This remake of the 1971 film was a notorious critical and financial flop in 2000 for good reason.
343487
Sylvester Stallone stars as a mob enforcer who returns home after his brother's death, only to discover the man was involved with sleazy mob enforcers and porn moguls. The film attempts to modernize the original's plot but winds up lessening the impact and dating itself. The action is uninspired, and the filmmakers went overboard with distracting editing and camera work.
2175137
I had to see it twice to appreciate it.  It's not a cult movie for sure but a well- acted mess.
385571
In all honestly in comparison, the remake with Colin Farrell is much better graphically.  That said, it just doesn't hold up to the original.  Farrell does a decent job portraying the main character but Schwartzenegger just does a better job.

Bokeem Woodbine always lends a well played role as does Bill Nighy.  However, Nighy is so one dimensional any role he plays is the same role over an over.  But you know what you're going to get when you sign him up.

Enjoy both movies for what they are: movies.  Enjoy the fact that the 2012 version has great graphics.  Enjoy the fact that the 1990 version is the original.
423630
This was a good remake. I watched it many times with me son.
2211824
This movie was so-o-o-o bad that I just had to speak out. As I'm sure you all know,most re-makes never quite succeed. This movie is no exception. I am a fan of both M.Streep and D. Washington and consequently very disappointed that they would

 have chosen this BORING movie to participate in.

I have the original 1962 movie on dvd and it is superb.

If you watch the special features you will find out that the

director of the new version decided to totaly remove the key

elements that were in both the novel and the original movie.

These elements were what riveted you to your seats in the original. I can't tell you what they are because it would spoil the impact the first movie has. If you watch the special features,they inform you of some them in a way that doesn't

give them the real impact that they had in the movie.

There is no point in my telling you the plot,because others

have already done so.

What I suggest is,BUY and watch the older version FIRST,then rent the new version. If you aren't bored silly with the second

version after seeing the first then I will be VERY surprised.

The actors in the original ( Frank Sinatra,Angela Lansbury,

Lawrence Harvey ) along with the faithful to the novel script.will keep you glued to your seats. You won't want to take a bathroom break. If you are too young to know about the acting

careers of the actors in the original,all I can say is that they were considered top of the heap.

DO NOT BUY THIS MOVIE !!! Rent it.

If you enjoy the first version,may I suggest that you see,

"The Boys From Brazil","Seven Days in May","The Holcroft

Covenant" and " Judgement At Nuremberg".

I know that what I had to say wasn't a review of this movie,

but merely my opinion of it. However,I have been a movie nut

for more than 50 years so,

all I can reiterate is see the original FIRST and rent the

new one if you must.

.
4875583
what should have been a very good movie turned out to be just awful
3586779
This 1947 film-noir classic deserves better than the really awful prints that swirl around because the film is in the public domain. A starring role by a young DeForest Kelley is spoiled by the ragged films that circulate. To be fair, this particular version on Amazon.com didn't look too bad, but the sound was often unintelligible and muddy. So the rating if for the actual movie. Someone needs to rescue this one from a surviving good print.
4531945
Despite the 1976 film being more skillfully directed by Brian DePalma, and despite its star-making performance by Sissy Spacek, its over-the-top hellfire and damnation ending completely lost me.  It seemed to validate the mother's religious fanaticism, and I do not believe it was what  Carrie, as a character, deserved.  The 2002 remake reinforces my view on this, since it shows more clearly than did the 1976 film that Carrie's rage-driven power, when it reaches its full-blown form, is involuntary.  One can argue that leaving the remake open-ended for a planned TV series, which never got off the ground, was a mistake that leaves it unsatisfying, but I still prefer this more humane take on the story to the religious cheap shots in the original.
580010
Showing the continued lack of imagination in hollywood, this remake of a wonderful original at least does a good job of updating the plot to more modern times.
3421864
remake of a 70s movie. It had the makings of a really good movie but mid way lost its direction and the writing softened , scenes were cut and it fizzled out as if they cut out too much or maybe got lost in their own script.there were definite missing pcs everywhere.........
2974049
one time is enuff rent ...should be female max and got rid of the madmax ...horrible remake of mel fails to impress

why does Hollywood remake good movies make them soo horrible second view is impossible .

I grew up in the 80's acting and script is boring ..my friend have to wake me up on the part were they turned around to capture their base

these bad movies only because they refuse to pay writers for good scripts ..redo movies like a cake factory
29362
It was a copy of the original, and not a very good one at that.
985670
The original movie would get 4.5 stars from me. This print, however, barely deserves a 1. I couldn't watch it. When is there going to be a do over with a restored print. The last time I saw this on VHS, it looked fine. Somebody needs to get to work before this important piece of art is lost, altogether.
1838031
This is a bad re-mix of a great movie. First, they got the screen aspect wrong. Second, the restored footage is of very poor quality. It's easy to see what new scenes have been added... just look for the blurry parts!

