Good movie ideas that were completely screwed up

[Bliss]

If you were alive in the 70's & didn't own Saturday Night Fever you might be the only one!


I still play the 8 track version in my '77 Monte Carlo's factory-equipped AM, FM, 8 track player. Girls used to dance to it in the street at car shows. Good times.

 

[Waquoit]

Jonah Hex was always one of my favorite comics and should have been a good movie. You could tell the editing was hack work. Even so, I kinda enjoyed it. Brolin nailed Hex I thought. Too bad it was such a bomb.

 

[ZooCougar]

Suicide Squad, New Ghostbusters (Should have been a no brainer with an awesome cast), Watchmen (Too faithful to the book).

 

[intlzncster]

It is very rarely done effectively. The Count of Monte Cristo (2002) is the only example I can think of off the top of my head. Les Miserables doesn't count, as the movie itself was not the adaptation. There have been decent adaptations of A Christmas Carol. The list of adaptations that failed miserably is long (at least in modern film-making) -- Lord of the Flies, Of Mice and Men, Sense and Sensibility, The Man in the Iron Mask . . .

I know it's probably not many people's cup of tea, but I really like the Dicaprio Romeo and Juliet adaptation. At the time, it was very different.

Count of Monte Cristo was awesome.

 

[J187Money]

I'm gonna say Heat. Made in 1995, that was at a time when Deniro was coming off Casino (95) and Goodfellas (90). Pacino was coming off Carlito's Way (93) and Scent of a Woman and Glengarry Glen Ross (92). It fell completely flat for me. Almost 3 hours long, I was really excited to see this one and was really let down.

I watch it about 10x a year. It is on my iPad and is a go-to for me. For the first couple hours anyway. From the bank robbery scene on, it just drags...

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I know it's probably not many people's cup of tea, but I really like the Dicaprio Romeo and Juliet adaptation. At the time, it was very different.

Count of Monte Cristo was awesome.

Luhrman's romeo and Juliet was genius. Why haven't other directors tried something similar with Julius Caesar or Macbeth? After watching that awesomeness, why would anyone ever do a generic Shakespeare again?

 

[storrsroars]

Luhrman's romeo and Juliet was genius. Why haven't other directors tried something similar with Julius Caesar or Macbeth? After watching that awesomeness, why would anyone ever do a generic Shakespeare again?

Coriolanus?

 

[Scalito]

It is very rarely done effectively. The Count of Monte Cristo (2002) is the only example I can think of off the top of my head. Les Miserables doesn't count, as the movie itself was not the adaptation. There have been decent adaptations of A Christmas Carol. The list of adaptations that failed miserably is long (at least in modern film-making) -- Lord of the Flies, Of Mice and Men, Sense and Sensibility, The Man in the Iron Mask . . .

The Counte of Monte Cristo was a disaster. I love that book and have watched multiple adaptations. They all suck, which I find surprising because it is a pretty simple story to tell and seemingly made for the big screen.

Agree on Sense and Sensibility, but there are tons of great Jane Austen adaptations. Pride and Prejudice ×3, Emma, etc.

 

[Scalito]

Luhrman's romeo and Juliet was genius. Why haven't other directors tried something similar with Julius Caesar or Macbeth? After watching that awesomeness, why would anyone ever do a generic Shakespeare again?

Ian McKellan's Richard III.

 

[August_West]

Anything with Nicholas Cage - name a movie with Nicholas Cage, and I can name an actor that would have probably taken the part and made the movie better.

Face Off

 

[8893]

Anything with Nicholas Cage - name a movie with Nicholas Cage, and I can name an actor that would have probably taken the part and made the movie better.

Fast Times at Ridgemont High.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Fast Times at Ridgemont High.

That might be the toughest role to replace Cage, and I am not saying that as a complement to Cage.

 

[Bliss]

Face Off

Gone in 60 Seconds

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Missed some posts. Actors who should have gotten the role instead of Nicholas Cage:

Family Man - Aaron Eckhart - I like this movie. I like most movies involving Wall Street, but Cage has absolutely no credibility as an investment banker, which undermines the movie a little bit. Cage is not credible as a tire salesman either for that matter. Also, Tea Leoni is really good and makes Cage look like a bigger amateur than he already is. Eckhart is a really good actor who should have gotten more first lead roles. He also would have been credible as an investment banker.

Gone in 60 Seconds - Keanu Reaves - If you can look at a movie, and think "Keanu Reaves could have played that role", then anyone could have played that role.

Face Off - 1997 Val Kilmer would have made this movie much better. I would probably switch up Travolta and Kilmer.

 

[nwhoopfan]

Anything with Nicholas Cage - name a movie with Nicholas Cage, and I can name an actor that would have probably taken the part and made the movie better.

Late to the party, but I'll try. I have a hard time seeing anyone else having his role in Honeymoon in Vegas or Matchstick Men.

 

[nwhoopfan]

Gone in 60 Seconds - Keanu Reaves - If you can look at a movie, and think "Keanu Reaves could have played that role", then anyone could have played that role.

I don't know about that. Keanu would've completely changed the character, which would've changed the movie. He's perfect in roles like Neo or John Wick. He wouldn't be able to bring the zaniness that Nic Cage does to this character.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Late to the party, but I'll try. I have a hard time seeing anyone else having his role in Honeymoon in Vegas or Matchstick Men.

Charlie Sheen or Mathew Broderick would have been better in Honeymoon in Vegas. Sarah Jessica Parker chews the scenery of everything she is in so it kind of didn't matter who the guy was.

I haven't seen Matchstick Men.

 

[nwhoopfan]

I haven't seen Matchstick Men.

I thought it was kinda fun. Cage is a con artist w/ a killer case of OCD. Sam Rockwell plays his partner in crime, who is great like he is in everything. Alison Lohman shows up out of nowhere as the daughter he never knew he had, and she totally rocks the boat.


I guess if you don't like Cage, you'd prefer to see him replaced in every movie he's been in. I actually like him. I think he's perfect for some of his roles.

I can't help but think of the bit in City Slickers, where one of the dudes has this thing where he picks the perfect ice cream flavor to compliment any cuisine. Somebody says "he's always right." Somebody else asks "how do you know?" Sort of the same w/ actors that would've been better in Cage's roles. Like THE Dude says "that's just, like, your opinion man."

 

[Chuck]

Missed some posts. Actors who should have gotten the role instead of Nicholas Cage:

Family Man - Aaron Eckhart - I like this movie. I like most movies involving Wall Street, but Cage has absolutely no credibility as an investment banker, which undermines the movie a little bit. Cage is not credible as a tire salesman either for that matter. Also, Tea Leoni is really good and makes Cage look like a bigger amateur than he already is. Eckhart is a really good actor who should have gotten more first lead roles. He also would have been credible as an investment banker.

Gone in 60 Seconds - Keanu Reaves - If you can look at a movie, and think "Keanu Reaves could have played that role", then anyone could have played that role.

Face Off - 1997 Val Kilmer would have made this movie much better. I would probably switch up Travolta and Kilmer.

Two things re Nick Cage: i) He wasn't Nicholas Cage in Fast Times. He was Nicholas Coppola, so that one can be taken out. ii) Nobody could've done Con Air better than him. That's because I truly watched it as a campy action film. More comedy than serious. I've been told I'm wrong and it wasn't a comedy, but I won't buy that. Cage is so bad that he's great.

 

[tzznandrew]