How would you change certain movies?

Bogart would have been better cast as Sabrina's father, the limo driver. That could have been a plumb role for Bogart. James Darin would have been a good match for Audrey in Sabrina. Too bad he wasn't on the A list.

In the movie I seen last night, Dead Man (1995) with Johnny Depp, I would have changed the music score....a very loud electric guitar with the same notes played over and over and over. It really grated on my nerves, ruining a otherwise interesting film.

And on the same vain, I would have ditched the modern sound track used in Moulin Rouge (2001) blew!

I don't think there's ever been a movie that I've watched that I didn't have ideas on how to make it better. I always give my commentary on the film, to my wife. Then I say, 'oh well, that film was made decades ago....too late now.".....Like the director would have listened to me anyway

Another movie that needed different music was the recent remake of The Great Gatsby with Leonardo DiCaprio. The modern music ruined the whole movie for me.

I haven't seen the remake yet....but yup, the modern music score for a time period piece film, would bug me

Oh...I wish I could have told John Huston, he was making a mistake with Marilyn Monroe's hairdo in The Misfits. A great film!....But it would have been better if Marilyn's charter had been de-glamorfied some, so as to fit her characters role better.

I love Humphrey Bogart, but he seemed so uncomfortable in Sabrina. Since we're on Bogart, I would have replaced Katherine Hepburn in "The African Queen" - I know everyone loves her, but she seems so fake to me. I don't think it's that great of a movie, and Huston is one of my favorite directors as well. Ingrid Bergman is beautiful, and with the accent would sound more like a missionary, but I think it wouldn't escape the affair with Casablanca.

__________________
https://www.youtube.com/c/LoyalOpposition

I suppose I understand all these revisions, but at the same time, I don't understand (agree with) them.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

I'm a big fan of John Huston too. But I would have replaced him as the script writer.

The original script writer, James Agee, had a heart attack during the script development, forcing Huston to mainly write the script. The script for The African Queen needed more meat to it, it's not bad but it lacks some subtle nuances that allow the viewer to fill in the details between the two main characters.

The movie does work because of Bogart and Katherine Hepburn's acting skills.

I like Ingrid Bergman, I suppose she might have worked well in the film.

Yeah, for Huston the writing isn't up to his standard, and it could have been. It's more of Hepburn pouting about going down the river, and this argument continues for most of the film (well..)

Like you said, it sounds like Huston was rushed, which was too bad. It was too much sit and watch. You know they're not going to drown early on in the film, and so I think the script could have been a lot better. They are the only characters, so the script should have been almost everything.

"Look at me! I'm some jackass with a computer and I know better than directors who made classic films!"

Sheesh.

__________________

Ahhh, but I asssure you I would make a great director Now go get me a danish and a cup of joe.

It's way easier to criticize something than to create it.
It's also nearly impossible to make a film turn out exactly as how you pictured it in your head.

Stanley kubrick spent FIFTEEN months filming eyes wide shut.
The matrix took four.

For 99.9% of people making a film is about working within the boundaries of a time table and a budget. It's not arrogant to think that a film isn't perfect. No director thinks their own film is perfect!! They just hope that no one else see's all the flaws that they know are there.

But they've done the absolutely best they could working under whatever constraints they had up to and including their own taste, vision, and ideals of perfection. Why are you under the assumption that you know what's better than their vision even if their vision was hindered? They still did the best they could do under whatever circumstances they worked under.

I still think this entire thread is terribly presumptuous.

Well so far I've only posted two improvements, IDK if I would call it an assumption so much as a theory.

I do think jeremy renner would have been better for john's son in the latest die hard. We're all allowed to have opinions, personally I did not enjoy Jai Courney in the role.

Hell maybe jeremy was offered the part and then he turned it down? IDK. Often times directors don't get their first choice of actors.

Sean Connery was originally offered the role of morpheus !

I don't think anyone is saying they would make a better director than some of the greats. But the reason we're here on this board, is that we care about the art of cinema. So it follows we're going to have our own individual takes on what might have been done better in a film.

I think it's interesting to hear what other cinephile's views are on this subject.

I would completely remake the fourth act of 2001. I actually probably will make a little fan edit pretty soon.

The grand finale to an epic space saga spanning millions of years, should not feature an old man walking over to a desk to eat some food as slow as he possibly can.

__________________

is that what really happened in the movie? if so, we have spoiler tags for a reason, and you just spoiled a movie i was looking forward to. hence "wtf"

__________________
~ I am tired of ze same old faces! Ze same old things!

You do understand there is a complete contradiction in that first paragraph, right?

It's not a contradiction to say you'd do some things differently but recognize you wouldn't make a better director overall.

I think you'd be really hard pressed to find a director that actually thinks this about their own work--that they did their "absolutely best" and wouldn't do a thing differently.

But let's assume they do. You say they did their best "under whatever constraints they had." But by definition, we're not under those constraints; we're under all different ones. Most importantly, we have the benefit of time and hindsight. The acknowledgement that directors work under constraints is simultaneously an acknowledgement that people not under those constraints have access to perspectives not available to them.

Besides, how is this different from any movie review? The entire field of movie criticism is predicated on the ability (and validity) of judging things we ourselves could never make. Criticizing any movie implicitly suggests it should have been otherwise. Is the entire field presumptuous?

Though I didn't read the play, I know they made her leave Stanley to satisfy the production code, etc...

You don't think James Darren was a little young for Audrey Hepburn? Wasn't he chasing Sandra Dee a few years later in Gidget?