abutterw

Gus Van Sant's adaptation of Psycho is a good one. In fact, it's near perfect. But therein lies the problem with the whole.

Van Sant takes a classic, still revered by today's generations, and dips it in color, changes a few lines of dialogue, and props it up for all to see. He takes no risks, executing things exactly shot-for-shot, and making this the one thing all movies aspire not to be, good or bad: disposable. Why see this when you can see the original in all its groundbreaking glory?

It is somewhat fascinating to see the modern day ensemble act out the infamous parts, including Vince Vaughn's ambitious but overshot performance as Norman Bates, Anthony Perkin's iconic character. The violence is bloodier, the film colorful and vibrant, but what is added that makes this more important then the original? Not a thing.

The dialogue is taken word-for-word, the shots look exactly the same. Even actions and reactions remain intact. One has to wonder if Van Sant even did any work at all, or just took the storyboards and script from the original.

It pains me deeply to see a project that could have been great become something unnecessary: a re-telling instead of a re-imagining.

Van Sant himself claimed he made the film so that "no one else would". If you're not going to do it right, don't do it at all, but again, there is the problem. Van Sant did it right, and that, unfortunately, was the wrong thing to do.

Robert Altman's stirring and ultimately bleak vision of the 70's, The Long Goodbye has been described as "Rip Van Marlowe", with Elliot Gould stumbling as though awoken after 20 years through the psychedelic and bleak landscape of 1970s Los Angeles.

In the film, Elliot Gould plays infamous private detective Philip Marlowe with subtlety and flourish, observing the violent and unnerving acts around him with concern and cynicism. He plays the character of Marlowe perfectly: witty, harsh, and honest.

But that's where the comparison to Chandler ends. If you went into The Long Goodbye expecting Raymond Chandler's masterpiece, you'll come out confused and disappointed. In this version of the film, Mrs. Wade is no longer the golden goddess described, Terry Lennox is a sly, slimeball slickster, and a large number of characters disappear into thin air. The plot has been bent and stretched to fit Altman's vision, and the only seemingly Chandler-esquire part of The Long Goodbye is Roger Wade, played gruffly and expertly by Sterling Hayden.

If you're prepared to see something remarkable, see The Long Goodbye.

If you want to see Raymond Chandler, see something else.

Peter Jackson's King Kong is one of 2005's, and soon to be 2006's, most rewarding films. Not only does it give you that sense of adventure and awe like Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, but it also tells as compelling a story as any good independent feature might.

Before I get into it, yes, the film could be shorter, but even its longest, dull moments are above average then anything we see at the cinema these days.

Peter Jackson's vision of King Kong is one of marvel and mystique, something the original Kong made clear all too well.

If you have seen the original and automatically assume that this is the same story retold in a "newer fashion", you are both wrong and right. The elements that made the original so compelling are still there, but Jackson's own unique stamp is there as well, with constant miniatures and effects shots that would make George Lucas blush.

It seems, to some, that Peter Jackson is the epic version of Steven Spielberg, and I disagree. Both are masters of the art of storytelling, but both are telling different stories.

King Kong is a film all should see, if only as a marker as to what the future holds for good, quality film-making.