Seriously, the scene with the naked guy falling out the window, penis in the wind, had to be one of the most unnecessary gratuitous scenes ever shot. And then he winds up dead with a horrific expression on his face. I can't believe Craig Wasson went through with that scene. Without some of the nudity, had it been released today, this might have gotten a PG-13.
shareI notice you didn't find the nude scenes with Alice Krige offensive. I found those gratuitous. So it's OK for female nudity but not male--is that what you're saying?
shareyeah.sure.why not?
shareOh I don't know--maybe because it's sexist?
sharewhat it is,is popular opinion.most people,regardless of age or gender will focus on alice krige's nudity rather then craig wasson's.it's hard not to.
shareRemember that episode from Seinfeld...It's a question of 'good naked' and 'bad naked'. Seriously though, I think most guys will stop in their tracks just to see a 'barenaked lady' on TV. It's a 'guy' thing. I'm sure it exists with women too, yet not nearly as much. Though seeing a naked guy makes most guys chuckle. That's why the original poster had an issue with it.
shareAs I recall she didn't even do a full frontal, and she was never flailing ridiculously over a blue screen.
shareyes,she went went full frontal.
shareI saw it yesterday, she did a lot of topless and from the back shots, but that was it.
sharein my video cut,the camera is slightly farther away when she says "and i will see the life run out of you",and we see her full frontal.
shareWell that's completely unverifiable. Screen cap or it never happened.
shareJoshua is correct...it's the scene where she is 'sleepwalking', standing in front of the big picture window at the ocean. This is on the MCA video release...it may be different on the DVD.
http://www.nudography.com/Celebrities/alice_krige.aspx
Try watching the dvd instead of the edited for TV version...
shareI can vouch that in the open matte version, you briefly see Krige do a full frontal when she's staring out the window and turns around. The widescreen version cuts the bottom (and top) of the screen off so you just miss it.
shareSo, it's the version that is going to be eventually destroyed by lack of non-widescreen TVs produced and unintended by the director since it's not in the original ratio. There's a pretty major asterisk on that full frontal. The director intended only full frontal male nudity clearly.
shareI think the director didn't care whether she was full frontal nude or not. She was nude in many scenes.
The 'correct ratio' is always questionable, since in cinemas it depends on the various projectionists - some give 1:1,66, some 1:1,85 or even 1:1,90.
-I don't discriminate between entertainment
and arthouse. A film is a goddam film.-
I'm rather certain that the "edited for TV version" would be missing ALL nudity, not just full frontal.
-There is no such word as "alot."
I am pretty sure I saw this on tv years ago and there was NO nudity.
REcently I saw it Encore where mostly anything goes.
[deleted]
[deleted]
You would recall wrong, dumbass.
shareI just streamed the movie on Amazon Prime. Krige's breasts were on lingering display from every possible angle, several times. I could draw her nipples accurately from memory. No complaints from me.
shareSo it's OK for female nudity but not male--is that what you're saying?
Dude, I saw this movie when I was in the fifth grade-- that beginning part was the BEST part of the entire movie. Made me laugh so hard... Rewound it numerous times, as well. :D
share[deleted]
That scene is hilarious. Every shot of it, all the way down to the bouncing off the poolside concrete. LoL @ Bill Maher's dong.
shareI laughed so hard at his dick flying in the wind and those horrible expressions on his face as he was falling! I don't know how many times I rewound that part just to laugh my ass off. And his hair looked green when he was falling too. That part of the movie was so funny!
Don't hope for change - VOTE for it! ~ McCain-Palin '08~
[deleted]
This writer could've done without the "naked guy" in this film.
To Better Days,
BRAD
Especially since he went out the window wrapped in an enormous towel, and the next thing we know he's falling naked (and even more unattractive looking), with the towel nowhere in sight. Totally unnecessary. Talk about gratutitous.
And why does he stand there just before all this letting the damn tub overflow? Utterly pointless and ridiculous. That also annoys me no end.
Dear Hobnob53,
I've always felt that they could've done a better job in casting Craig Wasson's part.
What if Chris Sarandon had played the twin sons?Off the top of my head I think Mr.Sarandon would've been tiptop!What do you think?
To Better Days,
BRAD
Interesting idea. Sarandon would have been better (admittedly, in this case that's not a compliment unique to him!), and I'll have to ponder other possibilities. Tim Matheson, perhaps, or Kevin Bacon. Someone a bit stronger, better actor, better looking, more assertive. Wasson had too little personality (and most of that annoying), and in terms of the other characters he was little more than a cipher.
