ScourgiousJinx
Master Member
This was one of the very few times I liked a remake better. Not that the original is horribly awful, just not my thing. I doubt I'll ever watch either again.
Wrong. The original IS a classic. This remake is one of the worst movies I’ve seen. McGregor is unironically awful.I had no issue with this remake. I only vaguely recall watching the original when it came out. It's not a movie that would ever go down in history as a classic.
Is that what we're doing on this site? Calling someone wrong over the definition of what constitutes a classic movie?Wrong. The original IS a classic. This remake is one of the worst movies I’ve seen. McGregor is unironically awful.
What we do here, in threads like this, is express our opinions. By definition, if we have different opinions on something, each of us thinks the other is “wrong” on that point. One shouldn’t consider that an insult.Is that what we're doing on this site? Calling someone wrong over the definition of what constitutes a classic movie?
I guess you're right... From a certain point of view. It's indeed a classic as defined as being a very old movie at 35 years old.
I can see it now.. 100 years from now, when discussing the great classics of the 20th and 21st centuries...
Today, we're going to discuss the cinematic classics of the past: Lawrence of Arabia, Casablanca, Apocalypse Now. 2001 A Space Odyssey, M.A.S.H., Star Wars, and oh yes, and Road House 1989....
I mean, people are always saying "Why don't they remake old movies that weren't that great?!?!" Well...here ya go.When I was a kid I thought Revenge of the Ninja, Beast Master, Ice Pirates were oscar winning movies. Then I grew up and rewatched them in high school and realized.....that's not a giant black panther it's a tiger they spray painted black and these are B movies.
Taking an old 80's B movie and remaking it today is such a coked out idea you gotta respect it.
Remember when they did this with TV show's in the early 2000's. They made Charlies Angles, Starsky and Hutch, Dukes of Hazzard, 21 Jump Street all as goofy cheeseball movies.I mean, people are always saying "Why don't they remake old movies that weren't that great?!?!" Well...here ya go.
The old one isn't that great. It's absurd and funny, but it wasn't intended to be. It was filmed and marketed as a straight up action flick back when Swayze was doing action flicks (Red Dawn, Roadhouse, and Next of Kin, to be specific). It's just that Roadhouse became a "classic" because of the cheese factor and some of the ridiculous lines like "Pain don't hurt."
But let's not pretend that this is great cinema for the ages. It's a fun, goofy action movie from the 80s and...that's it.
So many bad movies... But they all had the common trend of not taking themselves serious. I think that went too far in some cases.Remember when they did this with TV show's in the early 2000's. They made Charlies Angles, Starsky and Hutch, Dukes of Hazzard, 21 Jump Street all as goofy cheeseball movies.
Definitely did not take itself seriously which was nice. I just feel that someone who was better with witty one-liners would have made the movie better. There were some instances where Wade was saying a one-liner which wouldnt make sense at that point (one liners are usually when the person is winning or still feels confident in the fight imo).I thought this remake was fine. The first good decision they made was to NOT try to take themselves too seriously. This movie knows exactly what it is and never tries to fool the audience. I liked how they threw in some subtle references to the original, but without really jumping up and down and waving at them (such as the western story of "Wade" protecting the Double X saloon).
To be fair, it is the UFC and I think Wade was a smaller fighter, not a champion so his name wouldnt be that well known. I also dont think the average joe knows who Khabib Nurmagomedov, Jon Jones, or Demetrious Johnson are even though they are literal GOATs of the sport. McGregor and Rousey got alot of press attention which makes them an exception. Wade should have gotten some attention for killing a man in the ring though and the UFC shut down.The only thing I didn't really care for was making Dalton a famous (infamous?) fighter that everyone recognized. It took away some of the fun of having everyone underestimate him.
I think those talks were during the huge Rousey hype were Joe Rogan legitimately pushed the opinion that Rousey could take Mayweather so Rousey facing up against a male opponent saying "I thought you were a man" would fit.There was talk of doing a remake with Ronda Rousey, which I think actually could have worked similar to "I thought you'd be bigger" by going with "I thought you'd be a man." Curious what that version would have been...
Except within the film, Dalton WAS well known, especially because he killed a man in the ring. Many of the main players recognized him and knew who he was.To be fair, it is the UFC and I think Wade was a smaller fighter, not a champion so his name wouldnt be that well known.
Except it's not a shot-for-shot remake...It’s sad. Another “shot-for-shot” remake.
Except you’re wrong. It is.Except it's not a shot-for-shot remake...
Other than a few homage shots intended to call back to the original, the film is most certainly NOT a shot-for-shot remake. Based on the same original story / premise, yes, but calling it shot-for-shot is like calling the new Dune shot-for-shot the David Lynch film.Except you’re wrong. It is.