worst remake in the history of movies - The Flight of the Phoenix (1965) Discussion

[–] CmdrCody 18 years ago

Well said. I couldn't say it better. Both remakes were a complete waste of time. They should be thrown in the trashbin like that turkey "Pearl Harbor."

Good man, Tex!

CmdrCody

reply

[–] tomcat69w 18 years ago

Not only the worst remake ever,...I wish they would quit casting Dennis Quaid in so many movies. He is possibly one of the worst actor's in Hollywood. I think he has 3 expressions,...(1) sullen (2) anger (3) that stupid freakin' wide ass-oakie grin of his. I am currently enjoying the original again on AMC TV. I saw the original in 1965 as a young lad, and I did not see it again for many years, but it always stuck in my head as one of the greatest adventure movies of it's type of all time. Everyone in the original cast is excellent,...in the remake,...not one single performance ring's true,..not even Ribisi with his 'nasal' intonation of every line and foppish ego. Hell even the Monkey 'Chu Chu' is better than Dennis Quaid. I hope to find an exceptionally good dvd of the original someday, because to me the original is a classic. And the remake is classic 'crap!' Rock On!

The Smoker You Drink, The Player You Get!

reply

[–] prefittoroles 18 years ago

totally agree,an awful film in which it was hard to care whether the characters survived or not.

reply

[–] Adams5905 14 years ago

Further to your comments about Quaid, I couldn't agree more, I have just checked his filmography, and can honestly say that there are only three performances that stand out in my mind; The Big Easy, Enemy Mine, and Breaking Away, with perhaps an honourable mention for Inner Space... And this goes all the way back to 1975! Certainly not a glittering career!..Although I cannot say hand-on-heart that I have watched every entry on that list!
I am now watching the original Phoenix, and am glad to say that I have never watched, nor ever intend to watch the remake. What a waste of money...

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe...

reply

[–] itsmemikehaha 11 years ago

hey there tomcat,

I have a question for you, it seems to me that as I remember watching this film when I was about 11 or so and in the end I seem to remember the plane was built with ski's instead of wheels, also at the end, when they were flying I seem to remember they flew over something like farmland and seen a large pond and there were two guys on the ground that looked up as the plane flew by and they said, what the hell is that!

then they landed and they all shouted as they jumped in the water rejoicing about their rescue.

Am I getting this mixed up with a different movie or was this the original.

I just watched the 1965 version and it ended with the plane flying over the dessert. The other part was either cut out or something.

Just curious because I thought I remembered that part fairly clear. and I was shocked when I didnt see that, but also the part where the plane had ski's instead of wheels, maybe not, I might be getting that part mixed up with something else.

If you can shed some light on this, that would be great.

Thx

reply

[–] mchelemer 8 years ago

Hello, itsmemike. I don't know if you ever got an answer to your post of more than three years ago, but I happened to be reading it today, 6/7/16, after watching the original film in its unedited entirety last night. 1. The plane WAS built with skis. 2. They weren't flying over farmland, but rather an oasis near an oilfield. 3. Two guys (oilfield workers) DO indeed say, when they see the strange plane "What the hell is that?" 4. The survivors DO all walk slowly back from wherever Townes has landed the plane and all jump in the water, whooping it up (Except Townes and Dorfman, who make a joke about the 1851 flight of a model airplane flying 600 yards...or meters). Whatever you watched was edited if the last thing shown was just the airplane flying over the desert.

reply

[–] mmcglass-90045 8 years ago

Well, you could always cast his brother Randy instead. But, he's on the lam in Canada so you'd have to film out of the country.

Dennis has done some good films - I enjoyed his role in, "The Rookie." His role in The Alamo wasn't great - actually, since Dennis played the role of Sam Houston, a man who stood 6-6 and weighed in at around 260, his brother Randy might have been a better choice.

The original Flight of the Phoenix had guys like Jimmy Stewart, Richard Attenborough, Ernest Borgnine...all three BIG TIME actors. It was a bit hard for Dennis Quaid and the gang to compete with that cast.

reply

[–] XweAponX 18 years ago

I am wathing this now... It's great! Piss off!

reply

[–] XweAponX 18 years ago

Maybe I better qualify that a bit:
The story is an exact remake of the original, plus or minus a few characters.

It does not really matter who played what: Of course Giovannobloghglagibsy is not the same guy as the compleat nerd as from the original, and there was nobody as cool as Jimmy Stewart, except for Archie Leech.

But thsi is 2004 not 1965: And so, the story is modernised so we can believe it: This guy that Quaid plays, is the equivalent of the dump truck driver. He is picking up the shi-ite. He hates doing it. Giovoblabbsy is NOT spoesed to be there, it fooks up everything, THEY CRASH.

The fookin crash was one of the best plane crashes I have seen, I hated some of the CGI, but then again, they used about 4 houses, and so there was probably crap that Moore hated. But ALL of the real action shots, look GReAT.

Now, the director: SO WHAT if he says "fook" every 3 words? Look where they were they were in Nambia, for crying in the beer.

