Comparison to Coen Brothers version - The Ladykillers (1956) Discussion

[–] UncleJack 17 years ago

I had heard Tom Hanks had deliberately NOT seen the 1955 film so as not to be influenced how he played the character.

Alec Guinness on the other hand appears to be strongly influenced by Alastair Sim in his portrayal of Professor Marcus. I wonder if Guinness studied Sim's use of facial expression for this film - his whole character seems to revolve around his face displaying the interplay between knowing brilliance and madness.

I like the Ealing film, but why would anyone choose to remake it? There's nothing really that can be added; it's not such a good story that it ought to be brought up to date or remade for a new generation, nor is it so well known that much money can be made from a 'sequel.' It's not surprsing then that even with the magnificent Coen Brothers producing and directing it, the new film is nothing special.

reply

[–] mam13143 17 years ago

I love the original and saw the new one. Insofar as Hanks saying he never saw the original, well, he seems to have many of the manic mannerisms that Guinness had in his portrayal. Coincidence?? I find it a bit of a stretch.

reply

[–] phasmatrope 17 years ago

Hmm, I rather hope a veteran actor like Tom Hanks would've seen--or at least been had the chance and/or been TEMPTED to see--the original before doing the film, as it's been acclaimed as a classic. I'd heard as much before I'd seen it (but then, I'd only seen it after the remake had come out, and when Film 4 or whatever it was had added it to their "Films To See Before You Die" list). I'll have to watch the original again now that I've seen this. I mean, I liked the original, I never really laughed out loud, but it did have a lot of great parts--an amazing cast, a couple of great scenes, and the parrots were funny--and didn't think the remake was too bad, but I agree, it's a lot more slapstick and certainly not the Coens at their best. But regardless of his own influences or preparation, I thought Hanks did a decent job, his language was funny (including the whole "we must have waffles forthwith" bit).

reply

[–] Enrique-8 14 years ago

YOU KNOW what is REALLY annoying about today's so-called ACTORS, they have NO idea what acting is all about JUST BECAUSE they have not taken the time to SEE this great old wonderful classics! FOR TOM HANKS a two time Oscar winner to proclaim that he did not SEE THIS, should be a dark shame upon his character as an actor of ANY level! Same thing happened with the ridiculous remake of THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE! None of the actors had seen the original! How ridiculous can they be?

nuff said, hehehe

Enrique Sanchez

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] EmpireKing 7 years ago

I had heard Tom Hanks had deliberately NOT seen the 1955 film so as to not be influenced how he played the character

IF Hanks actually said that, he's full of crap. He's clearly copying Guinness' mannerisms in the remake, who himself was doing an Alistair Sim impression in the first place.

reply

[–] MinotaurR 16 years ago

I dont like any remakes.

They should be allowed when the original version was total flop.

reply

[–] DirectedByBrian 16 years ago

I just saw the old one, largely because the new one was such a miserably un-funny uninteresting and strangely uncharacteristic production from the Coen Brothers. I can see WHY they thought it would be fun to remake it - the old one is charming, but does suffer from antiquated acting, camera work, editing, and sound quality - but they utterly failed in their task.

Aside from Tom Hanks' juicy performance, the new one offered nothing but failed laughs, humor so black it was not longer humorous, a running gag about bowel movements that was just disgusting, and more F-words than I've heard in one movie in a long time.

I'll take the old one, mistakes and all.

reply

[–] kadajawi 16 years ago

Hm, I rather thought the humor in the old version was not black enough. Not that funny.

reply

[–] willson_x 15 years ago

haha, you're either being funny, or you're just another dumb american. I'm sorry, I know the Ladykiller's intelligent script isn't filled with explosions or supersized burgers, but you're going to have to accept that it IS funny no matter how many twinkies you eat you fat, stupid nation

reply

[–] gringott 13 years ago

You are quite the little hater, aren't you? Creepy, too.

reply

[–] jtmichaelson 13 years ago

Fat stupid nation? Over a movie opinion? Are you serious? Are you really that anti-American that a movie opinion causes you true hatred.

