why oh why ruin a classic?

[deleted]

I am thankful that A&E did this version. OK its not the same movie as the black&white movie from the 40s. It's different.

I am just thankful to have seen Gretchen Mol in this movie!
One beautiful piece of movie-making!

I never seen the original yet, and I fully intend to!


But with that aside, I know I never ever want to see this remake.


No one can fill the shoes of a great man like Orson Welles!

"Keep Ted Turner and his goddamned Crayolas away from my movie."--Welles

[deleted]

I haven't seen this remake and I want to because, as you should know if you saw it, the original blew. I don't know what you were smoking when you watched it but Welles' movie was horribly butchered by the studio and the result was something awful. Of course, it being attached to Welles name has made many a viewer refer to it as a classic. The only thing classic about it is the classic disaster of studio interference. In case you didn't know: the original Welles cut was 131 minutes long, the film you saw was 88 minutes long, the rest of the movie that Orson Welles shot (44 minutes of film!) was destroyed by RKO. RKO test screened the movie at 131 minutes and decided on cutting the movie without Welles, then they burned the film they cut so noone would ever see the film the way the director had intended it. The movie you call a "classic" was hard to follow and not much fun to watch. What we saw of the acting was not by any means as impressive as it was in, say, his previous film Citizen Kane. (Read Booth Tarkington's novel, the one which inspired the film, it is much better than the Welles film as we know it)

So you see, this is what interests me about this A&E production. The writing credit is the same as the Welles film: it is Welles' original screenplay adaption of Tarkington's novel. So here we have a chance to see the whole story, its not going to be a masterpiece but it can certainly improve upon your "classic," which is in reality anything but classic.