The American Spectator : Pale Imitations

Text Size

Pale Imitations

Remakes are the best way to ruin a movie.

On the web, movie-goers can find lists of movie remakes the list-makers believe to be better than the originals. I’ve just reviewed a list of a dozen Part IIs purported to be better than the first efforts. My guess is that discriminating TAS readers would come up with lists of more modest length.

The author of the list I just consulted had to cheat even to come up with a dozen. He included the 1957 Ben-Hur as a remake, though even most film majors wouldn’t know a silent version of that epic was made in 1925. And the original 1951 Angels in the Outfield, against which the 1994 Disney boy/baseball movie is boosted, wasn’t even a classic. I suppose Ahnuld’s 1991 True Lies, available daily on more cable channels than Antiques Roadshow, holds some attraction for those who prefer watching The Terminator machine-gun bad guys to the original French farce. Jamie Lee Curtis’s considerable assets are also points in this one’s favor (and can be enjoyed with the sound muted when one wearies of automatic weapons fire).

There are doubtless all manner of financial reasons for re-making beloved movies with a little age on them: a built-in audience, after-market opportunities such as DVD sales and cable. Then there’s the overseas market. I’ll let the accounting majors among us sort this out. And, perhaps closer to the bone, remakes cut down on the amount of original thinking — always thin on the ground in Hollywood — required to get product on the big screen.

But aesthetically, the remakes are almost always a disappointment. Show of hands: How many really believe Steve Martin’s Inspector Clouseau in the 2006 remake of The Pink Panther was anywhere near as funny as Peter Sellers in the 1963 original.  I thought so. Me neither. The jury is in. The best thing to do with a beloved movie classic is to watch and enjoy it from time to time, discuss it if the matter comes up, and otherwise leave it alone. The worst thing to do is to try to remake it, as the magic that made the classic a classic will almost certainly not make a second appearance.

Magic was conspicuously absent in the Coen Brothers’ superfluous True Grit, out in December (should have been called “New Grit”). The 1969 original won the Duke his only best actor award and was, save for some wooden acting by Glenn Campbell, a clear five on a five-point scale.

The Coen-heads’ product, while not as execrable as Fargo or Raising Arizona, is pretty lame. Their Rooster Cogburn, played by the able Jeff Bridges, looks more like the town’s most dissolute bag-lady with a beard than like the Duke’s tough western marshal.

In theaters now is another pale remake of a first-rate original. It pains me to recommend that TAS readers not go to a movie with Helen Mirren in it. She’s a talented and versatile actress, and even in her mid-sixties she remains, to use the technical phrase, a hot ticket. But fans of the estimable Helen can better spend their time and money by renting The Queen or Calendar Girls than by abusing two otherwise good hours with the new Arthur.

Dudley Moore’s 1981 Arthur was charming and funny. The movie was pure entertainment, with no pretentions to seriousness. (For my movie ticket and rental money, and contrary to the prevailing view in Hollywood, the best movies are found among those that don’t attempt to be serious.) It’s a fine way to spend a couple of hours, thanks to a very funny script, and a tour de force of physical comedy by the diminutive and graceful Moore. John Gielgud’s acerbic but loving old snob of a retainer, played with just the right amount of sarcastic asperity, is priceless.

Russell Brand’s 2011 Arthur, by contrast, is clunky and not very funny. It’s the same story. Preposterously rich and indulged soak Arthur Bach is pressured by his family to marry a woman he doesn’t love for business reasons. He rebels and pursues the woman he really fancies. But the life just isn’t in the new edition.

Compared to the smart and very watchable Moore, the out-sized Brand, who resembles a younger and less dissipated version of Tiny Tim, looks out of place no matter what the scene. Grace has been replaced by adolescent gawkiness.

Even with slurring his words, as any proper drunk does, Moore could deliver a line. Brand, by comparison, has poor enunciation, and is often hard to understand, even in scenes were he’s supposed to be sober.