I will not result in name-calling, as you have, nor will I wish you ill-will, but I will appreciate that I do not know you and hope to all that is wholy that we never meet. Your online attitude is enough to know that you are easily a hated person, possibly more than most people who have the decency to not resort to such filth as you have.

And this, over a stupid movie comment. I can't imagine worse.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gribfritz2 13 years ago

*COUGH* jealous *COUGH*

reply

[–] A-Clockwork-Bobbin 15 years ago

I don't like remakes, either. I'm glad someone agrees with me on this!!

I don't think remakes should be made at all, except if the original was lost (e.g. The Golem).

I really, really, really... *keeps going until she makes her point*... really hate the remake of the Ladykillers. They killed the original!!

---
Viddy well, little brother. Viddy well...

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mjf_uk 15 years ago

If so many people don't like remakes of movies and are bold enough to state that it's something that shouldn't be allowed, why do you still watch them? No one is forcing you to watch a remake of a movie, so why do you contradict yourself by watching?

reply

[–] kadajawi 16 years ago

I first saw the remake and then a few hours later the original, and I really like the remake more. The Coens know how to choose a soundtrack, and I prefered the heist in the Coen version over that of the original. Also the timing... I think there is just too much focus on the killing of the old lady, and it started to repeat itself somehow (everyone tries to run away with the money). Then the humor... I definately laughed more in the remake. Performancewise it is hard to tell, both movies have their moments. The Coen version is less realistic, but I don't mind in such a movie.

Might be a problem that I knew how the original would be going to turn out, or that it was late, but I still think the remake is just the better movie.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kadajawi 16 years ago

Wait, just because something is considered a classic it doesn't mean no one is allowed to criticise it anymore. Personally I prefered the Coens humor, and it's not like the Coen brothers are Uwe Boll. They are highly regarded as well (The Big Lebowski is overrated though), and they do know what they are doing.

reply

[–] lance-85 16 years ago

Because your taste and opinions are obviously the only correct ones. I happened to like the remake very much. Is it better than the original? I can't really say that, but for me it stands up well enough and is worth a look.

reply

[–] TastyBurger 16 years ago

Somebody has a stick lodged in their butt.

And you will know my name is the Lord...

reply

[–] erkwon 15 years ago

You need to relax a little. Someone just gave an opinion.

reply

[–] Tchoutoye 15 years ago

I also saw the remake first and I agree that this is an extremely rare case in which a remake is actually better than the original. In the Coens' version the other criminals besides the professor have much more depth, and their continuous fighting among each other was more humorous than the silly parrot chasing slapstick of the original. The Coens even manage to bring a good performance out of Tom Hanks, whom I usually find quite annoying.

The best thing about the original is of course Alec Guinness, whose role as the professor surely must have been inspired Steve Pemberton in some of his characters in the League Of Gentlemen TV series, in particular Harvey Denton and Herr Lipp. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0184135/

reply

[–] lubin-freddy 16 years ago

In the original version the old lady was made, by the crooks, to be PART of their operation. The Coens only have them using her basement, discarding the very root of the humor. I've "defended" earlier Coen films ("Hudsucker Proxy", "The Man Who Wasn't There") that most reviewers saw as minor, at best. But I find no reason to do so with their "Ladykillers".

reply

[–] CaptMal 16 years ago

Though I'm sure this won't win me any friends, I honestly prefer the Coens' version, and think it's quite underrated.

I am a leaf on the wind, watch how I soar.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Bye_Bye 16 years ago

Well, if IMDb ratings actually matter, it's interesting to note that 9 out of 10 of the top 10 best rated movies are American. And the one that isn't is Italian.

To be honest, I didn't really care for this movie. It was pretty dull and repetitive. The remake could have done without fart jokes and Wayans and Hurst's characters, but I thought Tom Hanks alone made it great.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Stefkin 15 years ago

There is a flaw in your logic, despite what one may think of the validity of IMDb user ratings.

Classic films are more or less mostly seen by people who enjoy them. This alone gets them approved more often. The Coen's "Ladykillers" was seen by a much larger crowd, making it more of a mainstream film. Especially considering the contemporary cast (Hanks, Wayans).

