I've only seen the new one, and wow, it was amazing! I can't believe the movie was so critically panned. Definitely a strong performance by Madonna...why do people say she can't act? She should have been recognized for her efforts, at least with a Golden Globe for comedic actress if not an Oscar nod. I can't imagine the original version could have anything better to say than the remake.
shareTry to see the orginal. Not the dubbed version but italian w/subtitles. There is no comparison. the madonna version was panned for a reason. I don't blame her but the direction. not sure why they remade it in the first place.
shareYeah, the original is SUCH a classic, it's hard to see why they would even attempt to remake it. I have also seen the madonna version...and it had it's moments, it wasn't awful, but it had nowhere near the power of the original.
saucybetty.blogspot.com
the 1974 Version wins hands down as a Classic;
remaking it was as dumb as remaking SOLARIS
[deleted]
[deleted]
The original version of this movie is one of the best movies ever made. A great work of art with amazing performances by Giancarlo Gianini & the female lead. I can't remember her name. Forget about the Madonna version. The original is perfect and could never be improved on.
shareMARIANGELA MELATO
shareMariangela Melato
shareThe original movie is very, very, very good, and the Madonna version is absolutely terrible. Bad, Bad, Bad, vs. Great, Great, Great.
You must see the original to appreciate how bad the new version is.
Oh my god! I just saw the original and it was CRAP. SPOILER POSSIBLE HERE: This guy, Giancarlo Giannini's character was nothing more than a commie pinko, monkey of a man who liked beating the woman just for the sake of his macho *beep* head attitude. Even after he tamed the shrew, he STILL hit her. He was an awful person...only to end up being a tiny loser of a man with a fat wife at home. The woman, Rafaella, apprently was into masochism but when she sees his wife, understands that it would never work and stays with her rich husband.
In short--and this is FACT--I don't care what anyone says, Guy Ritchie took a crap film and turned it into a romantic piece of work. Adriano Giannini is more sympathetic because unlike his father, he didn't go home to a fat and psychopathic wife--he truly loved Madonna's character, appeared to be very loyal to her only which is something you don't feel with GianCarlo's character. When a tragic ending takes place because of miscommunication it only deepens the heartfelt wound that you already know is going to take place. It was a total Shakespearean tragedy love story after Ritchie put his hands on it. Before that it was like two monkeys getting together. It was GARBAGE. The only reason Ritchie's was panned the way it was is because people don't care for Madonna's looks as a leading lady nor her acting--which I admit is very weak. But if he had put Daryl Hannah, Joely Richardson, Cameron Diaz or Uma Thurman in her place, he would have had a major hit on his hands. Word of mouth carries and if it didn't do well in the theatre, it would have done well on DVD. I guarantee that was Ritchie's only mistake. The music, scenery, cinematography and story were all way better when placed in his hands. No doubt about it.
The fact that you thought Giannini's character was a "tiny loser" doesn't make it a bad movie. You clearly missed the points that Wertmuller was trying to make. The film was commentary on sexual politics and the capitalist system - he was SUPPOSED to come across as an *beep*
shareIt doesn't matter to me what she WANTED to him to be. I go by what I think and feel after a movie. I liked Guy Ritchie's cleaner and more romantic version than the original garbage filled with unnecessary filthy language and violence. It's that simple. Whatever her point was..I don't care.
I guess it depends on if you want the porno version (Wertmuller's) or if you just want a cute romantic movie with a killer ending (Ritchie's). I went with the latter.
So typical of American society. You just the Madonna version like it because it's spoon-fed and sugarcoated by unintelligent American producers so that they can take any intellectual or political message the movie has and ignore it because you think it's "pornographic" or "obscene." Instead you'd rather see someone take a great movie that's become an archetype for other movies for decades and make it "cute" or "romantic" when it shouldn't be, it should be scary, offensive, and disturbing and the very fact that you oppose a movie that tries to challenge you just shows me what level of intelligence you have and why America can't make good movies anymore.
