I was in a bookstore the other day and I got totally pissed off.
I was looking at "Newstime" or "Timeweek" or one of those lame-ass magazines and the reviews for Kiss of Death came flying out at me. Both basically had the same complaint: "This movie just isn't as good as the original."
Hell, even when I got home I had Barnett's big mouth coming out of my left ear about it too!
Now I, unlike these Gumps, happened to like Kiss of Death and I can admit it. I think that the most major reason I like it is because I never saw the original. And when I do see it, I will still like the remake.
Let me get back on track and tell you why I'm pissed because I know you care. No, it's not because these guys hated the movie and I liked it. It's because these dorks get all pissed off when a movie says its a remake but don't give a damn when a movie doesn't say it's a remake but it is anyway.
Oh, you know what I'm talking about. These dorks loved Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction and there is not one mention of the fact that both of these movies are lifted from previous material. I guess it must be a secret, don't tell anyone that it's a remake and not one will notice. Then you've got a big hit on your hands.
To quote Sam Neill, "fuck that."
If Kiss of Death had been called "Death Kiss" and there was no mention of the 1940's flick in the press material, I'd bet even money that all of these Gumps would be falling over themselves to praise it. But we'll never know because a new standard has been set: Steal, but don't get caught, or if you do, at least don't tell anyone or --gulp-- admit it.
Ladies and gentlemen, I've heard a lot of crap lately, mostly from critics, about how movies are on the downward spiral and that young viewers are settling for more junk than ever before. That's always been true but now it seems that critics just want to see the same old crap just with new titles. Give me the same thrills, but don't tell me they're the same, okay?
Which brings me back to Kiss of Death. I still haven't seen the original but I know that no body's hand got a hole blown through it, nor was the audience privy to seeing Ving Rhames' head with a big-ass crater in it.
Here we are seeing an old plot with a new look and at least the movie had enough balls to admit it, unlike "Reservoir Dogs on Fire." Critics have to be critics, though, and flex their muscles and let you know that they saw the original (or had a good friend relate the plot to them) and the remake can't possibly stand up because it's a, you know, a remake. Lord knows we can't look at them as separate films, even though they are.
No, I'm not as hypocritical as you think. I know Quentin Tarantino stole Dogs from Fire, but I also know that if I'm going to sit down and watch a movie it's going to be Dogs. He could have had the balls to admit it, but if he did, he might not have that little gold man in his bathroom.
It just goes to show you that movies haven't changed at all; it's just that all of us critics out there suck.