I have not seen the original; I caught the remake tonight and quite liked it. But I force myself not to watch the remake right afterwards, to avoid any involuntary comparison between the two.

reply

[–] domestichen 15 years ago

I'm surprised at how many people enjoyed the remake over the original. I am a huge Coen Brothers fan, but this remake missed the mark. It shifted the focus from the inter-play between the old women and the crooks to the interplay between the crooks and the crooks. We've seen that so many times before... the outrageous villians tripping all over each other. What made The Ladykillers so great was how this sweet little old lady won out all these bad men just by her virtue alone. That theme was entirely absent in the Coen's film. It was sort of suggested, but Katie Johnson had far more screen time and was more integral to the plot than the old woman in the Coen version.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] laaksonen-rj 15 years ago

The Coens establish the spirit of their version with introductory scenes of the crooks as hopeless bunglers, instead of the great first scenes of the Mackendrick film that show the men as sinister and/or eccentric. Perhaps the Coen brothers simply wanted to do the story as a farce. I hope they will some day do a second remake of The Ladykillers, this time as a serious drama. That would be much more enjoyable.

reply

[–] missfunnybone 14 years ago

Hey KizzyDog, ITA with your comments.
As well as that, I never enjoyed the remake. I swear as much as anyone but the constant effing and blinding made the remake irritating and embarrassing to watch. The remake lost it for me.......it didn't have Katie Johnson's BAFTA winning performance, Alec Guinness's teeth which should have had their own credits, Herbert Lom's brooding nastiness.the hilarious Cecil Parker...in other words it lacked everything that made the original such a great movie. Shame on Tom Hanks and the Coens. I looked forward to seeing the remake and boy, was I disappointed. It was loud, boorish and crass.Ohhh and unfunny.

reply

[–] zill_o_the_wisp 13 years ago

So your respect of that homogenized Imdb data indicates you believe mob-rule opinion is more valid than the discriminating opinion of film experts.

Yes, the Coen's 'Ladykillers' isn't a match for the Mackendrick / Rose classic. It's nonetheless a much better-than-average comedy.

Yes, the new 'The Wicker Man' is even worse than the old. Big surprise. So what? All movies, just like all things in culture, keep getting worse, less original, trashier. What else is new...

This is by way of saying Kiss My Fat American Ass, Limey:

The Grissom Gang - masterly American version of the British travesty called 'No Orchids for Miss Blandish'.

That alone makes up for all the terrible American versions of class British movies (add 'The Haunting' to that group).

The greatest family situation comedy of all time: All In The Family, was based on British sitcom 'Till Death Do Us Part'.
That makes up for trash like the U.S. version of 'The Prisoner' and lesser stuff like the American 'The Office' and so on.

It all balances out, I believe. There are no shortages of bad U.K. interpretations of American shows and film classics.
We may have an American director to blame for 'A Clockwork Orange' being ruined. But Kubrick was already an Ex-Pat at the point where he decided to make his first most negligible film, based on the Anthony Burgess modern classic, first adapted (surprisingly capably) by Andy Warhol, as Vinyl in 1965 New York City. It starred Gerard Malanga, Edie Sedgwick, Ondine, and if it were to play on a double-bill with Kubrick's mess, fans of 'A Clockwork Orange' would nearly all turn away from the Kubrick in shock and shame.

"To be or not to be." That's not really a question.- Jean-Luc Godard

reply

[–] Rinec 13 years ago

Claiming the extremely mediocre Grissom Gang is atonement for every awful US remake and that Carroll O'Connor's performance in All in the Family could possibly hold a candle to Warren Mitchell's in Till Death Do Us Part is as idiotic as calling the Original Wicker man bad and A Clockwork Orange a ruined mess. If Vinyl was ever put on a double-bill with ACO, it'd have to be on first, otherwise the vast majority of viewers would switch the farcical, unwatchable, mess of a 'movie' off after about 5 minutes. And even if it was on first, most people would switch over and watch something else until the vastly superior Kubrick version was due to start.

