it was addressed to headthump 

than the crazy one that suggested the US is a closed society.

Obviously, if the movie is in a foreign language the scope of the viewing audience changes and even with subtitles there are many people who don't like to read while following a movies plot. Still, Iron Monkey, Hong Kong Hustle, Crouching Tiger, and even some of those terribly manneristic movies from Zhang Ziyi did very well.

I would suggest aesthetic preferences of the native audience shape whether or not a movie will be accepted in the original. To many Americans, the pacing of even older Hollywood productions can seem excruciatingly drawn out. As audience experience with the medium matures over time many of the framing devices used to set up scenes are no longer necessary for the narrative to be cogent to the audience. 

Pretty good. A character drama. Some strong roles and very good casting here. I recommend to people.
It's not an Earth shattering movie and doesn't try to be. 

Got this yesterday. Ordered it for my birthday. When I opened the packaging there was no DVD! Rip off! So I sent the packaging back and I should be getting the replacement soon.

I did see it on youtube, so I know it's really good if you're a fan of futurama. Beast with a Billion Backs was not so good. It was kind of stinky to be honest. 

America remakes all good foreign movies so they can make lots of money from it. It's all about the money. 

They would make the same money with much less investment if they just redistributed the original! 

I hate making the same mistake... 

no they wouldnt, hardly anyone would watch it. But if you remake it with young stars, people will. Simple as that. 

it wouldn't be the same guys receiving the money?! 

1. american actors speaking english will have a much broader audience than foreign actors speaking a foreign language, even if the movie is otherwise the same.

2. and anyway, it creates lots of jobs for actors and crewmembers to remake these movies. Importing a movie only requires a handful of people to subtitle and distribute it, not good for the economy. We must reduce our dependence on foreign film! 

much broader audience

I mean a broader audience within the US, if that wasn't clear. 

that was exactly the answer I was asking for.

And then, why would hardly anyone watch it if it was foreign.

Or why would harly anyone watch it in Finland if it was not made in Hollywood? As far as I know, the original Ring was not in theaters around here, but the american remake was. It can't be just the language. 

#1 because humans are too narrow-minded and don't want anything different to what they are used to. if that happens the rule it out straight away. americans in particular only want to watch american movies.

#2 we want to watch movies we can relate to ourselves.

i don't mind watching foreign movies with subs, but most less-avid-moviegoers hate subs. you get used to them pretty quick though. 

want to watch movies for fun, I'm sure no one disputes that??

So therefore, its really not all that weird that most people would rather watch a film in the language they understand rather than a language that they have to read to understand. 

Much easier and much less expensive than remaking the thing completely. Less intense too, but that's another issue. 

The Office?

I've seen a few pieces of both the British and the US version (I don't know how much the US version is a remake and how much it is just inspired by the original), both were good.

It can't be the language... 

after all, there are UK, US, French, German, Canadian (Quebec), and Chilean versions of the show.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Office

The British version only ran 14 episodes, and you need 23 for a standard prime time series run in the US, so mute point. 

get shuffled to a station called PBS - Public Broadcasting Service. I don't know what is in on there now except for Upstairs/Downstairs (I think it still runs), and BBC nightly news report. I don't watch the station much now but I do recall as a kid watching Monty Python, Are You Being Served, Fawlty (sp?) Towers, and best of all reruns of The Avengers. 

now except for Upstairs/Downstairs (I think it still runs)

I was thinking of Eastenders which does run on the local PBS affiliate. Upstairs, Downstairs reruns were commonly shown in the 80's but not I doubt if they do now. 

Despite being one of the funniest shows of all time, the UK office only had 14 eps. Now someone thought, we could make our own version of this, use the first 12 eps as a template and then just see how many (US) seasons we can get out of this.

Currently upto season 4 which is about 80 odd episodes so there you go.

Plus theres something to each culture having a different brand of humour so the the different versions all tweak it for the local audience. Whether they are superior/inferior is another question. 

Under the Sand (2000) - one of Francois Ozon's better films, mainly due to a superb performance from Charlotte Rampling as a woman struggling to come to terms with an accident that befalls her husband. Ozon's direction is restrained and allows Rampling to carry an otherwise straightforward plot.

7/10


Nosferatu (1979) - I found this to be heaps better than Coppola's version of Dracula and mainly because Werner Herzog plays it as a gothic tragedy rather than campy horror. I guess if you're looking for the horror, you wont like it as much as I did, but the combination of some terrific imagery and a haunting soundtrack does still lend it an uneasy atmosphere. Klaus Kinski makes for an interesting Dracula, all tortured and self pitying, and with far more depth for this character than in any other incarnation of him I have come across. And when you add to that some good supporting performances from Isabelle Adjani and Bruno Ganz, you end up with a very satisfying if unconventional experience.