He got the shots and we got the moovie, and it's a great moovie, it has all of the conflict of the original. It is just, THE DESERT becomes mroe of a character than it was in the original: It is like David Lean lent some of his desert footage to Moore.

I have no idea what the Gobi looks like, but they filmed this in an actual desert, NOT on a sound stage like the opriginal was.

There is a lot of stuff you got to consider. I think, in a way it is a better film, it has better shots.

However, I love the original which was why I rented this: And I enjoyed it. Because the last time I saw Flight etc was IN 1965, when it was made, and all I remember was that I liked it. And so I like this one too: The direcrtor went through a LOT of freakin trouble getting almost the exact same plane even from the original.

ANYWAY these posts belong under Flight of the Phoenix (2004) and NOT in here. Right? Left.

reply

[–] gary_w_trott 8 years ago

I agree with you. This is one of my favorite movies and I was very pleased with the remake because it did stay very true to the plot of the original. Granted Jimmy Stewart, Ernest Borgnine, Richard Attenborough, and George Kennedy are a tough act to follow...but I still enjoyed the remake very much. It was a good movie.

reply

[–] titaniumtiger29 18 years ago

I have yet to see the original, but it is on my list in the next few days. There are some things that I think this remake can do without, but I also think it has some strong points to it as well. I like how it looks. I love Ribsi's performance, even though I have yet to compare it to Attenborough's.

Its not the greatest movie in the world, but it definetly does not deserve the title for worst remake ever.

Johnny- 'Reed you suck. You beyond suck.'
Ben- 'You fantasti-suck.'
Ultimate Fantastic Four # 10

reply

[–] woopwoop 18 years ago

dear Titanium.
You cannot compare the remake to the original if you have not seen the original, mate!...let me know what u think after you view..
Tez

reply

[–] titaniumtiger29 18 years ago

I just realized I made a mistake in comparing the two actors, my fault.
But I have watched the movie and I found it to be very well done. Not my most favorite movie of all time, but good none the less. In comparing the two I would have to say that the original was the better movie and story without the modern day 'Everything needs to be P.C.' with adding in race and sex.
Both movies have great performances (I enjoy listening to James Stewart's way of speaking), but 65 has the best story and character interaction and 04 has the better effects... and... and... Ribsi! That guy is a great actor.

I will still stand with the fact that the 2004 version is not the worst remake ever.

Johnny- 'Reed you suck. You beyond suck.'
Ben- 'You fantasti-suck.'
Ultimate Fantastic Four # 10

reply

[–] at7000 17 years ago

The DVD was on clearance for $6 and I bought it since I was a big fan of the original. I knew I was in trouble when I got back home and checked out the rating on the www.rottentomatoes.com website. The best critics gave it like a 19% approval rating. Whatever. I decided to give it a fair chance.

Whilst not the worst remake ever, it is up their on the top 20 list of worst remakes. The saddest part is that the original was a highly intelligent film along with intelligent dialog. This film seemed to be geared to viewers with the mental power of failing Junior High-School students.

Really, that part is just a tragedy. They sold out the best part of the original. I thought to myself, I wonder what a real director could have done with this, such as an Oliver Stone, a Scorcese, Fincher, Malik, Ridley Scott, or a Kubrick had he still lived.

Agreed, Quaid was just aweful and took the prize for it. But the rest of the cast were close runner ups. Even Giovanni Ribisi way overplayed his character, and this guy has done some very fine acting in other films.

This remake should die a slow painful death...no wonder it was on the DVD clearance rack. It should be burned.

I will concede, as someone else mentioned, the plane crash scene was quite good, and some of the cinematography was quite brilliant and beautiful. My DVD was a great quality print/film transfer. I watched it on plasma screen TV and it was sharp and clear as hell, about as good as I have seen for clarity, sharpness, color, etc... If I want to show off my TV to friends for a few minutes, I would very well pop in this DVD.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fashion103 17 years ago

You know what, I quite liked the remake. As long as you can differentiate between the two styles of film and just regard the remake as more of an entertaining Hollywood disaster type affair (and IMHO it is much better than most of the junk that gets spewed out of there these days), it serves its purpose well. Of course it can never match the origional, that is why it is a classic afterall, but the remake still has some entertainment value attatched to it. No, it doesn't do the origional justice, but for me it was at least entertaining.

"I wish they would quit casting Dennis Quaid in so many movies. He is possibly one of the worst actor's in Hollywood. I think he has 3 expressions,...(1) sullen (2) anger (3) that stupid freakin' wide ass-oakie grin of his."
The only thing that I will say to that is have you seen Saviour? I was never a big fan of his either until I watched that. I think bar some heinous miscasting, he can have some moments of utter genious. That is the ONLY film which has managed to make me blub like a figging baby and I'm not ashamed to admit it! Just based on that one film, for me he went from a so, so type cast actor to one of my all time favorates. Of course, every one has different tastes, but if you haven't seen Saviour, I would seriously reccomend scourcing a copy. Moving doesn't even begin to describe it!

