I got season one a couple of weeks ago, havent got around to it but I have heard/read great things. 

Don't you consider it weird that if a Japanese or English movie or TV series exists, and the idea, concept and execution all are good and fascinating and raise the interest of movie studios or TV channels, then that is not imported to USA as it is but is rather remade? Why? There must be a reason for spending all that money on making it. Why wouldn't the original sell or get viewers?

Be it Ring, Haneke's movies, Rec, The Office... Not that it's a phenomenon just in USA. Most of the western world is used to Hollywood and wants to see the world through it.

I don't know much about US television or movie theaters and what they offer for viewing, having very limited experience, but still.

Either it ain't so, or then it is so, and in case it is, I'd like to hear your reasoning and speculations as to why.

I think the latest specimen in weirdness, taking it to the furthest point so far in my view, is an upcoming future TV fiction series of American emigrants/refugees leaving USA and forming "americatowns" around the world. Talk about keeping insulated in your culture. :)

Are there tv shows there in USA which are foreign directed with foreign people acting and speaking a foreign language so that you can still identify with them despite the differences? I'm not talking about one foreign born actor in an American tv series. What about in Germany or the UK or France? Do they do a lot of remakes for themselves too... and if their domestic audience and entertainment industry was bigger, would they do it much more?

Every country and ethnicity does localization. It's easier to identify with your own people. Big brothers and survivors are made everywhere. That's natural. But people in most places (I assume, I don't really know) can enjoy a good film or TV series made in a foreign culture as well. People have similarities, and sometimes even the outward differences can accentuate them.

Blah, this post is a disorganized mess and all over the place, I hope you can get the carrying thought in there... 

it was addressed to headthump 

than the crazy one that suggested the US is a closed society.

Obviously, if the movie is in a foreign language the scope of the viewing audience changes and even with subtitles there are many people who don't like to read while following a movies plot. Still, Iron Monkey, Hong Kong Hustle, Crouching Tiger, and even some of those terribly manneristic movies from Zhang Ziyi did very well.

I would suggest aesthetic preferences of the native audience shape whether or not a movie will be accepted in the original. To many Americans, the pacing of even older Hollywood productions can seem excruciatingly drawn out. As audience experience with the medium matures over time many of the framing devices used to set up scenes are no longer necessary for the narrative to be cogent to the audience. 

Pretty good. A character drama. Some strong roles and very good casting here. I recommend to people.
It's not an Earth shattering movie and doesn't try to be. 

Got this yesterday. Ordered it for my birthday. When I opened the packaging there was no DVD! Rip off! So I sent the packaging back and I should be getting the replacement soon.

I did see it on youtube, so I know it's really good if you're a fan of futurama. Beast with a Billion Backs was not so good. It was kind of stinky to be honest. 

America remakes all good foreign movies so they can make lots of money from it. It's all about the money. 

They would make the same money with much less investment if they just redistributed the original! 

I hate making the same mistake... 

no they wouldnt, hardly anyone would watch it. But if you remake it with young stars, people will. Simple as that. 

it wouldn't be the same guys receiving the money?! 

1. american actors speaking english will have a much broader audience than foreign actors speaking a foreign language, even if the movie is otherwise the same.

2. and anyway, it creates lots of jobs for actors and crewmembers to remake these movies. Importing a movie only requires a handful of people to subtitle and distribute it, not good for the economy. We must reduce our dependence on foreign film! 

much broader audience

I mean a broader audience within the US, if that wasn't clear. 

that was exactly the answer I was asking for.

And then, why would hardly anyone watch it if it was foreign.

Or why would harly anyone watch it in Finland if it was not made in Hollywood? As far as I know, the original Ring was not in theaters around here, but the american remake was. It can't be just the language. 

#1 because humans are too narrow-minded and don't want anything different to what they are used to. if that happens the rule it out straight away. americans in particular only want to watch american movies.

