Perfect example of why remakes are legitimate

Funny no one responds to my take on this film within the confines of the argument presented. (Not many responses here, but there's an identical thread on the board for the Scorcese version as well.)

Instead I get these "family values" conservatives lashing out from this protective cocoon that wants to deny the world we seem to be living in.

The indictment of the Scorcese Bowdens - and specifically the Nolte father - as being "depraved" seems to hinge entirely on your take of infidelity and gray-area lawyer's ethics. These are the "crimes" of the Bowdens. They're not child molestors or drug pushers or murderers. The statistics on infidelity in modern marriages are woeful, to be sure. But they also remind us that this is the world we find oursleves in. He without sin, cast the first stone, etc.

As for Nolte's character screweing over his client in a (misguided) attempt at justice...again, you judge at your own peril. Come to a harsh judgement if you must, but realize that for many people it was the "right" thing to do.

And please don't idly toss around the nuclear family ethos as standard as though it were an inarguable axiom. The assertion that there is such a high percentage of families in the USA today (or ever really existed back then) is as arguable as the idea that such white-washed "values" are an absolute good. A LOT of pain and angst has arisen from the unquestioned acceptance of "traditional values" for many, many people.

Back to the movies, then, we the audience in 2005 (or 1991) owe no more understanding to the artists of a bygone era than they hold for us. I can't wear the skin of someone from the early 1960's and pretend to be shocked by what was challenging for them back then, and I wouldn't want to. There are certain themes the original version explores which hold much value today, but some others require an innocence we've lost - and perhaps are well rid of.

How come every time I post, I get this same bullsh!t signature?

THANK YOU.

A well stated and considered contribution.

For clarity, I don't mean to paint the 1991 Bowden's as "normal" - as in "reflective of the majority of people" - but simply real in that I find their family to represent one of the experiences of upper middle class America in late 20th century. Surely no film can serve as a 100% accurate mirror reflection of all society and individuals within society. Our viarious lives are way too diverse for that, and no matter who you are and what your life structure is, you will find examples of other people living lives you completely disagree with and find abhorrent.

Your characterization of Nolte's character as "weak" is spot-on. Moreover, his weakness serves the story Scorsese and co. wishes to tell by providing him a starting point from which to have a character arc resulting in the climax where his once-weak father must fight Cady hand-to-hand to the death. It's perfectly legitimate you find his character distasteful.

Again, my problems with the original version lie mainly with the victim-mentality portrayal of its female characters and the strange happenstance that Peck's Bowden happens to be an attorney, thus giving him undo sway with local government and law enforcement not afforded the "average joe" in handling his problem. As they have no attorney-client relationship, Bowden's occupation seems to me too convenient a coincidence.

But I respect your view.
How come every time I post, I get this same bullsh!t signature?

Quote from Banky-4:

"I personally preferred Juliette Lewis as the daughter to Nancy in the original. At least Juliette fought back...Nancy didn't do anything. She had the fire poker, but didn't even swing it or anything. She just let Cady take it...lame."

Not lame at all, in fact this scene triggered a memory for me that I can very much identify with...

I was about 11 or 12 when my dad, oldest brother, and myself took a trip at the end of the summer to take my cousin home who had been visiting us, we stopped at a gas station and it was dark, my dad and brother went inside while my cousin and I sat on the back bumper with the trunk lid open, getting drinks from a cooler. Suddenly Kathy (my cousin) looks up and runs away into the store, I yell for her but she doesn't listen to me so I just look back down at what I'm doing when suddenly I feel this terrible chill run down my spine and I get the feeling that someone is watching me, I look up and there is the big tall guy just standing there and staring at me, he didn't say a word or make a move toward but he just stared at me and I was literally paralyzed with fear, just exactly how "Nancy" was, at least she did pick up the poker, I couldn't even do anything like that.

I don't remember how long he stood there before somewhere behind this him a car drives up, he looks behind him, then looks back at me and finally walk away, he was dressed in overalls so he must have been the gas station attendant, that was back when they had them and they pumped the gas for you.

It was not until he finally walked away that I was able to move and run into the store where everyone else was, but I never told anyone about it and I have never forgotten it.

So yes, it is a very real possibility that a young girl can be frightened so bad she can't move by the mere look of a grown man, I know this for sure.

You have trouble with reading comprehension. I said no such thing.

I said those stylistic aspects do not elevate the film, in MY opinion, above the remake in overall quality.

And, uh, as far as why films (or anything) should have a point...

Well, there's just not enough middle ground for us to stand on and have a conversation if that's your honest opinion.

How come every time I post, I get this same bullsh!t signature?

[deleted]