'appy days amigos

reply

[–] PippyBra 17 years ago

I saw the remake first and quite enjoyed it (even though I am a Stewart manic) but one thing REALLY irked me. I thought the scene where Giovanni Ribisi shot the prisoner was dramatic and shocking-then they go and tack that ridiculous ending on (where YAY he is on front cover of magazines and famous!), it just made you sit completely uncomfortable with the darkness of the character and ruined what I thought was quite a good and suprising character direction.

"Oh Jerry, don't let's ask for the moon. We have the stars."

reply

[–] lafferty812 17 years ago

Yeah Ribsi is a good actor but when compared to the guy who played the part in the first one he falls short. I was amazed it was even the same scene when Ribsi goes off about toy airplanes are different from model ones. It just was not as good

reply

[–] albedo-2 17 years ago

I'll admit that I haven't seen the remake (and don't plan to)
but what you've described is JUST what I expected: Modern
movie trash. The original is a gem, and I have it on DVD and
watched it again last night. I watch it every couple of
years I'd guess. If only this story could've been true!
That plane would have to be in the Smithsonian today.

reply

[–] L_Forster 17 years ago

For some strange reason, Hollywood has the mentality of: "Well, it worked before, we'll updated it, and launch it and see if it will fly again." Unfortunately the biggest problem with remakes is that they don't contain the key elements that made the original so successful. That is, the original cast, director, and the advantage of being a new concept. I agree, the remake wasn't up to the original. I wish Hollywood would spend as much effort trying to come up with new concepts and new scripts as they do trying to "improve" on the original tried and true ones. It's almost like trying to counterfit currancy, all you're going to have in the end is a colorful piece of paper that isn't worth crap. I saw this movie when I was in my early teens. I now have it on DVD. I would prefer watching an original of any story over and over than enduring a generic, updated remake. I salute the original cast and crew, and my condolences to anyone attached with the remake.

reply

[–] brian-j-huffman 17 years ago

Did you notice that nobody in the remake seemed especially hungry or thirsty. They all had the attitude of people on some sort of rock-and-roll picnic.

My favorite contrast...In the 1965 movie Sgt. Watson (probably the most dull-witted person on the plane) asks Standish about the name on the plane. His question wasn't on the meaning of the word Phoenix but rather a sort of "why bother to name it?" When Standish starts to explain what the Phoenix was Watson cuts him off saying, "I'm not bloody stupid." Meaning anyone should know what the Phoenix was. But in the new movie people really don't know and only Captain Townes is smart enough to be able to answer the question.

The political correctness of the new film doesn't end with gender and race either. The quote about religion dividing people was the product of a Hollywood culture that can't stay married more than 10 minutes and yet they know what it takes to keep people together...give me an *beep* break.

reply

[–] zensixties 17 years ago

Good observations, Brian. I didn't bother to see the remake, but love the original.

Play the game existence 'til the end...of the beginning...

reply

[–] PippyBra 17 years ago

And everyone just stayed pretty, no sun burn for them!

"Oh Jerry, don't let's ask for the moon. We have the stars."

reply

[–] porfle 17 years ago

For some strange reason, Hollywood has the mentality of: "Well, it worked before, we'll updated it, and launch it and see if it will fly again."

Sounds just like what they did with the plane in the movie! Maybe Dorfmann went on to become a movie director who specialized in remakes.

Lou: I think what Frank means is...how much experience have you got directing...the real thing?
Dorfmann: The..."real" thing?
Lou: Yes, you know...features. Full-length films.
Dorfmann: (laughs) Oh no, no. You misunderstand. We make only television commercials.
Frank: Television...commercials...
Dorfmann: Yes. But of course, the principles are exactly the same.

http://www.bumscorner.com
http://www.myspace.com/porfle

reply

[–] PippyBra 17 years ago

Haha, porfle!

x

"Either I'm dead right, or I'm crazy!

reply

[–] Vampenguin 17 years ago

I've also yet to see the original (sorry...), but the 2004 version is easily one of the worst movies that I've ever seen. I obviously cant compare it to the original, but it was just flat out awful in every aspect beyond the plot (which I liked). It even made Hugh Laurie look bad!

----------------------------------
Death is but a door, time is but a window...I will be back.

reply

[–] TooSlim 17 years ago

To paraphrase the immortal John Waters.....Why do people try to remake GREAT films?? They need to remake the crappy ones!!!!

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] byteM3 13 years ago

Heh...

Killing people is easy...if you can forget the taste of sugar.

reply

[–] steve-taylor17 12 years ago

Speaking of crappy ones, perhaps one day they will do a remake of "Waterworld" - that would surely break the mould of remakes always being inferior to the original - there is nothing anyone could do to make "Waterworld" a worse picture.

reply

[–] JurorNr13 15 years ago

I agree that the remake is horrible, but including a woman and a couple of african americans has nothing to do with it. This could have been used to the remake's advantage, but wasn't, which doesn't mean that it works against it. It just turned out to be unnecessary.
The remake suffers from a bad screenplay, bad acting, bad dialogue, horrible directing and editing, cheap CGI and a terrible soundtrack.

reply