Monthly Archives: January 2013

This week I have turned my attention to the musical “The Producers”. For anyone who does not know this is a musical about a bankrupt producer, Max Bialystock, who works with an accountant, Leo Bloom, to create a flop of a musical in order to put some money back into his pocket. As with “101 Dalmatians”, the main difference between the two versions of “The Producers” is the year in which they were released, the actors, and the directors. The original version was directed and written by Mel Brooks and released in 1968. Contrarily the second movie was released in 2005 and directed by Susan Stroman. Both movies follow the same plot line to a T. There are few differences in what actually goes on.

Quite frankly, I think that both of them are hilarious. Casting Gene Wilder as Leo Bloom was a brand new perspective for me. I always view Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka, he can’t be anyone else, it just isn’t right! But he portrayed the role of Bloom so well and acted extremely timid, proving his acting capabilities. In the newer version, Matthew Broderick is left to fill his shoes. Again, Broderick in my mind is Ferris Bueller, but he also did a great job with the role. Random fun fact, Broderick worked with Nathan Lane (Max in the 2005 production) in “The Lion King”, as Broderick was older Simba and Lane was Timon. Overall, each and every one of the actors did a fantastic job in both movies. My only problem was with Will Ferrell in the 2005 production, as Franz Liebkind. For some reason I can’t take Will Ferrell seriously. Like with Wilder and Broderick, I see him as Buddy the Elf, Brennan from Step Brothers, or Steve Butabi from Night at the Roxbury. I feel like there are many other actors that they could have gotten to fill the role, but I also understand the producers casting of him because he adds a zany effect to the character of Franz Liebkind.

In all, both of the movies are great. In my opinion there really is no winner. Mel Brooks created a great script that was able to be turned into a musical itself. I definitely recommend both to anyone! Here is a clip from both the original and the remake! J And an added bonus both are available on Netflix!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCUfkMkVbwo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K08akOt2kuo

For the remake comparison this week I decided to take it back a couple of years so that we can all relive our childhood. I don’t know about you all, but growing up 101 Dalmatians was a staple in my life. The first one to come out was the animated version in 1961, and then you’ve got the real-life version from 1996. Now when it comes to the plot line, they are extremely similar.  Everyone has the same names, location, they’re even all British. In that aspect, I will have to say they are pretty much tied. Both portray the story of the lost puppies in a really good way.

Now on the other hand, when it comes to animation versus live action, the original from 1961 definitely wins. Growing up I was always afraid of the live action version. Something about Cruella De Vil’s character, portrayed by Glenn Close ruined the movie for me. I don’t know if she did as much damage on anyone else as she did me. I mean she did a great job portraying the role, but when it came to being child-friendly it is anything but that in my opinion. I mean, check out this photo of her below:

Now you can’t tell me that a small child would not be terrified by that. I’m one of those people that if a movie made me cry or scared when I was younger then I don’t watch it for a very long time (ie Fox and the Hound, Finding Nemo, and 101 Dalmatians). Upon going back and watching this movie when I was about 16, I realized she wasn’t so scary and the scene was actually made better by the animals that were tormenting her in the barn. But, as a child, seeing this already evil lady, who steals puppies for coats, look like this and have such a vicious look and demeanor, I was scared, so much so that it was close to a decade before I bothered to watch it again.

My final say on these movies is that they are generally both pretty good. But, when it comes to being child friendly, the animated version is definitely the way to go. (But the real version does have puppies in it…:S) The story line is good in both, but sometimes the actors make all of the difference. I’ve included the IMDB links just in case someone hasn’t seen either of these movies and you can get more info (you’re crazy if you haven’t and I recommend you go do so now!) and also a link to YouTube that highlights some of Glenn Close’s scenes as Cruella.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJY5lEV9MQk  (stop at 7:57 to see the scary scene!)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055254/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115433/

This week I’ve decided to focus on the movie “Death at a Funeral”. The difference between these movies is not so much the time of when they were filmed, but more of a difference of where they were filmed. The original version was filmed by British actors in 2007, whereas the second version was filmed in the United States in 2010. Personally I love both of these movies, although I saw the US version first so I’m more prone to recommend this one. Between the two movies there were very few discrepancies. The major difference was that the British version is an all-white cast, whereas the US version is an all-black cast.