Then there’s Greta Gerwig as Naomi, Arthur’s true love 2011, who I found oppressively earnest and wholesome. The would-be writer of children’s books is more PC, but less interesting to watch than Liza Minnelli’s Linda.

This character and Brand’s Arthur going to AA to cure his alcoholism are just signs of how preachy our times have become. There’s nothing really wrong with AA or writing children’s books. Much can be said for both. But it demonstrates how difficult it is for us today to just take a couple of hours off and have a good time without at least a little uplift being directed at us. Alcoholism is no joke. But Dudley Moore was a really funny drunk. Why can’t we just watch him and enjoy it?

A few decades out, some bicoastal film guy (or gal) will toy with the idea of remaking a well-loved movie from our time (though I’d find it difficult to come up with a list of contemporary classics). I’ll probably be an angel by the time this happens, but my advice from beyond to that future dreamer is: Mix yourself a drink, stretch out on the most comfortable chair available, and wait till the urge goes away. If this takes a while, you could top off your drink and watch the Duke’s True Grit or Moore’s Arthur while you wait.

About the Author

Larry Thornberry is a writer in Tampa.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (74) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

c. j. acworth| 5.3.11 @ 6:21AM

When the Coen brothers get around to re-doing The Wizard of Oz who do you think they wll get to replace Judy Garland?

David W| 5.3.11 @ 8:30AM

Lindsey Lohan or one of the Olsen twins?

Seek| 5.3.11 @ 11:42AM

The new "True Grit" was a masterpiece for those who saw it. In fact, I'll take anything by the Coens over the stuff from some imagined "Golden Age." By the way, James Cameron's "True Lies" came out in 1994 -- our friend Larry is three years off.

Jim| 5.4.11 @ 1:02PM

What part if the mumbling, almost indecipherable Bridges "acting" made this movie a masterpiece? It's a WESTERN, which means it is supposed to be fun and compelling, neither of which the remake was. If you want realism, watch Ken Burns on PBS. The only good Coen movie was "A Serious Man", and then less for the script as the wonderfully strange characters. The other Coen films were simply gore, if high-end gore.

Cosmo| 5.5.11 @ 1:16AM

Agreed...The new "True Grit" was fantastic...
Much better than the old version with ham-actor John Wayne & mis-cast Glen Campbell & boring
Kim Darby...

Tomas| 5.3.11 @ 6:48PM

Remaking a film that did no justice to the original story is justifiable.

Remaking a classic is a pathetic attempt to cash in on the celebrity of the original. I can think of no better example than Peter Jackson's pathetic "King Kong."

A "classic" is a work that cannot be surpassed. Period.

A remake of "Citizen Kane"? I would bet it's been proposed....

Larry| 5.3.11 @ 6:32AM

On my must miss list- a Three Stooges film with actors playing the parts of Moe, Larry and Curly. Sheesh! A new for Hollywood again. And did I read that the man with the great sense of humor, Hugo Chavez's best friend, Sean Penn was playing Moe? I'll be so happy when I read the Monday after that the opening that this film has tanked, and badly.

diskojoe| 5.3.11 @ 8:34AM

You know, I was sorta kinda looking forward to that Three Stooges movie (even w/Sean Penn) until I saw this:

http://www.avclub.com/articles.....-in,55402/

Too Many Tims| 5.3.11 @ 11:48AM

I'd pay to see Penn get his head jammed in a pipe, then crushed in a vice with pliers up his nose while his ass is blow torched.

Occam's Tool| 5.3.11 @ 6:54PM

Too Many Tims, you are too much! Bravo and second the motion!

Kilgore Trout| 5.4.11 @ 7:22AM

TMT: Not harsh enuff! AS Marcellus said in Pulp FIction: Marsellus: What now? Let me tell you what now. I'ma call a coupla hard, pipe-hittin' ni*****rs, who'll go to work on the homes here with a pair of pliers and a blow torch. You hear me talkin', hillbilly boy? I ain't through with you by a damn sight. I'ma get medieval on your ass.

