Spielberg remakes Harvey

[pookha]

They can have it both ways- it does appear at the very end of the movie, after all

No he doesn't. We see a portrait of Harvey, we see a door opened, presumably by Harvey, but we never see Harvey himself. He is portrayed only in the way other characters react to him.

i could see someone looking at the potrait and then looking back and the harvey in the painting is winking.


he also at least once if not more makes himself heard in odd ways..
such as changing the words in a dictionary.



honestly i dont know how i feel about this.
i suspect i would have felt better in the past then now.
spielberg now is just so over the place in terms of quality.

though i know in the past when i talked with other fans of the movie else where on the net at one time hanks was a favorite for elwood.
now i am not even sure about that.

and i got my nickname for the hallmark presentation.
i didnt see the movie version until a little later.

harvy still has some of my favorite quotes of all time.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

Ben Browder. What? What's everyone looking at me like that for?

This is the ONLY way I might be suckered into watching it.

I'm dead serious.

 

[Alpha_Geek]

No, no, NO. There's no replacing Jimmy Stewart!

Well... I'll tell ya... I agree wholeheartedly!

 

[Alpha_Geek]

What's next? 'It's a Wonderful Life'?

Already done. Marlo Thomas. I wanna hurl just thinking about it.

 

[Broccoli]

What's next? 'It's a Wonderful Life'?

Hasn't that been essentially been remade several times with various TV series?

 

[Too Much Fun]

But Spielberg has been smart in the past about not showing the big threat of the movie gratuitously. In fact, one of the best examples of a director showing the perfect amount of restraint in that department is "Jaws". I think that movie and "Alien" are the finest examples of keeping a threat in the shadows save for a few rare, brief, and tasteful 'money shots'.

 

[JustKate]

^ This is difficult explain since you haven't seen Harvey (due to your wholly inexplicable aversion to Jimmy Stewart ), Too Much, but in Harvey, it's very important that the audience doesn't see Harvey the pookha at all - because that leaves it up in the air as to whether he's real or a shared illusion. That's a large part of the charm of both Harvey the pookha and Harvey the movie.

 

[Argus Skyhawk]

And besides, can Stephen Spielburg make a movie like this without gooping it up with a lot of special effects and so on? I don't think so.

Always comes to mind. It was a Spielberg-directed fantasy story in which the lead is a ghost, and yet if I remember correctly we don't see him walking through walls or doing any sorts of special effects stuff that one would expect in a big-budget movie about a ghost. Contrary to his reputation, Spielberg can be subtle.

 

[JustKate]

^ Sure he can be. I just doubt if anybody would have that much discipline, frankly - to have the opportunity to show a 6-foot-tall gentlemanly rabbit on screen, to have the means to do so, and still...not take it. But as I mentioned earlier, I'd really like to be proven wrong.

 

[Mistral]

And besides, can Stephen Spielburg make a movie like this without gooping it up with a lot of special effects and so on? I don't think so.

Always comes to mind. It was a Spielberg-directed fantasy story in which the lead is a ghost, and yet if I remember correctly we don't see him walking through walls or doing any sorts of special effects stuff that one would expect in a big-budget movie about a ghost. Contrary to his reputation, Spielberg can be subtle.

Didn't Always fail at the box?

 

[Alidar Jarok]

But Spielberg has been smart in the past about not showing the big threat of the movie gratuitously. In fact, one of the best examples of a director showing the perfect amount of restraint in that department is "Jaws". I think that movie and "Alien" are the finest examples of keeping a threat in the shadows save for a few rare, brief, and tasteful 'money shots'.

Jaws would have been seen more if they didn't have technical problems, though.

 

[PluckyNinja]

I love Jimmy Stewart but I think Tom Hanks could be really good in the role.

 

[Dusty Ayres]

Big fat deal-it's based on a play that was based on a novel, as previously noticed, and it's been made already. It's probably been staged off-Bradway a million times, and because of that, it can be done again-it's been 50 years since the last movie version, anyway.

At least it's not the SCTV version, set in New York City in Little Italy, with characters out of Marty or The Godfather...