7.5/10


Paper Moon (1973) - not sure about Tatum O'Neal getting an oscar, but this is otherwise a pretty entertaining little film from Peter Bogdanovich. Set in depression era america, it's a road movie of sorts that deftly combines comedy and drama in the story of a drifter conman who takes his maybe daughter along with him when her mother dies. I hadnt seen Ryan O'Neal do much comedy before but he's pretty good at it, although everyone is upstaged by Madeline Kahn in a great little cameo. Also the cinematography by Lazlo Kovacs is brilliant.

7.5/10


Roman Holiday (1953) - went in thinking I wouldn't really like this and it is quite corny in parts but, in the end, Audrey Hepburn's charm just wins you over. William Wyler also makes great use of the location shooting in Rome. But it really is Hepburn that makes this work, tremendous screen presence.

7.5/10


Peeping Tom (1960) - released in the same year as Psycho and it's hard to believe that, although similarly themed, one film cemented the reputation of a great filmmaker while the other destroyed the reputation of its maker. Michael Powell went from Britain's darling to Britain's scapegoat with the release of what is really a great film. There's a few flaws, particularly the way in which some characters only serve the purpose of moving the narrative in a certain direction, but on the whole, its quite a complex psychological movie that messes with your head. Without getting into specific plot details, the movie follows, or rather participates the viewer in, the life of a murderous voyeur who is fascinated with his victims' dying expression of terror.

Every scene shows remarkable talent and is setup beautifully and if it wasn't for some convenient plotting and the flaw mentioned above, it would be an absolute masterpiece.

8/10


Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008) - cant say I find too many of these Judd Apatow 'comedies' to be all that funny but some of them, like Knocked Up, do work as a dramedy. This one also has only a couple of actually funny parts (some of Russell Brand's line delivery is great and the Dracula rock opera is reasonably inspired), but thanks to Mila Kunis and Kristen Bell, it works to an extent as lightweight drama.

6/10 (just)


Cassandra's Dream (2007) - If Match Point was a return to form for Woody Allen, then Scoop and this make sure it was only a temporary return. Covering similar territory to his far superior Crimes and Misdemeanours, Allen makes a plodding film that, despite good performances from Colin Farrell, Ewan McGregor and the always reliable Tom Wilkinson, is just flat in every regard. The direction and writing are just downright bizarre, lacking any real energy and resulting in the whole movie feeling like a stage rehearsal rather than an actual film.

5-5.5/10


It Happened One Night (1934) - well now I know where Bugs Bunny came from. Clark Gable's inspired performance in Frank Capra's enjoyable screwball comedy had to have some bearing on the way that Looney Tunes character talked and acted. It helps that Gable has some great dialogue to work with but half of the greatness still comes from the manner in which it is delivered. The movie itself is excellent, with very good rapport between the cast, and only a slightly weak last act takes off a little bit of the sheen.

7-7.5/10


Ride the High Country (1962) - before Sam Packinpah started creating his own brand of Western, he paid homage to the old style John Fordish western with this movie. I much prefer Peckinpah and Leone's style of western than Ford's but this is quite a solid, well made if predictable and unremarkable film. Everything is of pretty high quality but in the end, this particular style is just not to my taste.

6.5/10 

Straw Dogs (1971) - beautifully shot, superbly acted and extremely well directed film that is a psychologically complex, if a little confused, take on the nature of violence. That it manages to mostly achieve that without resorting to much on screen violence (although the scenes that are there are just as uncomfortable to watch as they would have been back on release) is a testament to Peckinaph's control over the material and Dustin Hoffman's acting skills.

The first 2/3 is a brilliantly controlled exercise in stretched out psychological suspense, so much so that when it eventually gives way to the visceral last 1/3, it does not quite gel as it should. Otherwise, an excellent film that at the very least will leave you thinking.

7.5/10


Young Mr Lincoln (1939) - its pretty hard to portray earnestness on film without getting too oversentimental and I find that John Ford usually is quite guilty of that, but this time he manages to do it in this 'biography' of Abraham Lincoln's formative years. I say 'biography' because it is definitely not historically accurate but as I dont really rate that as too much of a virtue, I had no real issues with this approach.

The film is fairly simplistic in its structure, you dont really learn anything about Lincoln and it is squarely in the iconography style of filmmaking which I do think limit its scope and impact if you are not american Still, its amazingly shot (some of the framing has to be seen to be believed) and Henry Fonda puts in a terrific performance and is the reason for most of the film's success.

