ScourgiousJinx
Master Member
This was one of the very few times I liked a remake better. Not that the original is horribly awful, just not my thing. I doubt I'll ever watch either again.
Road House (remake)
- Thread starter ghostryder
- Start date
universaljoint
New Member
I get the attachment that people have to older movies. But when a remake is done, obviously to make money, usually it's just retelling a basic story using a modern approach for a contemporary audience.
The original movie is still there to be watched. So it's not like it's gone.
Are they better overall? In this case, for me, it's better. But in reality it's such a basic plot. And both are okay simple on the brain movies.
Heck, both are just a remake of the Magnificent Seven, except with 1 person. Which we all know is a remake of the Magnificent Seven, a remake of The Seven Samurai. And we've seen this basic plot in SO many movies. Ever see the Three Amigos? It's the Magnificent Seven minus Four. But it doesn't really matter as long as people are entertained. Stories are retold to fit audience of the day, not yesterday.
The original movie is still there to be watched. So it's not like it's gone.
Are they better overall? In this case, for me, it's better. But in reality it's such a basic plot. And both are okay simple on the brain movies.
Heck, both are just a remake of the Magnificent Seven, except with 1 person. Which we all know is a remake of the Magnificent Seven, a remake of The Seven Samurai. And we've seen this basic plot in SO many movies. Ever see the Three Amigos? It's the Magnificent Seven minus Four. But it doesn't really matter as long as people are entertained. Stories are retold to fit audience of the day, not yesterday.
Wrong. The original IS a classic. This remake is one of the worst movies I’ve seen. McGregor is unironically awful.
HeartBlade
Sr Member
Coming in as someone who has never seen the original.
It wasnt bad but it felt...off. I dont know what it is but wasnt as super campy as I expected and Dalton seemed more like a roaming warrior coming in to fix local problems which Im not sure is supposed to be the case.
Honestly, I thought McGregor was good and I liked the Mexican sidekick (my bike is the red one guy) for the bad guys. They added that campy levity that was needed, McGregor playing a straight bad guy that just wants to fight strong guys and kill. While I dont think McGregor has range or is a good actor, I do think he is great in roles like this and its nice that he isnt so arrogant that he needs a "I cant be shown losing on screen" clause. He would make a great action villain.
I do agree that casting Gyllenhaal was off. Some of his quips didnt work although I did think he looked intimidating and could throw down. Thing is, I dont know who would be the right fit for this role.
Maybe the movie's tone was off. The first half was good but felt the later half seemed a bit more fantastical.
It wasnt bad but it felt...off. I dont know what it is but wasnt as super campy as I expected and Dalton seemed more like a roaming warrior coming in to fix local problems which Im not sure is supposed to be the case.
Honestly, I thought McGregor was good and I liked the Mexican sidekick (my bike is the red one guy) for the bad guys. They added that campy levity that was needed, McGregor playing a straight bad guy that just wants to fight strong guys and kill. While I dont think McGregor has range or is a good actor, I do think he is great in roles like this and its nice that he isnt so arrogant that he needs a "I cant be shown losing on screen" clause. He would make a great action villain.
I do agree that casting Gyllenhaal was off. Some of his quips didnt work although I did think he looked intimidating and could throw down. Thing is, I dont know who would be the right fit for this role.
Maybe the movie's tone was off. The first half was good but felt the later half seemed a bit more fantastical.
Last edited:
universaljoint
New Member
Is that what we're doing on this site? Calling someone wrong over the definition of what constitutes a classic movie?
I guess you're right... From a certain point of view. It's indeed a classic as defined as being a very old movie at 35 years old.
I can see it now.. 100 years from now, when discussing the great classics of the 20th and 21st centuries...
Today, we're going to discuss the cinematic classics of the past: Lawrence of Arabia, Casablanca, Apocalypse Now. 2001 A Space Odyssey, M.A.S.H., Star Wars, and oh yes, and Road House 1989....
But, in no way did I suggest anywhere in my opinion that anyone can't like the original more. Enjoy it more. It's not like either are anything special as far as stories and acting goes.
Though one point I do 100% agree with you on, is that MMA Connor dick. He IS not only a horrific "actor", but a barely a human being in real life. I don't think there's a need to digress into my opinion him here any further.
That said, they couldn't have picked a better guy to make you want protagonist to beat the **** out of.
Last edited:
What we do here, in threads like this, is express our opinions. By definition, if we have different opinions on something, each of us thinks the other is “wrong” on that point. One shouldn’t consider that an insult.
