This movie undoubtedly is a copy of Don, BOllywood flick starring Amitabh Bachhan released in 1978.
Apart from that it is a great movie, in fact far better than the Bollywood version. Aidal Quinn might not have matched Mr. Bachhans performance but the movie is better paced. From the Box Office point of view, I think that this movie was tailor made for Tom Cruise. With such a a good story it would have rocked the box office.
Know what guys Bollywood in fact this year has remade the earlier version by the same title, DON and it is better and stylish than the both the English and the Hindi versions that came before it.
> I can't comment on the bollywood film you're refering to but to say that Tom Cruise would have made a better Annibal/Carlos than Aidan Quinn is quite simply ridiculous!
Fully agree with that.
And you're all getting it wrong.
Actually all the movies were remakes of an old English story that dates back to the 15th century ;-)
Well in that way I can confirm that I've see a Hindi movie from 1940s which has a similar storyline as Don. And ofcourse, the movie was black and white.
Yeah, where? The real statistic is that ALL Bollywood movies are copies of Hollywood movies. Including the Oscar-contending Lagaan which partially ripped off a Kevin Bacon movie set in rural Africa.
Err I have actually seen the bollywood "The Don" (the older version) and that crapfest didn't inspire "The Assignment" at all. It's a cheesey bollywood flick and we have seen numerous movies on the same subject coming from Bollywood...Chinatown, Kalicharan (spelling?) etc etc. It's safe to say that "The Don" was a ripoff of Chinatown (bollywood movie) and was inspired by early James Bond movies. Most of the crap that comes from Bollywood is very unoriginal and pathetic. Bollywood has never been about original and creative plots and storylines but there was a time during the 70s-80s and early 90s when bollywood had it's own style, very cheesy and clichéd though, but in recent times it has lost that too. Now Bollywood = poor man's Hollywood for a lack of better words.
This isn't really a reply to the OP, but a comment regarding movies in general:
To say that this movie is a rip-off of that, and then to say that this it's actually based on a story from the 1600's, etc... taps into the idea that there are only 7 movies. What I mean by that is that even though it's obvious that more than 7 movies have been made since the process of moviemaking began, there are only 7 movie concepts that are unique/ indivdual/ independant of each other. I couldn't tell you what those 7 concepts are, but my guess would be that one is a love story, one is a story of intrigue, one is a story of revenge, etc...
Each movie that has been made, indeed, each play that has been written, also, tap into these indivual and independant concepts. A movie might have elements of love, and intrigue, but still in its essence is a story of revenge, and so forth, and so on. Even though the script may be entirely different, even though the twists and turns of the plot might keep you guessing, even though the actors are entirely different people, Vanilla Sky is the same essential movie (the same story) as Erin Brokovitch. They show the lives of person 'x' overcoming the difficulties before them, as they're propelled along the path to ultimately realise their self-fulfillment.
If you understand this about movies, you soon come to see that each and every movie you see, or book you read, or play you watch, etc... is one of these 7 types, and the whole process can become dull and uninspired. The challenge for movie makers is then to hold our attention, by making the film so interesting, that we don't mind hearing the 'same' story again. Or by adding eye candy, or by borrowing from any of the 6 other concepts.
Some independant films try to transcende this, by not making the movie about anything in particular, rather they show a slice of a persons' life. But I;m now straying from my point. To say that this movie is a rip off of a bollywood movie, and then to come back with "But that's a rip-off of the 1960's movie," and then to end it with "But they're based on a story from the 1600's" all comes back to one thing in the end. That there are only 7 stories to be told, and this is one of them. Regardless of whether or not they are based on the true events surrounding the life of a person alive now, or alive in the 60's, or of a person who was alive 500 years ago, the story itself is not new.
So next time you watch a movie, and you think to yourself "This movie seems like a rip-off of a french movie I saw when I was rebuidling Germany after the war" spare a thought for that very same french movie, and how it was undoubtedly a rip-off of the self-same story which has been told, since there have been people to tell storis, and people to listen.
Alternatively, when talking about, say, Nikita vs The Assassin/ Point of No Return, I don't think it's right to call the Bridget Fonda movie a rip-off of the french "original". It's an English translation of an enjoyable tale -ironically of a woman overcoming the difficulties before her, as she's propelled along the path to ultimately realise her self-fulfillment- making it essentially the same movie as Vanilla Sky and Erin Brokovitch. The story is not new. It's said that immitation is the most sincere form of flattery. Why then, can we not believe that the producers saw the French version, and becoming so enamored of it as they did, they wished to present the same story to an English audience. They wished to do it the same way the French film crew did, but they wished instead that the actors spoke English.
Long-winded though it might be, I rather see it this way, than to say that any film with Gabrielle Byrne is a rip-off of any other film. As an end note, I was not aware of the movie Don. As a fan of Amitam Betcham (hope i got the spelling right) I should like to see it. Next time I'm in an Indian Film mood, I shall go hunting for it : )
Seven? You are missing out of the billions of differences that makes something special. Expression - Tone - Outlandishness - Subtleness - I could go on and on.
They say there are Seven Sins but if that were truley the limit we would all be sinless out of boredom.
I agree that one of us is missing something here, but unfortunately for you, it is not me.
I think you are missing something fundamental about my post. Perhaps, three years later, you might now understand it. Perhaps not. Undoubtedly, as you get older, you will.
Peace out.
-- Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most...
No,this isn't a copy of Don (Bachchans version),although the double role premise seems similar.
The problem with movies that feature double roles always fall into these cliches that get used over and over again. In real life you would never find exact copies of one person. Even identical twins look different if you look close enough.
While I loved the movie,in real life one could never fool you like that. Especially if you have been intimate with that person. Each person has his or her unique characteristics and abilities.
The remake version of Don was indeed very good. But it was so different from the Bachchan movie that you can't compare. Bachchan is a specialist when doing double roles. He really can be two different persons at the same time without making the viewer think that it is the same person. He even did it in Mahaan where he played a father and both twin brothers.