But I generally dislike the whole notion of one actor playing twin brothers. It usually comes across as contrived and unconvincing, though there have been a few exceptions (e.g., The Corsican Brothers, Dead Ringers). I would just have made the two characters ordinary brothers, and gotten two actors, neither of whom would have been Mr. Wasson.
Dear Hobnob53,
For me,Kevin Bacon would've been too young in 1981 and I have never had much regard for him when putting him up against Astaire,Douglas,Fairbanks and Houseman.They would've had him for breakfast.
Tim Matheson is an EXCELLENT suggestion and such casting would've made
Ghost Story a better film.
Regarding twins,I agree with everything you say in your final paragraph.
Let's talk again.
To Better Days,
BRAD
Yeah, you're probably right about Bacon, at least in 1981. For some reason I keep drawing blanks on other possible actors of the appropriate age back then who might've done this part. But I'll see who I can come up with.
shareDear Hobnob53,
I think Tim Matheson is the best choice of all for Douglas Fairbanks Jr.'s
son.He is someone anyone can identify with and truly want to win any fight against evil.
I look forward to us talking again.
To Better Days,
BRAD
After this much time, if they planned to remake the movie now, Tim Matheson would wind up playing Doug Fairbanks's role!
shareDear Hobnob53,
I don't look forward to remakes nowadays.
To Better Days,
BRAD
I never look forward to remakes. Offhand I can think of only one remake that was actually better than the original -- The Blob. The 1958 original was cute and innocent but the 1988 remake really was well-made and scary, albeit with a few over-the-top scenes. Also, the 1978 remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers was pretty good, to my mind almost -- but not quite -- on a par with the 1956 original. But remakes in general are a big mistake, and worse, a waste of time, money and effort. Need I mention Psycho?
That's one reason I never understood why so many people on the IMDb discussion boards so often start some thread, usually labeled REMAKE, about some movie. What's the point? Even as an intellectual exercise I find that subject pretty boring.
Dear Hobnob53,
I used to look forward to a remake or new version of a film,but I feel that
Hollywood has people too young behind it's creativity nowadays to understand
why a film was Good the first time around.People in Hollywood are too ignorant,
cheap or both when it comes to making Good movies nowadays,
To Better Days,
BRAD
Yes, I agree. It used to be (50 years ago and more) that filmmakers were brought up on books, plays and literature as well as films. They understood the importance of the written and spoken word, plot and character development, and the other non-visual aspects that go into making a good movie. Of course, they understood the visual side of things as well. Hollywood has always done remakes (or, sometimes, what you might call "reworkings" of the same basic theme, but not remakes in the strict sense -- for example, all the movies about Cleopatra), but usually these were in-depth, complex films which may or may not have been better than the original but were generally good on their own. Ben-Hur, for instance, was an excellent silent film in 1926 but an even better remake 33 years later. (In my previous post, when I spoke of remakes usually being not as good, I was thinking of horror and sci-fi, the focus of our discussions. Films of other genres have often been remade successfully, whether or not quite on a par with the original.)
But today's film people are mostly products of the TV age, and now video games, so mindless, endless spectacle is all they know. They measure a film's worth by the number of rapid-fire images they can throw up onto the screen every minute. They think that if two cars in a car chase is exciting, fifty cars is even more exciting. Plot and characters suffer by comparison, which is why so many of them are one-dimensional and insipid. This is a generalization of course but an apt one, especially in the realm of horror and science fiction. (Look at how even someone who should know better, George Lucas, loused up the original Star Wars and its two sequels by clotting up so many scenes with clouds of additional -- and purposeless -- computerized images for his new versions, as if "more" equaled "better". They never learn.)
To better days, indeed, my friend.
Dear Hob,
Remakes make me gag now.
I really doubt that most young people appreciate so many of the Classics of literature nowadays.Even when I was in school,I had certain reservations about books(read only part of Grapes Of Wrath because I found it just too depressing to keep reading)...on the other hand,Steinbeck's Of Mice And Men is for me the exact opposite of his Grapes Of Wrath and I have read Of Mice And Men about four times and have seen every version made of this novel.In fact,I consider this novel to be the Greatest book that I've ever read.I have also read
Great Expectations(Classic Dickens) and others that I can't recall now.