------------------------------------
Modern Plumbing Studios, est. 2004
I'm an american and I agree with you that the original film is a masterpiece, and that the Madonna version ruined the entire message of the original version. However I felt it was unnecessary of you to sterotype "american society". Some of us see here see through political and multimedia hypocrisy just as much as most of the world does. Choose your words more carefully!
share[deleted]
Jux70, there is no actual XXX in the original. Giancarlo's character was insulted constantly by Rafella! Something had to give with him. There had to be verbal and physical violence in the film. He hated her because of her wealth and her nastiness toward him on the yacht. When the power roles were reversed on the island, social status and racial divide went out the window. They both fell in love. Their passion was moving. It was deep and meaningful. Yet it wasn't going to last. When they came back to mainland Rafella realized they couldn't be together. The social and racial divide came back! What you fail to grasp is the politcal, sexual and social aspect the original film so beautifully examines. Ritchie's version is so ridiculous, I refuse to even compare it to this materpiece! It's a pretty persons films which is shallow, out of touch and irrelevant to the original. Search your feelings Jux!
shareThe problem here is that the film was not supposed to be a "romantic piece of work" it was supposed to be what it is... A drama... The reason she did not stay with him in the end was because of her lifestyle that she lived, she could never have that with him, and we are material people.. To read you calling the original crap made me laugh... Ritchie couldn't have made such a "great" movie without the script, which we know he did not write, nor the storyline... He just did a remake, that was watchable, at best... There was no reason to remake it, if you want a romantic piece of artwork, go see the Notebook or something like that...
"We are defined by what we lose-from our loves to our family, our innocence, or even our lives..."
You really did miss the point, this film wasn't seeking to make you "comfortable" with the characters. Neither one of these people were the best people, in a way he becomes as fixated in his power on the island and she was before she got there (even if she ends up kind of liking it). The end isn't supposed to make you happy or satisfied, it's challenging non-hollywood style filmaking that's suppose to keep you "thinking" about what you saw. I can't even say if I liked her better after she was "tamed". And despite his hate of her, he likes her ... why? For all the reasons he hates her I figure, because she has all the trappings of being beautiful and rich and as much as aspects of it repulse him, so do they attract him. I don't know if I like either one of these people at the end, but that's okay because I think about them.
Don't get me wrong, I like quite a few films that follow a classic 'satisfactory' ending formula, but I can appreciate when that's not the story's intent. In trying to manipulate our feelings directly (the Madonna version) and by making us feel sorry for the couple it completely misses the point of the original story teller, which is even after it's off to keep you thinking about how you feel about what happen. By remaking it they were almost saying well "we don't like that this story's intent was to make you uncomfortable in your feelings about these characters, so we're going to wap it all in a pretty bow and give you a villian to hate in the (Madonna's) husband who keeps them apart." If they made a "new film" about being trapped on an island then they can do whatever they want, but that's not what Richie choose to do. Instead it badly echoed a better work and tried to force it down the throat of classic hollywood formula so that the audience (while feeling sorry for the couple being forced apart) would only be left with "happy feelings" about them.
Rhonda Weasley
http://www.rhondaweasley.com
So in your world everybody has to be a millionaire *beep*
Madonna never made a good film ever.
I'm going to pretend you never asked that question OP. Repeat after me...There is no Madonna version of this spectacular film. Madonna isn't an actress, she's a lousy pop star.
Demetria :)
"There's nothing tastier than food for thought."
I heard the Madonna Version, compared to the original was utter crap. I had the pleasure of seeing the original (Italian with English subtitles) and it was pretty good, though it's been a couple of years since I've seen it. I saw a part of Madonna's remake and it was, average at best. I can't personally say I hated it because I've only seen a couple of scenes.
"Robin Williams turns me on when he's in his Mrs. Doubtfire costume." -Kilanjo
Madonna version is pure crap: bad script, bad directing, bad acting, no good sundtrack, bad editing... Lina Wertmuller is a director, Guy Ritchie is NOT.
shareDon't ever look at the Madonna version. It scars the memory of the original movie.
sharePlease look at both movies within the same week. Look at the original first and you should readily realize that Madonna makes her version stand out as 'putrid'.....
Thanks