COMPARING THE TWO.

I suppose it makes all the difference, depends on which one you see first.

By mistake, I put the wrong disc into the DVD player, and started watching the remake first.

The 1970's in LA were portrayed believably in the obviously made-for-TV movie. The acting was not too bad, but not great.
  
The next night, I was expecting so much more of the original, and was very disappointed. I found it hard to stay awake, the pacing and delivery of the dialogue was worse than the remake.

6/10 for the remake, 7/10 for the original.

--
My vote history: http://imdb.to/GeoDudeVotes

  

reply share

add reply

formatting help

lrcdmnhd72 on Fri Sep 24 2010 17:28:48
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think the 1973 version of DI can hold a candle to the 1944 DI.

No sch|tt, Sherlock!!

Please note, I do not want comments from housewives, students or the unemployed.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

It's not terribly bad, when considering the time and setting of the 1970's that is. The problem is, the 1944 version is a master piece.

The main problems I see in this version is the production company who financed this didn't give it the resources necessary to do it right. You can tell they were on a very tight, and thrifty budget. Everything from the sets, right down to the actors chosen screams frugality.

The above said, in a few instances I think they actually improved on the dialogue from the original. One example is when Neff asks "how fast was I going officer" and she says "about ninety." and they leave it at that. Which in my opinion is better than the tedius back and forth from the original about giving me a ticket, it not taking, crying on her shoulder, and why don't you cry on my husbands shoulder. Which is much more manufactured in my opinion.

Still, as stated by the OP, the original is the far superior film.

reply share

add reply

formatting help