« De Niro talks two films in one Irishman | Filmstalker | Wright's Hanna trailer looks fantastic »


About Last Night remake?

AboutLastNight.jpgThere's more remake news, and it's not good remake news either, another film that was perfectly great on its own is being earmarked for a remake because it was really good, it didn't get the audience it was hoped for originally and enough time has passed so there's a new generation out there that probably won't have seen it. All perfectly valid reasons for remaking something.

No, they aren't, and About Last Night was a really good film that doesn't need a remake and if there's anything Hollywood and studios should learn from it is that around marketing films first time around, not remaking and trying to exploit them again.

About Last Night, or About Last Night… to give it its proper title, starred Demi Moore, Rob Lowe, James Belushi and Elizabeth Perkins in a story adapted from the David Mamet play Sexual Perversity in Chicago and directed by Edward Zwick. Now that sounds a pretty great line-up right there, so aren't you wondering why you didn't see it?

Well perhaps you should. The original film is based on that David Mamet play from 1974 and tells the story of a man and a woman who meet in a bar, have a one night stand, and try to build something more from it, struggling through the normal pressures of a relationship and dealing with their sometimes interfering and sometimes helpful best friends.

The news from Entertainment Weekly through Moviehole that the film is getting a remake is not great news. In fact there's something in the article that makes me turn my head about the whole attitude to remakes:

Anyone who thought the 1986 movie About Last Night... was sorely underappreciated should consider this an excellent piece of development news

What? Let me get this right for a second, because a film was under-appreciated then it's excellent news that there's a remake of it? Wait a minute, if it's under-appreciated then that means that the original was a good film, so why remake it? Why not give it a new lease of life with a DVD and Blu-ray re-release?

Apparently not, it's just the excuse that the studios are looking for to get a nice juicy remake out there, and so that's what they are doing.

According to the story Screen Gems are looking at the film and considering whether to remake it or not. The good news is that there's no script, no actors, no director, no nothing, so there's a lot of hope that they'll just abandon the idea, after all we'll know it'll turn into a vehicle for the usual American comedy actors and just be cram packed with sex, bodily function and drug jokes.

The article does have something good to say though, it reveals that Rob Lowe still has a lot of respect for the film and when he was asked this year to list his five favourite roles he placed this film at the number two spot.

“It holds up really well...It had a great pedigree, it was a David Mamet play adaptation, and it was funny and sexy.”

If that isn't enough of a reason to go and see the original then I don't know what is and maybe you'd be happier with a remake. Of course to be fair they could add in a lot of the pressures and difficulties that couples face today, but really I don't think they are any different from back then, and I remember that film as having some strong and touching performances and a rather cleverly written script. What more could a modern story offer? Binge drinking, drug taking, and even less respect for themselves and each other? Nah. Stick with the original.



Add a comment


Site Navigation

Latest Stories


Vidahost image

Latest Reviews


Filmstalker Poll


Subscribe with...

AddThis Feed Button

Windows Live Alerts

Site Feeds

Subscribe to Filmstalker:

Filmstalker's FeedAll articles

Filmstalker's Reviews FeedReviews only

Filmstalker's Reviews FeedAudiocasts only

Subscribe to the Filmstalker Audiocast on iTunesAudiocasts on iTunes

Feed by email:


My Skype status


Help Out


Site Information

Creative Commons License
© www.filmstalker.co.uk

Give credit to your sources. Quote and credit, don't steal

Movable Type 3.34