Search results

A lot will depend on who is hired to play the bunch.

Harrison Ford is too old at 76 years old.

That's why I asked for clarification. IMO, the 1939 film is superior, but it's only 87 minutes long while the 1957 film is almost 20 minutes longer and more sentimental which is probably why almost every woman I've dated in the last 30 years or so absolutely loves the 1957 film.

It depends on what's your definition of diminishing returns? Home video has been good to some of those remakes while the 1957 version has become kind of an iconic romantic film and home video has helped it in that regard.

Yes, "The Wild Bunch" is a masterpiece, but in my opinion that doesn't necessarily mean it shouldn't be remade. I'm against remakes of masterpieces if they're done like "Psycho" which duplicated the original shot by shot except in color. I'm not against remakes if they're done with a the same...

You guys just kill me.

Any western being made today is alright with me. Some are great like "Open Range" some are pretty good like "True Grit" while others are just okay like "The Magnificent Seven". TBH, I wish Spielberg or Scorsese would do a western because they studied the film masters of old and would right by...

It doesn't have to be in order to be a good film to me.

I consider "The Wild Bunch" as one of my top five favorite films. It's up there with "The Searchers" and "Night of the Hunter" to name a few of my all-time favorites. With that said, I have very few qualms about them doing a remake. Mel Gibson and I are about the same age so I think he'll do...