Stuart Koehl| 5.3.11 @ 7:05AM

The remake of True Grit was excellent on its merits. Thornberry doesn't like it because it's not a John Wayne movie. Some remakes are good, others are not. It's interesting that the Spectator chose to put up a thumbnail of Charleton Heston in "Ben Hur" next to this article. The irony, of course, is Heston's movie was not the first, but the second remake of Ben Hur.

Larry| 5.3.11 @ 7:18AM

I liked the remake of True Grit. I also took it on its own merits. I much preferred the end of the orignal though.

Stuart Koehl| 5.3.11 @ 7:56AM

The end in the later movie is truer to the book. But that's not always a good thing. The ending of the Redford film of The Natural is much better than Malamud's downbeat novella.

Larry| 5.3.11 @ 8:05AM

Before going to see True Grit, I'd read and heard that the entire movie was closer to the book. Having never read it, I'd expected a much different film from the original. It wasn't though, except, as you say, the end.

Cromulent| 5.3.11 @ 9:41AM

What you said. Took my 8-year old boy to see his first real adult movie and he loved it. I can't watch more than 5 minutes of the original.

JoeJazz2000| 5.3.11 @ 11:00AM

Too much of Charles Portis' excellent novel was excised so that Hollywood could make another movie of John Wayne playing John Wayne. The remake of True Grit was excellent on its merits. I highly recommend it.

mames| 5.4.11 @ 2:45AM

Wonderful remakes have been done including True Grit with a Rooster much closer to the original book. George C Scott as Scrooge was excellent. Sabrina and The Fugitive with Harrison Ford were also excellent with far better acting. As for the Duke, I love a lot of his work but he was not a great actor by any means but was well used by great directors like Ford. A remake can be great and even better than the original but it is tough to overcome the original picture etched in the human mind. There are only so many themes in literature and redos are bound to occur.

Dee See| 5.3.11 @ 7:13AM

BTW --speaking of retreads

is everyone awake to the fact that, not only
techno-worshiping, EUGENICS promoting
franchise slum directors as James Cameron
are involved with 'suicide friendly'
retreads ('Cleopatra' which he since fled after
being exposed)

----BUT, even 'eye con' Clint Eastwood.

NOTE, after he served up a string of anachronistic, 'well-crafted' and cunningly
demoralizing pictures (Million Dollar Baby, Mystic River, IWO trilogy) ---and after balking
ANY mention of either the 50th, or last year,
60th Anniversary of the awesomely significant
KOREAN WAR ---(think RED China friendly)
he's now involved with resurrecting the most done-to-death snuff film of them all ---'A Star Is Born' -----featuring an alluring
and toooo young Beyonce.

AGAIN -----think YOU genics (dope/suicide).

Remember folks, YOU--genics means you and
yours.

REALLY.

Bill| 5.3.11 @ 11:02AM

The two Clint Eastwood movies about Iwo Jima don't comprise a trilogy. One is a cinematization of "Flags of Our Fathers," telling the American side of the story of the battle, and the other ("Letters From Iwo Jima") is a filmed version of a Japanese book and tells the Iwo Jima story from the point of view of a Japanese soldier.

Stuart Koehl| 5.3.11 @ 12:22PM

The technical term would be "diptych".

Larry| 5.3.11 @ 7:16AM

Sadly Clint is also making a J. Edgar Hoover film which allegedly perpetuates the lie that the great man was a cross-dressing pervert. Unfortunately, this will probably be the first Clint movie that I will not see.

Kilgore Trout| 5.4.11 @ 7:27AM

Hoover was probably not a transvestite, but most probably was homa seckshul.

