A remake better than the original.
I thinks so, I liked it alot, everybody say it stinks but I like it. The Michael Caine version from -71 did stink though.
shareI thinks so, I liked it alot, everybody say it stinks but I like it. The Michael Caine version from -71 did stink though.
share[deleted]
You posted this for attention right?
shareIn my point of view both sucked and sucked big time.
Both were uninteresting on all levels for a major studio release to put this garbage on a silver screen.
Both of them are direct to video grade movies and no more and when you consider that the remake's budget was ~ 65 mil in 2000's $ it's a miracle that those involved with this motion picture were able to still make movies in Hollywood.
English is not my native language.
Want to know who did 911? visit http://www.911missinglinks.com/
He biggest problem with American films today is that they try to be all things to all people; today every film has action, romance, gay romance, mystery, confusion, comedy, etc.. In trying to do everything, they do NOTHING well, and wind up a mish mash of a movie. Stallone's version is guilty of this. As far as Caine not being the great strongman physical specimen needed to be a successful assassin, the best are simply average, non-descript people who you would never suspect of being professional killers. Life does not imitate art here.
shareThis 2000 American remake of the English film is better than Mean Machine - the 2001 English remake of an American film.
shareObvilsuly, a controversial post. I accept both films for what they are. That way they are both entertaining, just on different levels.
share[deleted]
Better is an opinion. I won't opine on that, but I think this version deserves more respect than it gets. Two different takes on the same story.
share