It really makes me cringe when classic British comedies are replicated by you Yanks in a way that takes the original and turns it into a lobotomised, unfunny insult for American domestic consumption.

reply

[–] zill_o_the_wisp 13 years ago

You call the Aldrich masterpiece 'The Grissom Gang' "extremely mediocre" and say that: "Carroll O'Connor's performance in All in the Family [couldn't] possibly hold a candle to Warren Mitchell's in Till Death Do Us Part"... and then call me "idiotic" for stating my opinion that the 1970s movie versions of 'A Clockwork Orange' and 'The Wicker Man' are bad.

....Then you essentially say 'Kubrick rules, Warhol drools': 'Vinyl', you say, is "farcical, unwatchable, mess of a 'movie'" (although I suspect you have never seen it.)

You, Sir, are a rank bigot and a fool. Not for your opinions of the movies, but for your calling names and presuming things about American comedy (and people) that is heavily exaggerated (to say the least: "a lobotomised, unfunny insult for American domestic consumption.")
I'll take no more insults from a ridiculous crybaby like yourself.

It happens that I was half-joking in my previous post. No joking this time.

Be gone with you, bigot.

reply

[–] Rinec 13 years ago

So tell me then? Who else considers 'The Grissom Gang' to be the masterpiece you, self-righteously, claim it to be?! And calling the 70s version of 'The Wicker Man' bad, let alone Kubrick's masterpiece (widely accepted to be one of the greatest films ever made), certainly makes you a fool.

Vinyl is a farcical, unwatchable, mess of a movie. Oh yes, I've sat through it. Only a fool would value any of Warhol's farcical forays into film to be superior to a single Kubrick movie.

You, Sir, are the rank bigot and fool here, attributes decreed by your arrogance, self-righteousness and all too familiar American inability to accept criticism, not to mention your unamusing rhetoric. It's a shame you appear to be so hypersensitive to any form of criticism; it really makes you appear to be the crybaby. I really must have missed the understated wit in your previous post. There again, wasn't it just smugness!? No joking this time, eh? For once I'm in agreement with you - you're not a very funny or enlightened individual.

reply

[–] Antoine_Bugleboy 13 years ago

...>Rinec: "arrogance, self-righteousness and all too familiar American inability to accept criticism"<

Seeing as how I'm not the one with the problem accepting criticism, and you are hysterically determined to stick to this American=Fool bigot line of dunderpated sanctimony, I can only read your post as projection.

>>"It's a shame you appear to be so hypersensitive to any form of criticism"<<

Hey, I expressed an unpopular opinion, which you proceeded to jump on me for, and trash my taste and intelligence for, which you continue to do, and it only serves make you look more desperate, insecure, and ridiculously hypocritical.

>>..."you're not a very funny or enlightened individual."<<

In addition to being a borderline psychotic, in your inability to determine the difference between holding a subjective opinion and being a "fool," you now appear to propose that you know enough to say: I'm neither funny nor enlightened.
Hysterical.

>>"You, Sir, are the rank bigot and fool here..."<<

I'm rubber you're glue strategy? How evolved of you! I must listen up and learn.

>>"wasn't it just smugness!?"<<

Sarcasm. I forgive you that one, not understanding.

...
P.S. - I don't need no stinkin' badges of received opinion to enable me to say that 'The Grissom Gang' is a masterpiece. I have my own eyes and mind for that.
Which you may well think is mad and unwarranted.
So be it.
Ta, chump.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB320q4WHPs

reply

[–] Rinec 13 years ago

A Clockwork Orange (a bad film in your opinion)
-----------------------------------------------

Academy Awards

*nominated Best Director - Stanley Kubrick
*nominated Best Film Editing - Bill Butler
*nominated Best Picture
*nominated Best Adapted Screenplay - Stanley Kubrick

BAFTA Awards

*BAFTA Film Award Best Art Direction - John Barry
*Best Cinematography - John Alcott
*Best Direction - Stanley Kubrick
*Best Film
*Best Film Editing - William Butler
*Best Screenplay - Stanley Kubrick
*Best Sound Track - Brian Blamey, John Jordan, Bill Rowe

