"Rough Night" - gender switch remake

No need to tell me to relax. I’m quite the Cool Guy.

Just to point out that I didn’t say there was nothing out there, just that good movies with good stories have been getting harder and harder to find as the 21st century moves through. The two new films you mention illustrate my point.

First, All Eyez on Me is a bio-pic, a genre almost as plentiful as superheroes. Drawing a story form a life is not much different from drawing it from another movie. However unique is each individual, a Hollywood bio-pic is no guarantee of authenticity or of anything new, for that matter. It is amazing how many famous peoples’ lives seem to follow typical movie plot arcs. I seriously doubt that anything exciting or revelatory will come out of this film. I’ll leave myself open, but have serious doubts.

Next, The Book of Henry. I have already talked about having to turn to what is left of the independent film scene of the first decade. “Henry” is an example. I actually saw the trailer to this at the movies (see, I do go) last Saturday. The only thing in the trailer that interested me was the presence of Naomi Watts, who always gives a great performance. The film was produced by Double Nickel Entertainment which has business ties to Time Warner. It is being distributed by Focus Features, producer and distributer of independent and British movies but which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Universal which is, in turn, owned by Comcast. The movie I saw on Saturday was “My Cousin Rachel,” produced and distributed by Fox Searchlight, the “independent” production company of Rupert Murdoch's 21st Century Fox. This is what I mean by “the ever shrinking Indie market.” What is now called “independent” are the few films still made or imported by the Bigs that are marketed to a niche audience and given a limited release in large cities.

I will probably not be seeing the Tupac bio-pic (I basically abandoned that genre years ago) and will decide on “Henry” at a later date.

I will not be seeing M:I 6 or BB 4 under any circumstances whatsoever.

The new Rachel is an adaptation of a novel that had been previously (65 years ago) adapted for movies but the movie is mostly forgotten today. If the former movie is mentioned at all it is because it was Richard Burton's first movie in Hollywood when he still looked young. The new film does not depend on the older one, but on the original source (an example of a true remake would be Jackson's "King Kong"). A frequent comment on threads about remakes is, "Why not remake movies that weren't so good and improve on them instead of picking iconic titles?" Well, that is what the producers of the new "Rachel" did.

Nevertheless, having said all that, I take your point. They did make a movie from a novel that had already been used for a film. Why not a different Du Maurier book that had not been filmed? Why not an original screenplay? All good questions.