FastJohnny| 5.3.11 @ 7:43AM

In general remakes are a poor substitute for the original, Ben Hur notwithstanding. I think that the actors and actresses of yesteryear commanded a stage presence that present day 'pretenders to the throne' can not hope to match. I mean, how is Jeff Bridges going to beat John Wayne (same thing went for King Kong)? How can anyone hope to match the magnitude and larger than life presence of someone like Chuck Heston or the crowd of giants in Magnificent Seven? The current crop of 'People Magazine' celebs can not even hold a candle to any of the classic actors. Just try to best Lawrence Olivier or anyone from the past eras. It can not be done. You can not remake something that was/is the pinnacle of a movie genre or age. Could it have something to do with the present day lack of artistic talent in movie writing, production, direction and acting?

Stuart Koehl| 5.3.11 @ 7:59AM

"How can anyone hope to match the magnitude and larger than life presence of someone like Chuck Heston or the crowd of giants in Magnificent Seven? "

But The Magnificent Seven was itself a remake of Seven Samurai, which was in turn Kurasawa's homage to the Western, while Clint Eastwood's spaghetti westerns were remakes of Kurasawa's classic Yojimbo and Sanjuro.

Imitation is the sincerest form of cinema.

Ray| 5.3.11 @ 12:46PM

The Magnificence Seven wasn't a remake of the Seven Samurai, it was a compete rewrite. I've seen both movies and, other than the premise, and,of course, the number of "good guys" the two movies have very little in common. Both were very good movies, although I like the Seven Samurai better. Who couldn't relate to the drunk, crazy Samurai wannabe, the one who wasn't hired but followed along anyways? That as an awesome character! One that didn't exist in the Magnificence Seven.

the permanent newbie| 5.3.11 @ 3:33PM

On my planet, Seven Samurai is considered the greatest movie of all time. Just an aside.

Occam's Tool| 5.3.11 @ 6:59PM

Newbie: Top Ten. But you forgot Maltese Falcon, Casablanca, and The Big Sleep. Nobody, nobody, tops Bogie at his best.

Cpm| 5.4.11 @ 1:07AM

Excuse me, but the Mifune character you described was played by Horst Buchholz in The Magnificent Seven.

JimH| 5.4.11 @ 8:07AM

It was more than the number of good guys. The personalities and skills where similar as well.

squalis| 5.3.11 @ 10:12AM

Don't agree. Don't know too many actors, past or present (Olivier aside) with the range of Johnny Depp, from Sleepy Hollow, to Sweeney Todd to the Pirates of the Caribbean. Although his politics are grotesquely perverted, I have never seen a performance as powerful as Penn's in Mystic River. Heston in Ben Hur came close. Having seen both, I also prefer the recent release of True Grit. As Thornberry is a Rays fan, though, he can be forgiven.

squalis| 5.3.11 @ 10:14AM

Oh, and please don't ask me to stop listening to Springsteen.

Occam's Tool| 5.3.11 @ 7:04PM

Superior remake: "Miller's Crossing" was a better version of "The Glass Key." "The Maltese Falcon" was a remake of "Satan Met a Lady."

And, although I hate the guy as a human being, for playing people with seriously conflicted psyches with strange twists, Mel Gibson's performance as Hamlet kicks Olivier's. I'm deadly serious on this. Mel doesn't have to reach hard to find his inner psycho.

Occam's Tool| 5.3.11 @ 7:05PM

Oh, and "Twelve Monkeys" was better than the weird piece of French stop action crap it was based on.

Ricahrd| 5.3.11 @ 9:27PM

But Hamlet was not a psycho.

Occam's Tool| 5.4.11 @ 1:25AM

Yes, yes, Hamlet was psychotic. Bleueler's 4 As of schizophrenia: Autism, Association, Ambivalence, Affect. Ambivalence to the point of psychosis with Hamlet. In my day job, I'm a UCLA trained Board Certified psychiatrist.