6.5/10


Bad Timing (1980) - Nicolas Roeg's fascinating exploration of love, hate, obsession and memory will not be for everyone (some if it is quite uncomfortable to sit through) but its definitely a very worthwhile experience for anyone willing to go with it. Its quite simplistic from a plot and character point of view, the movie starting out with a man (Art Garfunkel) bringing a woman (Teresa Russell) to a hospital in Vienna after what looks like an overdose, and the rest of the film, through disjointed flashbacks bringing the movie back to that point.

But Roeg employs his trademark associative editing style in such a manner that the simple plot becomes a complex and very interesting narrative, although admittedly some of the impact is lost through a curious bookending of the movie with a police investigation into the events. Both leads are superb, especially Russell, in what are difficult roles, especially since neither character is really all that likeable.

7.5/10 

an interview of him
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Movies/10/02/mikeleigh.screeningroom/index.html?iref=intlOnlyonCNN
Now it all starts making sense why Happy Go Lucky had such special personalities and scenes. 

Little Caesar (1931) - solid if unexceptional old gangster film with the only notable aspect being Edward G Robinson's central performance as a Scarface type criminal which obviously laid down the template for many to imitate over the years. The rest of it is fairly pedestrian but Robinson makes sure that every scene he is in is interesting.

6.5/10


Iron Man (2008) - fairly solid comic book movie that suffers a bit from dodgy pacing at the start where it�s a bit too frenetic to successfully establish character and from an end that�s too anticlimactic. The middle section of the film is the best, where it deftly combines humour and action (the extended action sequence in the middle of the film is excellently staged). The cast is fine, although despite Jeff Bridges' best efforts, his character is a pretty weak villain.

7/10


Il Bidone (1952) - Although I'm not a huge fan of his later, more self-conscious and self-indulgent films like La Dolce Vita and 8 1/2, I quite like Fellini's earlier more simpler films.

This falls into the second category (despite an unnecessarily long and showy party scene in the middle which seems like a test run for the even longer one in La Dolce Vita), following a team of low level swindlers around the outskirts of Rome. It's not a con film, but rather about the people who have to resort to live this style of life. The acting varies from in quality but Fellini makes up for that by establishing and developing most of his characters through a combination of Nino Rota's excellent score and some very fluid camerawork.

7/10


The Day The Earth Stood Still (1951) - equal parts corny and impressive science fiction film from the 50's when concept mattered more than special effects. It will be interesting to see how the new remake turns out but I think its very likely that ideology will be reversed.

Although this version is considered a classic, I found it to have too many gaping plot holes and inconsistencies. But the central concept is interesting (spaceship lands on earth, everyone panics thinking its an attack and doesn�t realise the alien wants to communicate something, alien is attacked and assimilates into society, panic escalates etc), if awkwardly handled, and Robert Wise sets up his scenes very well and gets some pretty solid work from Patricia Neal (although hers is probably the only good performance).

6.5/10


The Ox Bow Incident (1943) - like a 'western' version of 12 Angry Men except that even though Henry Fonda again plays the moral centre of the movie, he does not take action as he did in Lumet's film. Which leaves William Wellman with a difficult task that despite his best attempts comes across as a bit too preachy in the final 5 min when the 'message' is literally read out to the audience. Till then, it�s a pretty fine film with tremendous atmosphere, a variety of interesting characters and great use of light and shadow.

6.5/10


Exiled (2006) - I've found his previous films to be lacking but Johhny To finally arrives with this one, a successful blend of the movies of Peckinpah, Leone and Melville. Eschewing the usual genre trappings of the asian crime genre, To manages to imbue his movie with a cinematic language that doesn�t require dialogue for communication, just mere gestures, glances and tics do the work. His characters say a lot without actually talking too much and To also uses this drawn out communication to ratchet up the suspense in particular scenes with minimal effort. As for the action scenes, they are some of the best in recent memory and also accompanied by a brilliant score.

I'm now actually looking forward to his upcoming english remake of Melville's classic Le Cercle Rouge.

7.5/10


Crimson Rivers (2001) - french serial killer movie with a plot so ridiculous that Agatha Christie would be proud. Matthieu Kossowitz seems to realise that his plot is silly and decides to try and distract you from it with some stunning imagery and finely executed set pieces. This ploy works well enough, as do the leads in Jean Reno and Vincent Cassel, but when the it all comes together you still end up forgetting all the good stuff and only remember the implausibility of it all.

5.5/10 

I read "Iron Man" and started thing about the Ted Hughes story.

Nitin's review then didn't make much sense :)