious director at the forefront of the reimagination: Craig Gillespie, who had impressed the indie scene with the ideal girl (2007) and later on to his best film, the daring me, Tonya (2017). Today, the filmmaker makes quality blockbusters, see Cruella (2021); but such success had not been achieved ten years before. The remake’s intentions are even good and creative, as it changes the typical swaggering atmosphere of the 80s, with the right to a lot of humor, for something more direct and dark. The problem is that the characters and their dynamics are poorly constructed, unlike the original, the dialogue is uninspired, and the attempts at humor and horror fail miserably – again, unlike the original. the prototype is much better than the result.
I think I’m alone on an island in this one, but I’m one of the defenders of the remake of this beloved 1980s musical classic. In my opinion, yes the reimagining of Footloose it works. Well, if we’re going to follow the do’s and don’ts guide in a remake, we can say that the new movie isn’t very bold in the sense of diverging from the original’s ideas and concepts. As Millenium, the proposal here is to follow the mold of what was done before, repeating the same beats and changing very little. Unlike, let’s say, the item above, more creative in remaking many of the script’s structures. What we expect, and what the director Craig Brewer (which then went on to direct the great my name is dolemite e A Prince in New York 2) delivery is exactly what the subtitle of this film says: an infectious rhythm. The filmmaker imprints a lot of energy and musicality in the film. Everything is faster and more vibrant, and that’s what I needed for a remake of a film whose purpose is the explosion of repressed music and dance. Brewer sets the screen on fire again, and takes from his cast a lot of charisma and chemistry – especially from the protagonists. Julianne Hough (a dancer in real life) and Kenny Wormald. If the 1984 film was dated and tacky, this is the right solution to show that Footloose can still be cool.
You’ve already noticed the list is made up of ups and downs. And here we have a curious case. Technically, this The Thing (in the original) declares itself not as a remake, but rather as a prequel (a pre-sequence) of the movie. John Carpenter 1982, entitled The Enigma of Another World. This movie, in turn, is a very creative and daring remake – which takes the concepts of the original and takes them to unimaginable places – of the B fiction known as The Arctic Monster (1951). It turns out that the Dutch director Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. it basically delivers a remake of Carpenter’s inspiring film, repeating almost scene by scene, idea by idea, everything that had been created before, adding almost nothing in return. The mood, character dynamics, characterizations, setting, design of the creatures, everything is very “cloned” from its predecessor, which makes the film fall into the territory of an unintentional (or subconsciously intentional) reimagination. The most notable difference is the replacement of the tough protagonist Kurt Russell by a woman, the young Mary Elizabeth Winsted which, although it does well on paper, is not as impressive, even more served by uninspired material. The feeling left after the screening is that of wanting to revisit… Carpenter’s film.
Conan – The Barbarian
This item falls into yet another category. What are reboots if nothing more than a remake. Well, reboots can be considered Hollywood’s most creative remakes – thinking about how they never repeat themselves, they take a concept and create something non-zero out of it. For example, the female version of Ghostbuster (2016) can be called everything, but at least it knew how to take the concept elsewhere. Can you imagine what it would be like if you repeated scene by scene every moment of the original? The same can be said of the new films from the Spider man, or any superhero like Batman e Superman. New advances always result in a differentiated product, for better or for worse. And why not have remakes like that of every movie? After all, that story was told in the past that way.
It is the initiative taken for this remake / reboot of Conan, based on the comics of Robert E. Howard. The original film dates back to 1982, it was a hit, named after Arnold Schwarzenegger on the map, and generated an official sequel (Conan – The Destroyer, 1984) and one undeclared (fire warriors, 1985). Ten years ago, at the height of the debut of Game of Thrones, only one name seemed ideal to revive Conan on the big screen: Jason Momoa. The question, as in the remake of Scared time, is that Conan 2011 seems to result in a lot of “coverage” and little “stuffing”, with a strong visual appeal, but without any humanity that makes it resonate for more than a week after the end of its exhibition – or who knows more than one day.