PaulPlowman

The remake only takes the central premise of the original and relocates it to the Deep South. It is not a direct remake, and anyone expecting it to be the same as the original is going to be disappointed. I really think that they should have changed the title. If you give a film the same title, no matter how loose a remake it is people are going to expect it to be the same (see The Italian Job)

...and I imagine that Tom Hanks did it because he wanted to work with the Coen Brothers, who are giants in the American indie scene. They usually produce brilliant films, and this one is a definite blot on their CV.

<- Insert witty comment here ->
ukonscreen.com

Bilmo

I agree with the previous comments 100%. I recently bought what I thought was "Assault on Precinct 13". What a disaster. It was full of foul language and they had completely changed the plot, making out it was the police who were the villains and who were the unseen gunmen. I wish I hadn't bought the film, as it was just another brash film, with loads of special effects, a poor script and gratuitous violence and, of course, sex, sex and more.............

The upshot was that I switched off; the similarity to the original was there, but it just didn't work changing the "baddies". I think they should bring in a law, making it illegal to make re-makes and especially of classic films that are never going to be made better!

They can't remake "The Lavender Hill Mob" and hope us real film buffs will appreciate it; we won't!

vetchbook

I understand that Alec Guinness wanted Audrey Hepburn to have a more substantial role in this great film but due to her theatrical committments, she could not fit it in. I know that Ms Hepburn was a minor actress in a stage musical with Sid James, so good in MOb. Small world, huh?