#2 we want to watch movies we can relate to ourselves.

i don't mind watching foreign movies with subs, but most less-avid-moviegoers hate subs. you get used to them pretty quick though. 

want to watch movies for fun, I'm sure no one disputes that??

So therefore, its really not all that weird that most people would rather watch a film in the language they understand rather than a language that they have to read to understand. 

Much easier and much less expensive than remaking the thing completely. Less intense too, but that's another issue. 

The Office?

I've seen a few pieces of both the British and the US version (I don't know how much the US version is a remake and how much it is just inspired by the original), both were good.

It can't be the language... 

after all, there are UK, US, French, German, Canadian (Quebec), and Chilean versions of the show.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Office

The British version only ran 14 episodes, and you need 23 for a standard prime time series run in the US, so mute point. 

get shuffled to a station called PBS - Public Broadcasting Service. I don't know what is in on there now except for Upstairs/Downstairs (I think it still runs), and BBC nightly news report. I don't watch the station much now but I do recall as a kid watching Monty Python, Are You Being Served, Fawlty (sp?) Towers, and best of all reruns of The Avengers. 

now except for Upstairs/Downstairs (I think it still runs)

I was thinking of Eastenders which does run on the local PBS affiliate. Upstairs, Downstairs reruns were commonly shown in the 80's but not I doubt if they do now. 

Despite being one of the funniest shows of all time, the UK office only had 14 eps. Now someone thought, we could make our own version of this, use the first 12 eps as a template and then just see how many (US) seasons we can get out of this.

Currently upto season 4 which is about 80 odd episodes so there you go.

Plus theres something to each culture having a different brand of humour so the the different versions all tweak it for the local audience. Whether they are superior/inferior is another question. 

Under the Sand (2000) - one of Francois Ozon's better films, mainly due to a superb performance from Charlotte Rampling as a woman struggling to come to terms with an accident that befalls her husband. Ozon's direction is restrained and allows Rampling to carry an otherwise straightforward plot.

7/10


Nosferatu (1979) - I found this to be heaps better than Coppola's version of Dracula and mainly because Werner Herzog plays it as a gothic tragedy rather than campy horror. I guess if you're looking for the horror, you wont like it as much as I did, but the combination of some terrific imagery and a haunting soundtrack does still lend it an uneasy atmosphere. Klaus Kinski makes for an interesting Dracula, all tortured and self pitying, and with far more depth for this character than in any other incarnation of him I have come across. And when you add to that some good supporting performances from Isabelle Adjani and Bruno Ganz, you end up with a very satisfying if unconventional experience.

7.5/10


Paper Moon (1973) - not sure about Tatum O'Neal getting an oscar, but this is otherwise a pretty entertaining little film from Peter Bogdanovich. Set in depression era america, it's a road movie of sorts that deftly combines comedy and drama in the story of a drifter conman who takes his maybe daughter along with him when her mother dies. I hadnt seen Ryan O'Neal do much comedy before but he's pretty good at it, although everyone is upstaged by Madeline Kahn in a great little cameo. Also the cinematography by Lazlo Kovacs is brilliant.

7.5/10


Roman Holiday (1953) - went in thinking I wouldn't really like this and it is quite corny in parts but, in the end, Audrey Hepburn's charm just wins you over. William Wyler also makes great use of the location shooting in Rome. But it really is Hepburn that makes this work, tremendous screen presence.

7.5/10


Peeping Tom (1960) - released in the same year as Psycho and it's hard to believe that, although similarly themed, one film cemented the reputation of a great filmmaker while the other destroyed the reputation of its maker. Michael Powell went from Britain's darling to Britain's scapegoat with the release of what is really a great film. There's a few flaws, particularly the way in which some characters only serve the purpose of moving the narrative in a certain direction, but on the whole, its quite a complex psychological movie that messes with your head. Without getting into specific plot details, the movie follows, or rather participates the viewer in, the life of a murderous voyeur who is fascinated with his victims' dying expression of terror.

Every scene shows remarkable talent and is setup beautifully and if it wasn't for some convenient plotting and the flaw mentioned above, it would be an absolute masterpiece.

