codyw1 wrote:Traumatised is not the word. I have nightmares about them doing something similiar to Rebecka in some SML remake/unlikely sequel.
...sure. Which is why I dared to bring in Page as the first (!) actress in ten years (!) I've seen that I would at least hesitantly consider to even give a
chance (!). It could still turn out to be a disaster.
So now I know where your nickname comes from! The first Cody Willis
! Not bad. (And of course we haven't
seen "Neighbours" over here but we sure have heard of it: That's were Minogue and Donovan and Imbruglia and all the other singing Aussies on our radio spring from
.)
mpox wrote:There's nothing Hollywood could do to improve this film except invent a time machine and go back in time and give Moodysson better equipment to use.
No! That's where
I disagree: FÅ without the grainy look and the bleached-out colours wouldn't be the film we love. LM chose this documentary-style aesthetics deliberately, it's not that he didn't have decent camera equipment.
Of course I agree that nothing could improve on FÅ. As I said, I don't want a Hollywood remake, God, no! Why should I? I know the original. If there were at least one little thing to say for a remake (against the many, many things against it), then it's that it could draw more people to the original. I think many people who wouldn't normally see Japanese films were drawn to the original "Ring" because of the Naomi Watts movie, and Wim Wenders' "Wings of Desire" is better known for the Nicholas Cage/Meg Ryan remake "City of Angels", exactly because the latter is so abysmally bad
.
Thanks a lot for pointing me to the other films! I've repeatedly been pointed to Hartley, it's time I actually get to see some of his work.