Occam's Tool| 5.4.11 @ 1:28AM

Sorry. Bleuler's 4 As.

mames| 5.4.11 @ 2:55AM

Whoa hold on their old guy. Great acting and stature comes along in every age. Valentino, Chaplin, Guiness, Hoffman, Heston, Davis, Deniro, Jolie, Pitt, Denzel, Clooney............. I think you are talking about the studio era and the hyping of a "star" rather than great acting and solid movie making.

FakeEagle| 5.3.11 @ 7:49AM

....and Get Smart should NEVER have been remade. There's just no substitute for Don Adams and Barbara Feldon.

tim1003| 5.3.11 @ 8:33PM

Ditto for McHale's Navy!!

Larry| 5.3.11 @ 7:56AM

And with all due respect to the author of the article, "The Wizard of Oz" (1939 version) was also a remake. It's a classic, no doubt. Most people are unaware of that. Once a film achieves "classic" status, Hollywood dolts should leave it alone. What's the point of remaking and no doubt f'ing up a classic?

Jack Olson| 5.3.11 @ 8:45AM

In a filmed interview, Heston commented that (today) "it costs too much to make a movie, it costs too much to promote a movie, and it costs too much to go to the movies, and I don't know any solution to it." He pointed out that even the cheapest summer rom-com costs more to make today than it cost to make "The Ten Commandments."

I was curious enough to look for the answer. I may have found it. I compared the credits from the original "All The King's Men" to those for the Sean Penn remake. There were sixty names in the credits in the original. There were six hundred names in the credits of the remake, including a music credit for Huey Long. So, if Heston is right and it simply costs too damn much money to make a movie today, then first, you can't blame the studios for producing remakes and sequels of proven successes instead of risking their money on anything fresh and new. For anything new, you must go to see "independent" movies with lower budgets but perhaps more creativity. If it costs too damn much money to make movies today, that may be because production values have gotten so good that it takes an army of people to meet audiences' expectations. That would also explain why what you see on the screen nowadays is so often computer generated images.

LMajito| 5.3.11 @ 10:05AM

that's why i more often than not pick the independent genre to select movies i watch...of course, there's a lot of garbage in here but one takes good with old...

excepting the end of million dollar baby, i liked the grit of that girl and to me represents the true spirit that made America great...common folks that turn into extraordinary humans by their vision, sheer will and determination...need that back...we're too comfortable and have become a nation of wussies

mames| 5.4.11 @ 3:01AM

With the advent of new film technology melded with the computer making a movie can be far more cost effective than when Heston made his comments. For instance we now live in a new "golden age" of television where great movie making and great series are made with these newer methods to great effect. The one thing that has happened is that acting roles are more plentiful as the tube tries to fill the content demand and as a consequence salaries may see a decline.

Le Cracquere| 5.3.11 @ 8:46AM

The main problem is with filmmakers who manifestly have nothing to add to the original. Such a remake is AT BEST a mere retread; at worst, you get "Sgt. Bilko."

But I have no problem with remaking a movie that NEEDS remaking, or to which a remake can add something. If the original movie contained good ideas that were mishandled, or inadequately explored, or could be taken in a fruitfully different direction, then by all means, do it. "Ocean's Eleven," anyone? "The Fly"?

mames| 5.4.11 @ 3:06AM

Lets all agree to strike two words form thee discussions

Film making - you make movies (moving pictures) using film or digital formats, Kodak and others are film makers

Stars - there are no "stars" ( they are heavenly bodies - ya ya I know some of them do have heavenly bodies) in the business only actors.

Bill| 5.3.11 @ 9:10AM

"The Magnificent Seven" was one of the rare remakes that equals the original.

Execrable remakes of good originals:

The remake of "Bedazzled;"

"The Children's Hour" compared with "These Three"

"Rich and Famous" compared with "Old Acquaintance"

"Cousins" vs. "Cousin, Cousine."

C. S. P. Schofield| 5.3.11 @ 9:12AM

I think the rule should probably be; Remakes should only be contemplated when

A) There has been a significant change in film technology, as between the two Ben Hur's .