8/10


Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008) - cant say I find too many of these Judd Apatow 'comedies' to be all that funny but some of them, like Knocked Up, do work as a dramedy. This one also has only a couple of actually funny parts (some of Russell Brand's line delivery is great and the Dracula rock opera is reasonably inspired), but thanks to Mila Kunis and Kristen Bell, it works to an extent as lightweight drama.

6/10 (just)


Cassandra's Dream (2007) - If Match Point was a return to form for Woody Allen, then Scoop and this make sure it was only a temporary return. Covering similar territory to his far superior Crimes and Misdemeanours, Allen makes a plodding film that, despite good performances from Colin Farrell, Ewan McGregor and the always reliable Tom Wilkinson, is just flat in every regard. The direction and writing are just downright bizarre, lacking any real energy and resulting in the whole movie feeling like a stage rehearsal rather than an actual film.

5-5.5/10


It Happened One Night (1934) - well now I know where Bugs Bunny came from. Clark Gable's inspired performance in Frank Capra's enjoyable screwball comedy had to have some bearing on the way that Looney Tunes character talked and acted. It helps that Gable has some great dialogue to work with but half of the greatness still comes from the manner in which it is delivered. The movie itself is excellent, with very good rapport between the cast, and only a slightly weak last act takes off a little bit of the sheen.

7-7.5/10


Ride the High Country (1962) - before Sam Packinpah started creating his own brand of Western, he paid homage to the old style John Fordish western with this movie. I much prefer Peckinpah and Leone's style of western than Ford's but this is quite a solid, well made if predictable and unremarkable film. Everything is of pretty high quality but in the end, this particular style is just not to my taste.

6.5/10 

Straw Dogs (1971) - beautifully shot, superbly acted and extremely well directed film that is a psychologically complex, if a little confused, take on the nature of violence. That it manages to mostly achieve that without resorting to much on screen violence (although the scenes that are there are just as uncomfortable to watch as they would have been back on release) is a testament to Peckinaph's control over the material and Dustin Hoffman's acting skills.

The first 2/3 is a brilliantly controlled exercise in stretched out psychological suspense, so much so that when it eventually gives way to the visceral last 1/3, it does not quite gel as it should. Otherwise, an excellent film that at the very least will leave you thinking.

7.5/10


Young Mr Lincoln (1939) - its pretty hard to portray earnestness on film without getting too oversentimental and I find that John Ford usually is quite guilty of that, but this time he manages to do it in this 'biography' of Abraham Lincoln's formative years. I say 'biography' because it is definitely not historically accurate but as I dont really rate that as too much of a virtue, I had no real issues with this approach.

The film is fairly simplistic in its structure, you dont really learn anything about Lincoln and it is squarely in the iconography style of filmmaking which I do think limit its scope and impact if you are not american Still, its amazingly shot (some of the framing has to be seen to be believed) and Henry Fonda puts in a terrific performance and is the reason for most of the film's success.

6.5/10


Bad Timing (1980) - Nicolas Roeg's fascinating exploration of love, hate, obsession and memory will not be for everyone (some if it is quite uncomfortable to sit through) but its definitely a very worthwhile experience for anyone willing to go with it. Its quite simplistic from a plot and character point of view, the movie starting out with a man (Art Garfunkel) bringing a woman (Teresa Russell) to a hospital in Vienna after what looks like an overdose, and the rest of the film, through disjointed flashbacks bringing the movie back to that point.

But Roeg employs his trademark associative editing style in such a manner that the simple plot becomes a complex and very interesting narrative, although admittedly some of the impact is lost through a curious bookending of the movie with a police investigation into the events. Both leads are superb, especially Russell, in what are difficult roles, especially since neither character is really all that likeable.

7.5/10 

an interview of him
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Movies/10/02/mikeleigh.screeningroom/index.html?iref=intlOnlyonCNN
Now it all starts making sense why Happy Go Lucky had such special personalities and scenes.