My Top 100 of the 1990s

But assumption 3 is purely opinion.
And simply because assumption 4 is true, does not mean that conclusion 1 is true.
Besides all of this, you seem to be ignoring the fact that a shot by shot remake is unoriginal and cheesy.
Imagine:
My camcorder gets pretty good DPI, probably better than cameras of the early 50's. So if I go and make a shot by shot remake of Sabrina with a couple of friends of mine, does that automatically qualify my version as being better?

__________________
"We are all worms, but I do believe I am a glow-worm."
--Winston Churchill

Kong agrees with Holden. Kong saw the remake once and thought it was okay, but nothing compared to the original. Although Lemmon and Scott are good actors, Kong definitely prefers the performances of Fonda and particularly Cobb from the original. There is a unique atmosphere, mood, and spirit to the original that the new version tries to copy, but it feels just like that, a copy, and like all copies it is inferior to its original.

Making the jurors older was a big mistake too.

__________________
Kong's Reviews:
Stuck On You
Bad Santa

Hypocrictical? Guh? What are you smokin'?

I pointed out it was made-for-TV to distinguish it from theatrical releases only, which is what my list is made up of. But thanks, for clearing that up. I don't have any natural disdain for television projects, and for example consider "Lonesome Dove" to be one of the best Westerns ever made, bar none.


Better actors is completely subjective, but personally I'll take Jack Warden over Tony Danza any day of the week - I don't care who he thinks he's the boss of.



The cinematography too isn't any "better", just different. But by your so-called mathematical logic above Penguin, The Waterboy has better photography than Citizen Kane or Lawrence of Arabia. Good luck selling that to anyone, including the fella who was D.P. on The Waterboy. I happen to prefer the stark style of the original 12 Angry Men, no matter how the technology has advanced, and Sidney Lumet and cinematographer Boris Kaufman (who previously shot On the Waterfront and would later lens Lumet's excellent The Pawnbroker) do some nice subtle things as well.


I'm glad you like the re-make, enjoy it I guess. I don't care for it, and found the whole project unnecessary - largely because it used so much of the same dialogue (though certainly not exact) and added nothing new of its own. What little it does attempt to add - most prominently an interracial cast, is painfully underused. If you're going to modernize it, then modernize it. Do more with the diverse racial make-up of the twelve. And how are we supposed to believe a modern jury would have no women on it anyway? It's yet another issue that wasn't addressed, but could have been. Instead, for me it played like a tired re-tread of a near-perfect original, in which case why bother?

__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

I see Exotica but no The Sweet Hereafter. I've always felt they were two relatively equal films. Explain?

__________________
You're not hopeless...

Additionally, have either of you seen Raise the Red Lantern?

Yeah, sure. I like Raise the Red Lantern (1991) a lot, though I prefer Zhang's Shanghai Triad (1995) even more.