B) The remake is making a deliberate shift in culture and/or language, as between Seven Samurai and Magnificent Seven

Thus; 3:10 To Yuma fails because there is no appreciable shift in the technology used to film Westerns, but War Of The Worlds gets a pass, because CGI has made filming the devastation caused by the Martian tripods (and the actual tripods, for that matter) far more practical.

And if somebody decided to do ANOTHER War Of The Worlds using the original setting of Edwardian England, that too would get a pass, because of the shift between 'filming in current day' and 'filming as written' (cultural shift)

donserge| 5.3.11 @ 9:13AM

Since the 1910's movies and plots have been remade and remade again more than most people realize. Many of the remakes are better than the originals but whether they are or are not is the opinion of the viewers. I.E. The 1930 Raffles is better than Barrymore's, among other versions, but To Catch a Thief is the best; but then again that is MY opinion....

Cromulent| 5.3.11 @ 9:46AM

If someone can tell me that Helen does something sexy in Arthur I'll pay my money and leave the wife at home, thank you.

But she'll never have a role as good as Insp. Jane Tennison.

mames| 5.4.11 @ 3:08AM

What a woman. She is not the most beautiful lady in the world but her style and certitude exudes sex appeal. My wife agrees. :)

fleegl| 5.3.11 @ 10:40AM

I have a list of movies which should never be remade. I will not post it here, because I know what will happen if I do. (I just know that somebody is watching.)

I will, though, mention one of these movies
which has been remade, and the damage done aleady.

That movie is "The Ladykillers". The only reason I can see to remake this gem of a movie is to turn it into a foul-mouthed piece of trash. If that was the goal they succeded very well.

Petronius| 5.3.11 @ 10:51AM

The one remake that made it is in the pantheon of all time greats. The Sound of Music was released less than two years after Disney Studios' The Trapp Family, which will never be seen again as it has been destroyed under restrictive covenant. The Disney Co. will even deny the film was ever made. I dearly hope somebody out there has a still photo, poster, or some article of ephemera from it. If anybody who worked on it lives, come forward and tell what you know.

CJohnson| 5.3.11 @ 12:51PM

The Mummy, King Kong and Godzilla keep improving.

Michael| 5.3.11 @ 2:41PM

1) I agree, unless you are going to take the movie in a different direction or viewpoint, don't do a remake. 2) John Wayne in "True Grit" was in a different sort of western character, that was the difference between his many other westerns. 3) Godzilla keeps improving? The only thing people remember from that last edition was the Taco Bell commercial!! "Here, lizard, lizard, lizard". (See You Tube)

C. S. P. Schofield| 5.3.11 @ 6:26PM

If you think that the American Godzilla (which wasn't a bad giant critter film in its own right, it just hasn't the Big Fella, The Lizard King, Godzillaaaaaaa!) is the last 'remake', I have good news for you. There have been several Japanese sequel/remakes, the last one (Godzilla Final Wars) very much in the Destroy All Monsters/ WWF Wrestling in Rubber Suits mode.

JimH| 5.4.11 @ 8:10AM

Lizard king? I recall seeing a lot of eggs in the american version. I don't know where Baby Godzilla came from in the Japanese movies.

Doctor Right| 5.3.11 @ 6:54PM

You didn't like "Fargo" or "Raising Arizona"..???

Too bad. Great movies, both of them.

Occam's Tool| 5.3.11 @ 7:07PM

Yes, Dr. R. But I liked "Blood Simple" better. And "Miller's Crossing."

Stuart Koehl| 5.3.11 @ 7:26PM

Hated Blood Simple.

But the best Coen Brothers movie is O Brother, Where Art Thou?

Occam's Tool| 5.4.11 @ 1:26AM

Oh, my dear Stuart, you are not married to an Alabama woman. Hated O Brother, where art Thou? to maintain the family peace.

mames| 5.4.11 @ 3:10AM

Clooneys best work to date.