For anyone who does not know what the movie is about, it starts at the funeral of the head of a family. It’s your typical dysfunctional family. The older brother is overshadowed by his younger brother, who never pays for anything. Their father has just died and the movie tells the story of his funeral, in which a man shows up making some astonishing accusations (with photo proof), casket opens up with another man in it, and someone is “killed”. My favorite part about the US version is the inclusion of Chris Rock as the main character and Danny Glover as Uncle Russell. I’m huge fans of both of theirs, whereas I had no idea who the British actors were.

My final decision is that they are tied. There is no difference except for dialects. Even, Frank (the man with the bad news) is played by the same guy in both movies! (It’s Peter Dinklage, the guy from Elf who hits Buddy) The critics seem to disagree with me and say that the first one is better. I guess it’s really just a preference. Also directors may have an influence on that. The British version was directed by Frank Oz, who is well respected, whereas the US version was directed by Neil LaBute, who is pretty much an unknown. Anyways, see for yourself and check out the movies. If you are into movies that give you a kick over and over these are definitely something that you want to watch! It may not be appropriate at times, but that is definitely overshadowed by the hilarity that ensues throughout the plot! Now GO WATCH THEM! :3

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0795368/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1321509/

This semester I decided to stop making all of the random crafts. As much fun as it was, it was not exactly in the price range that I was comfortable with. And with that I’ve decided to turn my passion blog into something that I’m really interested in. I LOVE movies of all types: rom-com, comedy, action, thriller, anything! I thought over break of a way of incorporating this into a passion blog and finally realized that I can very easily compare original movies/TV shows to their remakes. Nowadays you go to the theatre and it is very hard to find an original movie. (PS I will have spoilers, sorry :D)

For the first week I’ve decided to compare one of Alfred Hitchcock’s best works “Psycho” to Gus Van Sant’s remake of the same title. This original is obviously my favorite. Growing up I was always afraid to watch it because of the title. I mean, really who wants to watch a movie about a “psycho” when they’re young? Not this kid. I accidentally ended up watching it with my mom and my mind was blown at the end. It was not what I was expecting. I really thought that Norman Bates’ mother was the killer of Detective Arbogast and Marian Crane. It’s the perfect movie. Although it’s considered a scary movie, it’s really not. It plays with your head more than anything. Norman Bates seems like an innocent hotel owner who must take care of her mother. But when you find out that she died years ago, you have no idea what to think. And in the end when it’s revealed that Norman had taken over his mother and her thoughts, it just paints this crazy picture in your head. Enough about the plot.

After watching the original from 1960, I eventually went on to watch the remake from 1999. I was not as satisfied. Quite frankly, I didn’t see Vince Vaughn as some “mommy’s boy” who kills people. I saw “Dodgeball” before this, so that image of him was stuck in my head. Also it is near impossible to match the performance of Anthony Perkins. Probably the fact that I first saw him in the role was what did Vince Vaughn in. Quite frankly, Vince Vaughn is not a scary movie actor, in my opinion. Another thing that I didn’t agree with was some of the things that were added to the movie. The 1960 version received a simple rating of TV 14, which basically translates to like PG 13. And then the 1999 movie received a R. The reason for this was for the inclusion of something’s that simply could have been left out.

I apologize for being harsh on Van Sant’s version, but no one can beat Alfred Hitchcock in my eyes. Basically the actor choice for the more modern one was poor, and the screenplay differed from the original in ways that could have been avoided. So I advise anyone if they have not seen the movie to watch the Hitchcock version first. And if you’re not satisfied I suppose you can move on to the 1999 version. Either way it is an extremely interesting plot line and a movie that everyone should see during their lifetime!

Final Decision: Alfred Hitchcock wins, but the other isn’t horrible. Everyone must see it!