I loved this movie at the theatre and on VHS. Too bad that when I wanted to purchase it on DVD there's now only this garbage version available.

Not worth a nickel in my opinion.
3528039
Hard to believe it's been over 20 years since the release of the movie that gave us the clever tag-line "Greed is good."

The now double-irony of that phrase could not really be foreseen except by a prophet or time traveler from the future we now inhabit.

Maybe greed is not so good.  Maybe the ideas of capitalism and democracy are not even fraternal twins from the same father.

What has gone wrong?

Take another look at this film with the hindsight that two decades provides.  There are clues.

Michael Douglas won an Oscar for playing a Donald Trump-like character perfectly named Gordon Gecko.  Gecko, like the namesake reptile, had an uncanny ability to stick to his prey until he absorbed it.

Martin Sheen is a young trader who worships Gecko.  He's the apprentice to the sorcerer.  But in the end, discovers the real cost of selling one's soul.

But have we as a nation reached that nadir?  What is there at the bottom of the well of greed?

Oliver Stone and Michael Douglas are committed to "Wall Street II."

But what would make an even better story is the turning point in Bernie Madoff's life when he made that first theft from an investor, told the first lie and put his hand back in his own pocket.  It could be the "Citizen Kane" of the 21st Century.  After all, the money Madoff made off with is greater than the wealth of publisher Randolph Hearst, the purported character on which Kane was based.  But what's Madoff's "Rosebud"?  I bet Madoff was a kid with a stolen nickel.  And it wasn't enough.  It never is.
4128328
This is King Kong for the attention deficit disorder generation. CGI overkill takes away all the horror, suspense and awe of seeing Kong in the 1933 original. As other reviewers have said, Kong is reduced to a cartoon character and since all the sets are computer-generated, what 1930s detail there is comes across as completely fake. It makes Rick Baker in an ape suit look warm and down-to-earth. I can never lose myself or suspend disbelief in this film the way I lost myself in the 1933 or even the 1976 version. Speaking of which, the 1976 version, which is a mixture of soft porn, camp, and an 1970s era anti-establishment film, looks like a near masterpiece in comparison. At least the miniatures (like the subway and the World Trade Center towers) were real and fun to look at, whereas you're constantly questioning whether it's real or CGI in this Peter Jackson travesty.

If each film is representative of its time, then 2005 is vapid, unoriginal, hypocritical, tech-happy, consumerist, and shallow. The 1976 version had a great soundtrack (showing the high level of originality common to 70s music) while treating Jessica Lange as a disco-era sex object, complete with Marilyn Monroe cutesy voice, in an era where the sexual revolution was about to collide with feminism. Despite this, it is still watchable and amusing, made in an era before MTV and video games led us to Ritalin. And it shows a comfort and acceptance of contemporary life, for the 1976 film was made before "sequels" were commonplace, and so de Laurentis had to justify the new film's existence by updating it and making it relevant to contemporary concerns (the oil crisis). Popular culture in the 70s was still about "making it new" unlike the 2000's, where the rage is "vintage" and "repro" and living in the past.

Flash forward to 2005, four years after 9/11 and during the illusionary "prosperity" of the U.S. during the infamous mortgage boom, which was, in reality, based on emptiness and false promises of selling people houses they couldn't afford. By setting the film back to 1933 rather than updating it, as the Dino de Laurentis did, Peter Jackson was jumping on the "nostagla" "repro" and "vintage" bandwagon. The present era, in other words, apparently has no original music, no identity, just consumerism/flashiness, and the mindless CGI binge-fest exemplifies this. There is no reason to revisit the 30s except for a bankruptcy of the imagination. Noami Watts is, naturally, given the "feminist" treatment - in her mid to late 30s, she is the oldest Fay Wray yet, and as if to make up for her lack of glamour, she is given silly comic bits to play, like tap dancing ("hey, I have more to me than looks!"). The black guy on the ship is treated with careful respect at all times, though, strangely enough, the funny Chinaman from the 1930s is brought back in all its racist glory. Since China contributes to the high budget deficit and "owns" the U.S., maybe this was intentional (it's okay to make fun of the Chinese, but not okay to be racist toward blacks). Like the Guy Van Sant, shot-by-shot remake of "Psycho," the Peter Jackson "Kong" is a waste of time.
555659
This item, a spirited film version of Zorro starring gorgeous French actor/icon Alain Delon, was apparently produced by the French in the 70's, but the copy sold on Amazon is of very inferior quality.  The transfer to DVD seemed to have been made from a poor theater print, with lines and color dropout all through the video.  The film itself is fun, and Delon makes one forget Tyrone Power, since he is so much the better (and better-looking!) actor.  Additionally, Amazon neglected to mention that it is dubbed, passably, into English.  Very jarring effect! Shame that Lionsgate or one of the other foreign film distributors hasn't gotten hold of this and issued a more respectable looking copy, with its original French soundtrack and subtitles.  Let's hope for this!