There's heehaw wrong with the original (If you can speak Spanish or read subtitles) so what's with this shoddy cover version?
IMDB has a 100 character limit with members' signatures? What if someone linked to Night of the Day of the Dawn of the Son of the Bride of the Return of the Revenge of the Terror of the Attack of the Evil, Mutant, Hellbound, Flesh-Eating Subhumanoid Zombified Living Dead, Part 3 (2005)?
Because most of the Americans don't like to read subtitles so they make the same movie again.
Too bad they missed the excellent Original and watched this garbage instead.
[deleted]
this, this remake police here in IMDb should stay away from films....XD
shareIt's obvious you two didn't see the Oscar winning original then I said a hip hop, hippie to the hippie, the hip, hip a hop, and you don't stop, a rock it...
shareIt's obvious you two didn't see the Oscar winning original thenHa! Well, I saw it. It was enjoyable. It really was. But I enjoyed the "Hollywood" version better. Los subtítulos being only one of the reasons.
[deleted]
I think the cinema quality of the original was much higher, the train station at the beginning, the toast and marmalade with the flashbacks to the rape, the architecture of Buenos Aires and the surrounding areas, that great pan over the football pitch and the 2 smooth jumpcuts which made it almost seamless, the comedic sidekick and his alcoholism and his wife, the Dirty War as a reason for the male cop to go AWOL for all that time, the bad guy being particularly Aryan. The common infidelity of Argentinian marriages and the meaning of love viewed in different directions.Sure! Thanks for the elaborating on the merits of The Secret in Their Eyes (2009)
I can see why they remade it, it was a wonderful film, I just don't think it translates into the US anywhere near as well as the original.
Thanks my thoughts on it anyway, I hope that explains my outlook a little better
I think highlighting the good stuff from the original explains what I didn't like about the remake - sorry if that's off-kilter for you.Yes, I speak Castellano - perhaps knowing the language and culture made the movie easier for me to digest. Part of me thinks that this isn't important though as the movie stands on its own merits.Happiness comes at a cost, I think both movies illustrate that but the US version doesn't really show a reason why you'd invest, the Argentinian version does.That's my thoughts upon it and the reason why this thread exists. You should not threaten babies.
shareI think highlighting the good stuff from the original explains what I didn't like about the remake - sorry if that's off-kilter for you.[ Well...not so much "off-kilter". Just it doesn't really explain what makes this movie "bad" or, what more, "shoddy".
I'd say it is bad 'in comparison' to the original iroquoisjoe.Had it been a standalone movie with a different title and the helicopter shot over the stadium was removed I could probably like it in a fairly objective light.Sadly though it is not, it is asking for to be compared to the original and - within that context - won't be winning any Oscars or getting much acclaim because it is not that great a movie.It's not a terrible movie by any means, Julia Robert did an amazing job with her role. Chiwetel Ejiofor, whilst an awesome actor, didn't quite get enough screen time to flesh out his part to my mind. That's probably down to me getting a bugbear when he refers to the receptionist as Angie at the beginning. Dean Norris was absolutely fine in the role, I'd liked to have seen more of him though. Nicole Kidman started off very dry but was very palatable by the end.I'm a little sick of Muslims getting the brunt of the terrorist stick, but think that - in time - this will be looked at as a similar campaign to The Dirty War.Would I recommend the movie? Sure! It was a decent flick.Would I recommend the original over it? Absolutely.I hope that clears up that the movie wasn't bad, but it being a remake was. You should not threaten babies.
shareYeah! That's what I thought was the actual evaluation of this movie...when separated from being contrasted against the original. Thanks!
Would I recommend the movie? Sure! It was a decent flick.
Would I recommend the original over it? Absolutely.
I hope that clears up that the movie wasn't bad, but it being a remake was.
It's not a terrible movie by any means, Julia Robert did an amazing job with her role. Chiwetel Ejiofor, whilst an awesome actor, didn't quite get enough screen time to flesh out his part to my mind. That's probably down to me getting a bugbear when he refers to the receptionist as Angie at the beginning. Dean Norris was absolutely fine in the role, I'd liked to have seen more of him though. Nicole Kidman started off very dry but was very palatable by the end.YEAH! SPOT ON!
Happiness comes at a cost, I think both movies illustrate that but the US version doesn't really show a reason why you'd invest, the Argentinian version does.I really do wish the this version could have had the same emphasis on the passion/dedication love story angle of Claire/Ray and Jess/her daughter...in the same way the original did. But, I guess that was impossible with a "Hollywood" production. It had to be heavy on the "thriller" aspect...and, of course, the love was effectively sidelined.
It was made especially for american audiences. Nothing wrong with this remake it follows the original to a degree. Other than JR's gator mouth that distracts me from all her films, I thought it was quite good.
share