It's A Wonderful Life getting a sequel in 2015?
It's A Wonderful Life getting a sequel in 2015? That has got to be the stupidest idea ever! Leave it alone, still a classic original film!
http://variety.com/2013/film/news/its-a-wonderful-life-sequel-in-the-works-exclusive-1200850705/
http://variety.com/2013/film/news/its-a-wonderful-life-sequel-in-the-works-exclusive-1200850705/
0
Comments
This movie does not need a sequel, prequel or remake.
It should be left well alone.
YUK !!!
A sequel is nonsense .
I can understand a remake though even though I never watch them and never will.
My original Bluray editions of The Bishops Wife and Miracle on 34th Street remain my annual friends over modern remakes.
when it first came out it was hated by the critics and bombed at the box office
Agreed, the original film is a classic.
Anyway I dont understand this, how can this new film be in the spirit of the original if the George in the sequel is an unlikeable asshat more akin to Henry Potter/Scrooge? It sounds more like the exact opposite, almost a spoof, as the angel is showing him the world would be better WITHOUT him not the other way round
In fact, it sounds like they're retelling A Christmas Carol in some ways (even more so than the original) but with George as Scrooge.
Wheres your spoiler alert? :-)
Some people mistake the film for life-affirming, sentimental twaddle but it's actually got quite a dark heart. George Bailey effectively sacrifices his dreams and ambitions for the greater good. James Stewart had recently returned from the war (where he had been a decorated bomber pilot) and had been quite sobered by the experience, which informed the role.
I think it's a great film and one of James Stewart's best.
Oh no, maybe I'll have to jump, too.
I know what you mean, its probably only in the last 10 minutes the film gets sentimental, most of the last act is pretty dark and disturbing IMO
I've always wondered why nobody else was as selfless as him, maybe thats the point the film is making.
Agreed, saw this film at a local independent cinema yesterday, I loved it, specifically for the reasons you just outlined. Pius James Steward is just fantastic generally.
I'm glad you enjoyed it.
I completely agree with you about James Stewart. There's something timeless about him. They used to describe Jack Lemmon as Everyman in Hollywood films. I always feel that James Stewart is Everyman But A Bit Better. He never plays an invincible hero; he's always a bit flawed but his heart's in the right place. I liked him in The Man Who Shot Liberty Vallance.
We're going to see It's a Wonderful Life as a family on Monday and I'm looking forward to it.:)
If yes, please hold off until 2 January, OK? Thanks.
Oh I see what you did there...;-)
Well, just seen it and it was great. It's a film that holds up surprisingly well, given it was made in 1946. I'd forgotten just how long it is but it never seems to drag. James Stewart owns the film, of course but Donna Reed is excellent too. Lionel Barrymore as Potter is also good.
I was struck again by its progressive economics. George Bailey defends the Savings & Loan company because it champions the man in the street and offers him a better quality of life. If the pure capitalist Potters of the world are allowed to dominate to the exclusion of all else, the poor get poorer. Given the dominance of the individual in American culture, it's quite surprising.
It's also a timeless message about how life is always worth living, no matter how bleak things look; how we belong to each other and how we touch each others' lives.
Great post Sir. I watched this today for the 1st time, brilliant movie. As the old saying goes " they don't make em' like they used to ". Way ahead of its time, that's down to Capra & Stewart, in my opinion. :-)
I mean, "Wild Geese 2" I ask you.
'It's a Bundyful life', a Married with Children episode.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNTjURamti4