Speilberg's Next Film, Remake of HARVEY! Tom Hanks/Will Smith Up for Leads

[romantico]

Posted: 8/2/09 at 4:45pm

I was hoping Spielberg would FINALLY get around to directing his long awaited biography of Abraham Lincoln with Liam Neeson,but that film has been shelved so many times by Spielberg I doubt it will ever be made.Seriously? Do we need this? Spielberg has done enough remakes with War of the Worlds and a Guy Named Joe,why do another? My guess is Shia or Tom Hanks will be the star. Ugh!

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/41905

*****UPDATED*******

Ugh! This gets more depressing by the minute. Up for the leads are Tom Hanks and Will Smith.

http://www.empireonline.com/news/feed.asp?NID=25470

Updated On: 8/4/09 at 04:45 PM

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 8/2/09 at 4:55pm

The last I heard about this film is that it was a vehicle for Jim Carrey. But that was over a year ago so it could have changed since.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 8/2/09 at 5:36pm

Ick. A lot will depend on casting. Who in their right mind would try to follow James Stewart?

Ah, well. Spielberg ceased being essential viewing a while back. This HARVEY remake, if it happens, is just too easy.

[nmartin]

Posted: 8/2/09 at 6:10pm

There is currently no one who can even come close to Josephine Hull.

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 8/2/09 at 8:13pm

I didn't even like it with Jimmy Stewart, and he's my favorite actor. As for Speilberg, other than Jaws, Close Encounters... and Duel, I hate him as a director.

[bschneid76]

Posted: 8/2/09 at 8:28pm

Meh, why one earth would you want to remake Harvey!?! It is already a perfect film. Josephine Hall and James Stewart are amazing. No one can outdo them.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 8/2/09 at 9:22pm

I didn't even like it with Jimmy Stewart, and he's my favorite actor. As for Speilberg, other than Jaws, Close Encounters... and Duel, I hate him as a director."

Awww, PLEASE don't discredit THE COLOR PURPLE and SCHINDLERS LIST. Each of those films are arguably the best of their decades.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 8/2/09 at 10:01pm

And MUNICH. And SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. I think Speilberg is a genius.

He's spewed out some flops, to be sure but there have been quite a few masterpieces in there. E.T. is one of my, if not my number one, favorite movies of all time.

[romantico]

Posted: 8/2/09 at 10:03pm

I consider Empire of the Sun and Munich masterpieces. However,with Spielberg its hit or miss. War of the Worlds was an abomination but I did enjoy Amistad and even The Lost World. I am convinced no matter how talented the director,it all comes down to the script and we all know the story to Harvey.I wish if these filmmakers felt the need to remake a movie they would at least stay clear of the classics that were done right the first time.Why not do a remake of a film that was so so? I would love to see Spielberg tackle something like Ishtar or Hudson Hawke or Bonfire of the Vanities.

Why does Spielberg feel he needs to re-imagine another film? In my opinion, it's beneath the filmmaker. I am so disappointed that Tim Burton has sold out and stopped thinking up fresh material like Beetlejuice or Edward Scissorhands.I'm really sad that Spielberg feels he needs to remake films at this point in his career.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/2/09 at 10:19pm

Dawson would be so disappointed in you, Steve.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 8/2/09 at 10:28pm

Joe, I think I just fell in love with you for saying that. LOL

[#1Elphie]

Posted: 8/2/09 at 10:44pm

I like the original version of Harvey very much, and I see absolutely no need for a remake. What's the point? I agree with those who have said that Speilberg needs to stop with the remakes.

[BroadwayBound062]

Posted: 8/2/09 at 10:44pm

I love Harvey so I am excited about this...

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 8/2/09 at 11:26pm

I like the way you all just start listing names of Speilberg films, as if I've forgotten what he's directed. I hate him as a director. Even if you all love him, doesn't alter that fact. Saving Private Ryan is nothing more than an overblown episode of the television show, Combat. Only, not as well directed or acted, with a bloated opening sequence which has absolutely nothing to do with the paltry narrative that follows.

[Marquise]

Posted: 8/3/09 at 6:35am

^ I reckon u just then done told 'em JohnBoy. Don't *you* feel special?

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 8/3/09 at 7:51am

^I guess you just done told me Marquise. Don't you feel special?!

[Roscoe]

Posted: 8/3/09 at 9:40am

The relentlessly idiotic MINORITY REPORT was the last straw for me. I now only do Spielberg's films if there really seems to be a compelling reason to do so. I saw MUNICH and WAR OF THE WORLDS because MUNICH got a lot of serious attention, and WAR OF THE WORLDS because it was a summer weekend and I had out of town guests who wanted to see it.

I liked MUNICH a good deal, with some reservations. I liked WAR OF THE WORLDS even more, until that really just outlandish family-friendly ending pretty well botched the whole film for me.

[madbrian]

Posted: 8/3/09 at 9:45am

Taken at face value, this seems like a bad idea. It goes to a truly awful idea if the name Tom Hanks is associated with the project.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 8/3/09 at 10:17am

Well, come to think of it, the only thing less interesting than Spielberg directing a new film of HARVEY is Spielberg directing a film of LINCOLN with Liam Neeson.

Has LINCOLN really been shelved, then?

Updated On: 8/3/09 at 10:17 AM

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/3/09 at 10:19am

I agree, "Harvey" wasn't an entirely successful film adaptation to begin with. Stewart was pretty good, Hull was great ...

But it's a very dated story. Our social views on "kindly alcoholics" and mental illness aren't remotely the same today. I can see this either being insulting and trivial, or devoid of any real humor.

I think Spielberg is stuck in a time warp.

Updated On: 8/3/09 at 10:19 AM

[Roscoe]

Posted: 8/3/09 at 10:25am

Agreed with best, the film would have to compete with some pretty up-to-date notions of alcoholism and mental illness. The play is a sweet little fairy tale, and Spielberg isn't good at "sweet" or "little" any more, not that he ever really was. Spielbergian "whimsy" would overload the piece, it would wind up a really nauseating avalanche of sugar.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 8/3/09 at 10:46am

I just have to chime in and say I completely agree about SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. I thought it was a complete waste of my time and of film. It was just an exercise in gore hoping to show us the "horrors of war" like we'd never seen it before when we'd seen it way too many times before. I've seen so many Vietnam movies in my life and this one really ranks with the worst. I was very happy a few years later when a really underrated film called WE WERE SOLDIERS was released which I think shows that the "horrors of war" extend far beyond the battlefield and into the homes of everyone involved, on both sides. I rank that as one of the best films of 2001 and one of the best war movies ever made.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 8/3/09 at 11:18am

The problem for me about SAVING PRIVATE RYAN wasn't the extreme violence, it was the senseless sentimentalization going on. That remarkable D-Day sequence which is still pretty damn remarkable: a non-stop avalanche of bloodshed and horror which, yeah, underlines the sheer wanton brutality and waste and horror of war like no other movie before or since. I was enraged that people were put in that position of having to be mown down like weeds, it was just appalling. Then came that frankly rather silly plot about getting Ryan out, I mean really, it just didn't make a lot of sense after that incredible opening sequence: such sentimentality just didn't sit well with such barbarity.

Basically the movie has three motives: it wants to show the unspeakable horror of war (check), it wants to be a moving tribute to the people who fought and died in the war (check) and it wants to be a really bitchin War Movie! It kind of falls apart in the process. All that crap about "earn this" really hit bold new heights of self-righteous bogusness.

I think Libby Gelman Waxner put it best, as she so often does: the movie begins by showing me that War Is Hell, and ends by showing me that War is a nifty learning experience for little Matt Damon.

Updated On: 8/3/09 at 11:18 AM

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/3/09 at 11:20am

"Saving Private Ryan" was only "brilliant film making" for the first 20 minutes of screen time. The invasion on the beach was horrifying and indelible.

After that, it became a standard, paint-by-numbers WWII movie, so reminiscent of two dozen others made in the '50s and '60s. (Some of them, like "The Longest Day" and "Battleground" were better.)

Saving Private Ryan would only be "fresh" and "new" to people who had never seen a war movie before. For me, and for others who knew the previous films, it quickly became standard fare.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 8/3/09 at 11:23am

Roscoe,
That's really interesting that you found it to be a moving tribute to the soldiers because (and forgive me, I only saw it once on opening night so I could be wrong) we hardly got to know the characters at all. It was 2 and a half hours of non stop fighting and bloodshed with 15 minutes of actual story and getting to know the soldiers. When you know and care about the people you're watching and investing your time with the actual "horror" of whats happening is much more effective, which in this case I didn't think it was at all. To me it was just a more stylized bloody Hollywood version of every other WW2 movie that came before it, minus a real plot.
Updated On: 8/3/09 at 11:23 AM