Do you suppose the remakes of the truly Classic films will stop now ?
What an insult that Hollywood-the Great Dream Factory is now just turning out
putrid versions of Great films now.Did you see the remake of The Day Earth Stood Still w.Keanu Reeves?I avoided it like the plague.
To Better Days,
BRAD
Luckily we still get literary adaptations, mostly from Britain, and also through TV miniseries (British and American). There are always filmmakers around who recognize quality and have the box office clout to spend on an adaptation that won't set money records but will be well thought of.
Back in the studios' heyday the bosses would often essentially underwrite films they knew would lose money but which they thought should be made. These so-called prestige films weren't done exclusively for altruistic reasons -- they hoped for critical recognition and Academy Awards, which is fine -- but they also wanted to do such films. Of course, back then, many literary adaptations were also big box office as well.
Sometimes more modern efforts to redo some play or novel result in a travesty. Look at The Razor's Edge, based on Somerset Maugham's 1944 novel. The book was a best seller and is somewhat existential and difficult to adapt properly. Fox made it into a successful film in 1946 which, while it falls short of the depth and style of the book, was nonetheless a solid, well-received movie. But in 1984 Bill Murray used his clout from the success of Stripes and Ghostbusters (neither of which I liked) to coerce Columbia into backing a remake of Razor's Edge because Murray liked the novel and wanted to do a "serious" motion picture. It was abysmal, and Murray was the worst part of it -- anything but a romantic hero, searching for the meaning of life. Every time he was on screen all he could do was show his usual smirking, deadpan self. Simply awful.
On the other hand, some actors like to try their hand at genuinely great material, with mixed results. Hamlet was probably best done by Olivier in his 1948 Oscar-winner, but Kenneth Branagh's version is pretty good. On the other hand, Mel Gibson tried but just isn't a good enough actor to bring it off, though he managed a respectable production. A modern-day version with Ethan Hawke, however, was ludicrous. Branagh's Henry V was quite good, but nowhere near Olivier's 1944 version.
Most film adaptations I've seen of Dickens, Shaw, Maugham, Steinbeck (I like both the book and movie of The Grapes of Wrath very much -- depressing, sure, but excellent) and many others are actually good, many excellent. My favorite novel probably is 1984, but neither film version has done it real justice.
I, too, avoided the remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still like the plague it is. I saw the other day that it'll be out on DVD in early April, in two- and three-disc versions, each set containing the original 1951 film. You know something must be bad if they have to toss the acclaimed version in with the panned new flop in order to boost sales!
Dear Hob,
No words ring more true than that final paragraph of your most recent reply about how the only way the remake will sell is if The acclaimed version is sold with it on DVD.The Day Earth Stood Still(1951) is too Great a film to have been remade because it is a One of a kind Classic that should only happen once in cinema and revered ever after.
I feel certain films can only be made right once and to try to recapture their
glory is mostly a waste of time.When will Hollywood learn?
To Better Days,
BRAD
Dear Brad,
I fear, never, in answer to your last question. They don't learn even from box office failure. hob
Dear Hob,
I suspect we are best to search for independent films then, because they seem to be the only hope for Chillers and SciFi with Originality...these films take chances.The idiots can just keep watching the remakes over and over and over and...
To Better Days,
BRAD
Dear Brad,
I still hold out hope for mainstream films in these genres, some of which are done well. Indies don't do as much in these realms, I think. But you're right, too much regular studio stuff is just plain derivitive, to use a polite term. But in addition, I like to spread the word about older films, to show everyone what real hooror, scares, chills, whatever you wish to call them, are. The past can point the way ahead, if one can only draw the right conclusions...as too many today can't, won't, or don't. My pessimism is positively horrific -- or chilling!
(However, we can be thankful that so far at least no one has sought to replicate the scene from GS from which this thread took its title!)
hob
Dear Hob,
I genuinely hope you are right.But I must continue to champion the films made by independent filmmakers because I just can't take these terrible remakes anymore!
If I see Gene Hackman in a remake then that gives me a great deal of interest in the film...he's far too Great an actor to not choose carefully...most of the time.
To Better Days,
BRAD
Brad -- Well, I certainly agree with you on that. Indies are critical to the health of the industry, even though many don't move me much at all. But that's the way with all types of films, is it not?
hob
Dear Hob,
I think one has to cherrypick what appeals for one's own best enjoyment.
There can be alot of crap,but I applaud that certain subjects are made that would never be touched by the big studios.