Not all classics are classic because they are cinematic masterpieces (eg a cult classic). If this movie isn’t considered a classic, no one would have put millions of dollars into a remake of it 35 years later.
When I was a kid I thought Revenge of the Ninja, Beast Master, Ice Pirates were oscar winning movies. Then I grew up and rewatched them in high school and realized.....that's not a giant black panther it's a tiger they spray painted black and these are B movies.
Taking an old 80's B movie and remaking it today is such a coked out idea you gotta respect it.
Taking an old 80's B movie and remaking it today is such a coked out idea you gotta respect it.
Solo4114
Master Member
I mean, people are always saying "Why don't they remake old movies that weren't that great?!?!" Well...here ya go.
The old one isn't that great. It's absurd and funny, but it wasn't intended to be. It was filmed and marketed as a straight up action flick back when Swayze was doing action flicks (Red Dawn, Roadhouse, and Next of Kin, to be specific). It's just that Roadhouse became a "classic" because of the cheese factor and some of the ridiculous lines like "Pain don't hurt."
But let's not pretend that this is great cinema for the ages. It's a fun, goofy action movie from the 80s and...that's it.
Zuiun
Sr Member
I love the original for what it is: Campy, goofy, almost takes itself too seriously for its own good (like a lot of these types of movies from the 80's).
I thought this remake was fine. The first good decision they made was to NOT try to take themselves too seriously. This movie knows exactly what it is and never tries to fool the audience. I liked how they threw in some subtle references to the original, but without really jumping up and down and waving at them (such as the western story of "Wade" protecting the Double X saloon).
The only thing I didn't really care for was making Dalton a famous (infamous?) fighter that everyone recognized. It took away some of the fun of having everyone underestimate him.
There was talk of doing a remake with Ronda Rousey, which I think actually could have worked similar to "I thought you'd be bigger" by going with "I thought you'd be a man." Curious what that version would have been...
I thought this remake was fine. The first good decision they made was to NOT try to take themselves too seriously. This movie knows exactly what it is and never tries to fool the audience. I liked how they threw in some subtle references to the original, but without really jumping up and down and waving at them (such as the western story of "Wade" protecting the Double X saloon).
The only thing I didn't really care for was making Dalton a famous (infamous?) fighter that everyone recognized. It took away some of the fun of having everyone underestimate him.
There was talk of doing a remake with Ronda Rousey, which I think actually could have worked similar to "I thought you'd be bigger" by going with "I thought you'd be a man." Curious what that version would have been...
Remember when they did this with TV show's in the early 2000's. They made Charlies Angles, Starsky and Hutch, Dukes of Hazzard, 21 Jump Street all as goofy cheeseball movies.
universaljoint
New Member
So many bad movies... But they all had the common trend of not taking themselves serious. I think that went too far in some cases.
But then there were Mission Impossible movies. A 100% remake of a series that had as much in common with the movies as Prime Trek has with Discovery or SNW.
The Dukes of Hazzard 2005 one directed by Jay Chandrasekhar from Broken Lizard was pretty funny to me. And when someone from Broken Lizard is involved, I tend to like it more than not. I mean, he wasn't stellar in Community...
HeartBlade
Sr Member
Definitely did not take itself seriously which was nice. I just feel that someone who was better with witty one-liners would have made the movie better. There were some instances where Wade was saying a one-liner which wouldnt make sense at that point (one liners are usually when the person is winning or still feels confident in the fight imo).
To be fair, it is the UFC and I think Wade was a smaller fighter, not a champion so his name wouldnt be that well known. I also dont think the average joe knows who Khabib Nurmagomedov, Jon Jones, or Demetrious Johnson are even though they are literal GOATs of the sport. McGregor and Rousey got alot of press attention which makes them an exception. Wade should have gotten some attention for killing a man in the ring though and the UFC shut down.
I think those talks were during the huge Rousey hype were Joe Rogan legitimately pushed the opinion that Rousey could take Mayweather so Rousey facing up against a male opponent saying "I thought you were a man" would fit.
Zuiun
Sr Member
Except within the film, Dalton WAS well known, especially because he killed a man in the ring. Many of the main players recognized him and knew who he was.
Zuiun
Sr Member
Except it's not a shot-for-shot remake...
Except you’re wrong. It is.
Zuiun
Sr Member
Other than a few homage shots intended to call back to the original, the film is most certainly NOT a shot-for-shot remake. Based on the same original story / premise, yes, but calling it shot-for-shot is like calling the new Dune shot-for-shot the David Lynch film.