JimH| 5.4.11 @ 8:11AM

That movie being a retelling of the Odyssey.

mames| 5.4.11 @ 8:28AM

I hear a si reen!

Richard| 5.3.11 @ 9:29PM

The Heston Ben-Hur was a 1959 release, not 1957.

JWTowns| 5.3.11 @ 9:57PM

The novel I AM LEGEND has been made three time. The first with Vincent Price, which follows the original storyline more closely, than the Heston remake, OMEGA MAN,which is the better movie, of course, because of the production values and, yes, more action. Which brings me to the most recent remake, Will Smith's I AM LEGEND, a very expensive and horrid piece of filmmaking. NOT worth the ticket price.

mames| 5.4.11 @ 3:13AM

Omega Man was a good movie and Heston and Mathius was a chilling character in his day. Heston had such a healthy attitude toward his craft and understood the melding of art and business.

Cabermon| 5.4.11 @ 12:17AM

"AIRPLANE!" is a far better movie than the original made-for-TV "Terror in the Sky", which had been based on Arthur Hailey's "Runway 08."
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067844/
Funnier, too.
On the other hand, Bob & Doug MacKenzie's "Strange Brew" was no match for anyone's "Hamlet," eh?

Curtis Rasmussen| 5.4.11 @ 12:29AM

John Carpenter's 1982 remake of Howard Hawks' 1951 THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD. The 1951 version scared me as a kid but the paranoid, gruesome, deeply disturbing 1982 version would have kept me awake for days.

harry hawkes| 5.4.11 @ 1:31AM

I have a dvd of Ben Hur, with an interesting voice-over feature by Heston describing how the flick was made, and it sounds a lot like the mess with Cleopatra a few years later. The sets and costumes and all the visual stuff was ready to go at Cinecitte, and there was no script, which had to be cobbled together day by day--which shows in the second half, with all the lepers and Charlton walking around mad all the time. Gore Vidal even worked on writing some scenes. One movie I hope will never get remade is Tillie's Punctured Romance. But a new version of Solomon and Sheba might be interesting to see.

Angel Artiste | 5.4.11 @ 2:36AM

Originals are great because they are original. Remakes can be great because they have the chance to improve on the original's shortcomings. Whether any of these succeed or fail is solely based on the skill and creativity of the filmmakers. The Coen brothers are the greatest filmmakers ot the last 20 years because of these talents.

mames| 5.4.11 @ 3:17AM

MOVIE MAKERS Kodak makes film! :)

Dee See| 5.4.11 @ 7:36AM

---Among the non-Tavistock Institute hypnotized
among us, there's surely consensus agreement on
one point ---Hollywood across the boards has utterly failed to deliver the REAL thing in art,
or even entertainment, much less 'moral vision' for decades now.

mames| 5.4.11 @ 8:30AM

Movies are a true American art form that entertains and sometimes enlightens but when it attempts to enlighten only it falls on its face.

Latest Headlines

From the Obama Ministry of Truth

Ben Stein|51 comments

Despite the WaPost, Benghazi Is a Major Scandal

Quin Hillyer|45 comments

IRS Union Chief Stonewalls

Jeffrey Lord|56 comments

McCain-Feingold Gave Us the IRS Scandal

Ross Kaminsky|105 comments

Anyone Still Believe Me?

Aaron Goldstein|33 comments

The Book We Still Can’t Spare

Lars Walker|48 comments

Delivering Serbs to the Wolves

Doug Bandow|24 comments

Wincing at Cumberbatch

James Bowman|9 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Carney Goes Birther on Major Garrett

Aaron Goldstein | 12:10AM

UPDATED: More on Lerner Pleading the Fifth

Kaylin Bugos | 5.21.13

Did Virginia Republicans Just Elect Terry McAuliffe?

Ross Kaminsky | 5.21.13

Lois Lerner Will Take the Fifth