Talk to you soon.
To Better Days,
BRAD
Jeff Bridges would have been a great choice, and just the right age at the time the film was made. I could see him having great chemistry with Alice Krige.....not to mention he's always been a fantastic actor.
The bad news is you have houseguests. There is no good news.
And we'd all like to see JB's peen flying out a window! Funny thing is that I always mistook Craig Wasson and Bill Maher. At least when I just watched it, I knew it was Craig Wasson and not him, and thought CW was kind of a cutie.
shareHello ella713 -- Well, as you've read on all these posts, obviously we don't agree about Mr. Wasson. I actually agree with your assessment on how the character would have been evoked by Matheson vs. Wasson, but I disagree that the way it was done with Wasson was what the role demanded. He was too much the screw-up victim of events to begin with to be either sympathetic or believable. The "ghost" should have lowered him to that level; all she did was reinforce his preexisting weaknesses, which were manifold. His playing twins also doesn't work. But I'm not wedded to Tim Matheson; his was just a name that came into my head. I just don't care for Craig Wasson as an actor. He was too much of a cipher to be credible or interesting.
I don't know what you mean about his nudity being "explained" in the very first scene. Yes, we see how and why it came about (if that's what you mean), but it was gratuitous. There is no reason why he couldn't have gone out the window fully clothed. On the other hand, no, Alice Krige's nudity -- at least some of it -- was definitely not gratuitous. Her nudity, at least in some scenes, was indeed necessary to what her character was doing, and why. I do agree that some of it was unnecessary, but not all. I neither object to nor insist upon nudity in a film, and it is often gratuitous or overdone in many movies. But sometimes it really is fitting or necessary, and Krige's is for many of her nude scenes here.
Generally this film succeeds as it is. I think Wasson was a poor choice, but on the other hand he doesn't wreck the movie; he's adequate, but not more. Some of the script is dopey, some of the nudity unnecessary, a few scenes make little sense or are poorly conceived; but while definitely flawed, overall it's pretty good.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments.
I have in fact seen many reviews stating that Krige's nude scenes were gratuituous, just not in this particular thread on this particular board. I think the difference is that hers made more sense in context, i.e. she's either having sex, or has just done so and is wandering around seeming ethereal and strange-maybe I've been dating the wrong chicks, but most girls I've seen don't just walk around the house naked. It makes her seem oddly intimidating in that she appears exposed and vulnerable and yet obviously doesn't feel that way at all. Wasson's scene, on the other hand, is about the first big scare scene in the film and the character's death, ergo the general reaction of "Err, so what does this event have to do with his weiner, since they're making darn sure we see it?"
It doesn't help that it's also a component of an especially bad special effect shot; the whole package (no pun intended) just seems sillier for its inclusion.
-There is no such word as "alot."
In reply about the overflowing bathtub, I saw this as not something overlooked by David, but it is a sign/symptom that Alma has "changed", so that David can now see her for who she is (water being a constant theme in this movie, due to her scene of death). One reason why them being naked is important is that we see later in the film that it is when Alma/Eva is naked and you can feel her cold skin, it is easier to see her for what she really is. It would be slightly odd in the opening scene to have her naked and him fully clothed. Why would he be clothed when she is naked?
Don had tried to tell David on the phone that she was not what she appeared to be. It had taken Don several weeks/months to see what she really was. He also discovered her while en dishabille. And the towel. Does your towel stay on well? Because mine doesn't. If I don't have my hand securing it, it won't stay wrapped for more than a few feet. So frankly, I don't expect after he has broken through a glass window, with multiple shards of glass for his towel to catch on, or it could have dropped off as he tripped his way out. I would laugh harder if he had fallen all the way down with the towel wrapped around his waist.
I think most men have a serious double standard when it comes to male nudity. They cannot be bothered with female nudity, but you put in one small male nude scene, and their up in arms.
To each their own...opinion
I think it's that the scene comes off as comical when it should be disturbing; you sort of forget that the scene is about a man about to die after seeing some awful vision, and instead start seeing it as a scene about a rather embarrassing shot of a man's thingy. It's the context more than anything else-you don't, after all, see anyone complaining that his nudity during the sex scene with Alma was silly or inappropriate. I sort of get what the director was aiming for-having him naked enhances the sense of his helplessness and defenselessness, but I don't think it translated too well to the screen. It probably worked better on paper.
-There is no such word as "alot."