Why Isn't It Mentioned That This Was a Remake???
This was a remake of another great film of the same exact story line
with, Audie Murphy:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052106/
It can't be a true remake if the original is based off of a novel.
--
MovieChat Forums > The Quiet American (2003) Discussion > Why Isn't It Mentioned That This Was a R...
Because it isn't a remake. It isn't based on the original movie; it's based on the book by Graham Greene. Both movies are based on the book.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
- Goethe
They still making a movie that has already been made.... hence, a REMAKE.
Limit of the Willing Suspension of Disbelief: directly proportional to its awesomeness.
[deleted]
The term remake is used for when the newer version's source material is the older film. This movie's source material is the novel, and thus it is a re-adaptation.
This would be like saying Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet is a remake of the 1968 version, or that The Dark Knight is a remake of Burton's 89 version of Batman.
Illusions Michael. Tricks are something a whore does for money.
Sorry, I was rather inebriated when I wrote that.
shareThe Dark Knight does rework a few scenes from Burton's Batman.
shareApparently the first adaptation wasn't even a proper one.
shareBoth films are adapted from the source novel. I think thats clear.
Its that man again!!
So what?
shareI don’t see why it matters... both are fine films with superb performances by their respective leading men.
shareThe Audie Murphy version was a significant departure from the book. In the 1958 version, The American is working for an aid organization. In the book he is an arms trafficker aligned with General Thé. The book is anti-war while the 1958 film is American propaganda.
The 2003 version much more closely follows the book as The American is not the nice guy.