When is Hollywood going to stop remaking great movies?

Rating: 1/10 (12 March 2006)

I attended an early screening of this film and actually dozed off about 20 minutes into it, remaining in that state for about another 20 minutes. In spite of a few chuckles, the 2005 incarnation of the classic black comedy THE LONGEST YARD, is yet another example of a big studio lacking the imagination and ingenuity to tell NEW stories, by remaking a great film from yesteryear (which Paramount has done recently with films like THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE and ALFIE, also with middling results).
First problem: who is going to buy diminutive Adam Sandler as a former NFL pro??? He simply doesn't have the physical attributes of a professional athlete, and right away, the film loses credibility with his casting.
Second, Chris Rock is relegated to spitting out lines from a script that sounds like it was written by committee (which it undoubtedly was) and as a result, most of his lines fall flat. If the filmmakers were smart, they would have just "let him go," so he could improvise with his very unique, brilliant brand of edgy humor. He is utterly wasted.
Third, poor Burt Reynolds, who headlined the original 1974 version of the film, looks like he can't wait to get paid and go home to Florida, now playing the role of Nate Scarborough, the aging former gridiron star that was played by the late Michael (HILL STREET BLUES) Conrad in the original. I'm a big fan of Burt, but he completely phones it in here, another example of a fine actor who is wasted in this corporate "product." Finally, the original LONGEST YARD was a tough, bone-crunching, "hard R" film, even by today's standards. The characters were very well-developed, from Eddie Albert's corrupt warden, to Burt's tormented, self-loathing Paul Crewe, to Ed Lauter's sadistic captain of the guard. Helmed by the great Robert Aldrich, the film was a potent mix of very black humor, and very tough, violent drama. Watching it today, it not only holds up beautifully, but even feels contemporary. The remake, by contrast, is a watered down, PG-13, middle of the road piece of Cool Whip. What was an edgy, tough film for adults, has been made into a "safe" film that will offend few, in spite of a few "poo-poo, pee-pee" jokes, aimed at the junior high crowd. There is NO character development in this at all. Everyone in the film is presented as a two-dimensional cardboard cut-out. We never gain any insight into why they do what they do, why they are who they are, or how they even wound up in prison to begin with.
The moral of the story: GET OFF YOUR LAZY BUTTS, Hollywood! There are a plethora of great writers and directors out there who are waiting tables, and who have amazing, contemporary stories to tell to the world. Give them that shot. That's your job. Quit remaking great films from yesteryear. Even if you do them relatively well (as in the MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE remake), they still will never stack up against the original. It's kind of like covering a song made famous by Sinatra or the Beatles: once it's been done in "signature" fashion, everything else is going to seem like a forgery.
* 1/2 out of 10