It’s amazing how much easier it is to see the flaws in a remake when you watch it back to back with the original. I just HAD to go out and watch the “modern” version of the film, with Cameron Diaz and Colin Firth in the roles originated by Shirley MacLaine and Michael Caine, respectively. That previous sentence should actually clue you in on the first flaw. Colin Firth is a good actor, but just not right for this role, at least the way it’s written. But whoever thought Cammy would be a viable substitute for Shirley should probably find a new way of making a living. Oh, I’ve seen her do some decent work, but again, not for what this role needs. But all the blame can’t be put on them. The Coens. Damn your spotty genius! They have a penchant for making those “quirky” films, and when they work, they work brilliantly (Barton Fink, Raising Arizona, Fargo). When they don’t….The Hudsucker Proxy.  (“You know…for kids!”)

The problem with this script is that when bringing their quirky touch to this film, they turned the comedy into buffoonery. In the original, Caine and MacLaine play it, for the most part, straight. The comedy works because it develops from a serious person’s reaction to the events happening around him. It’s actually a bit like the way the Coens do comedy when it works well. Think of some of the best stuff in The Big Lebowski, for example. The Dude isn’t always mugging for the camera or setting up a joke. He’s just trying to find his way through the shitstorm that life handed him at that moment. This new Gambit does just the opposite—it works hard to make this a COMEDY, dammit! It seems far too often that the actors just can’t let go of the knowledge that they’re in a comedic film and just act. They have to keep playing it for laughs. It’s more sitcom than subtle. I never once got that feeling from Caine.

There were some significant changes in story from the original, and I applaud that, actually. I mean, if you’ve just GOT to remake a film, at least put your own spin on it. (Are you listening, Gus Van Sant??) It’s just in this case, I don’t think those changes were for the better. I almost would have liked to see Alan Rickman, who plays the Herbert Lom role in this version, take the lead. I think he would have been far more capable of the subtlety required to walk that very thin line in tone. And he can be VERY funny, even in a serious part. His role here felt wasted to me. And although this is yet another film where the camera never seems to pass up the opportunity to linger on Cameron Diaz’s ass*, she just doesn’t belong here. I’m not sure who’d I’d cast, actually. Bullock, maybe? Hollywood might consider her too old for it. I’ve seen Jennifer Lawrence do some amazing work, but she seems so ubiquitous these days. I think if they stuck very close to the MacLaine version of the character, she’d be very good.

Sorry, I know this isn’t really much of a review, but I didn’t think it was much of a film. At least in comparison to the 1966 version. IMDB: 5.7 Shawn: 4.5.

*If you think I’m making this up, just a quick revisit of the Charlie’s Angels films should demonstrate that I’m not.