Directors Guild of America

*1972 Nominated DGA Award Outstanding Directorial Achievement in Motion Pictures - Stanley Kubrick

Golden Globes

*nominated 1972 Nominated Golden Globe Best Director: Motion Picture - Stanley Kubrick
*nominated Best Motion Picture - Drama
*nominated Best Motion Picture Actor: Drama - Malcolm McDowell

Hugo Awards

*1972 Won Hugo Best Dramatic Presentation

New York Film Critics Circle Awards

*1971 Won NYFCC Award Best Director - Stanley Kubrick
*Best Film

Writers Guild of America, United States

*1972 Nominated WGA Award (Screen) Best Drama Adapted from Another Medium - Stanley Kubrick

American Film Institute recognition

*AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies (1998) - #46
*AFI's 100 Years... 100 Thrills (2001) - #21
*AFI's 100 Years... 100 Heroes and Villains (2003): #12 Villain (Alex)
*AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies (10th Anniversary Edition) (2007) - #70
*AFI's 10 Top 10 (2008) - #4 Sci-Fi Film

Empire magazine 2008

*Number 37 on their list of "The 500 Greatest Movies of All Time."

The Grissom Gang (a masterpiece in your opinion!!)
----------------------------------------------------

Empire Magazine 2009

*12th best gangster film you've probably never seen

Well, that tangibly proves how worthless your opinions are!

Actually, it was you I was calling a fool, not Americans in general, although a large proportion (but by no means all) of your countrymen have a real problem accepting criticism. You take that sensitivity to a whole new level!! And as for being 'psychotic' and 'insecure', the gibbering nature of your response speaks for itself. Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit you know!? The reason I reciprocated several of your childish insults was to inject a sense of irony into this exchange. It appears that irony just went straight over your head!

The lurid, attention seeking and childish manner with which you speak doesn't make you a very endearing individual. In fact, it's rather peculiar and creepy, and alludes to some kind of histrionic disorder.

reply

[–] Antoine_Bugleboy 13 years ago

Rinec,

I'm not sure if I'd classify it precisely as such, yet I'm glad you are owning up to this 'HPD' problem of yours.

You care more about awards than actual criticism or insight.

>"...your countrymen have a real problem accepting criticism"<

I wouldn't disagree, except in your unseemly refusal to see it's a broader human problem, not a Nationalistic one. Do you really think the Japanese, or Mexicans, or French, are much more "evolved"?
Moreover, what does this have to do wit anything here!? It's you who is not accepting my criticism, who is throwing mob received opinion stats at me to "prove" my opinion is "worthless."

You appear a petty bigot thug with no real criticisms to offer. I don't pretend to know you, what kind of person your are in the other 23.5 hours in the day. can only respond to what appears on these virtual pages.

>>"lurid, attention seeking and childish manner with which you speak doesn't make you a very endearing individual"<<

Further sad projection.

I don't accept your opinion on movies as having value to me, but I would never presume to say it is "worthless" as a blanket statement.

Good luck with all this, I won't be here to observe the next tantrum you choose to throw.

reply

[–] Rinec 13 years ago

So, recognition by professional bodies such as the British Academy of Film and Television Arts, the American Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and the American Film Institute constitutes mob received opinion?!!? You get more ridiculous by the post! There again, in a mind suffering from grandiose delusions, I'm sure you really do believe that your opinion supersedes that of all others, however prestigious. Only there can a little known film of mediocre quality supplant a celebrated classic.

As for being a petty bigot thug (I actually like that from you! PBT), in your case all I have to light the blue touch paper and well stand back to observe yet another histrionic, childish and hypersensitive eruption! I look forward to yet another response from your good self; I find you not only ridiculous and amusing, but interesting due to the plethora of personality disorders your lurid and infantile delivery alludes to!

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mcnichol-2 14 years ago

I gave both an 8...

and 6.2 isn't really an f-up by any means, imo. The remake was still a brilliant piece of comedy amongst its rivals at the time. I find that which one of the two I watch is often directly related to the mood I'm in at the time. Nothing wrong with either mood, as both films serve their purpose of helping me enjoy that mood to the fullest. :)

reply