Exclusive: All-Female ‘Ocean’s Eleven’ In The Works Starring Sandra Bullock, With Gary Ross Directing

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
This cast looks amazing!

The director Gary Ross talks about the new project titled "Ocean's Eight".
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

George has been busy. Look at this cast list!!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It doesn't sound like George is involved in this at all - unless they have the original cast do cameos. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

George is Producer, Lizzy, and Soderbergh is Executive Producer.......location:New York, in October

Rihanna, Anne Hathaway and Helena Bonham Carter  said to be added to cast

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Well that's quite a cast!  With a cast like this the film should have the potential of being a real hit but .... The screenplay is the thing.  An exceptional screenplay, and good direction, is essential or it won't matter how many terrific actresses are cast in this movie. I'm really curious how this story will follow the Oceans' movies. Those involved in the production are talented professionals so hopefully they are working on a story that is truly clever and witty .... not just a reboot. Sadly I've seen so many dumbed down comedies in the past that I still worry about this one.  I see that Olivia Milch is the writer for Oceans 8.  Don't know what else she's done.

I don't mean to sound pessimistic but I am always wary of remakes. I guess this year's "female" Ghostbusters did pretty well at the box office and got decent reviews.  And it succeeded as a fun summertime movie on its own even without comparing it to the original. It was funny enough and was carried by a solid cast of talented women actors.

With that line-up, I can see it going nowhere real fast.

party animal - not! wrote:George is Producer, Lizzy, and Soderbergh is Executive Producer.......location:New York, in October

No mentions of George being a producer according to THR. Besides, he will be busy with Suburbicon in LA at that time.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Ocean’s Eleven director Steven Soderbergh, who is based in New York and is expected to be deeply involved with the spinoff— perhaps taking on a below-the-line job like he has done on other studio films, such as Magic Mike XXL — is producing solo (Ocean's Eleven producer Jerry Weintraub passed away last year).

Sevens - That's what I saw, too. Maybe George put some money behind the film but isn't actively involved. Whatever, I have my doubts about this one. I  agree with Donnamaarie - it all hinges on the script and director. I wish them luck.

PS - Where have you been? I hope you're having a great summer, but pop in once in a while!

IMDb lists George and Steven as producers and Smokehouse the production company

Donna,
you're right. I just checked IMDB as well...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Thanks for the link carolhathaway. It does seem that Steven will take the lead on this one. Isn't George starting to film Suburbicon in October or November?

I think Suburbicon starts filming in October in Los Angeles.

Thanks annemarie. George sightings to look forward to .......

It's a bit sad when such a huge deal is made out of 'female only' movies, when for decades 'male only' movies have been the first option. Then the 'female only' remake gets a lot of pressure to perform well, in order to prove that 'females' can and do sell movies. So often female characters are really underwritten, the character arcs are stripped to minimum from the original material and the male leads get the better arc.

It's really strange to me how things changed in films. In the '30s and '40s a lot of excellent movies were female centric and did very well. (Think Stanwyk, Hepburn, Davis, Loy etc. - I could go on and on.)

I guess it started changing in the late '50s or early 60's - maybe because the men coming home from war (WWII, Korea and later Viet Nam) wanted to see their stories told and that meant male oriented films. Or maybe it was just that, with the men home, the audience changed and movies centered around women didn't appeal to the men.

Whatever the cause, IMO, the movies written for women today really don't come close to the quality of the "oldies". And remakes of any film usually aren't very good, but sticking a bunch of women into what was an all male film is more a gimmick than anything creative.

(PS- Since Soderbergh himself said he doesn't know how they got the money out in Ocean's 11, I hope this time they take 5 minutes to make sure the plot works! It's really annoying to try to figure something out, only to learn there is no answer!)

Such good points Fingersandtoes and Lizzy.  It's so ironic how far women have come in our country since let's say the 1950s and yet the the overwhelming reflection of this reality is not represented in the movie industry today.  

Every summer my daughter and I have a tradition of watching old "B" movies from mostly the 50s.  Every one of those movies is driven by a leading actress of that era.  And these movies were really successful.  There was a vast number of actresses who successfully carried movies in the 30s, 40s and 50s.  Good scripts.  Contrived insertion of women in a storyline for the sake of making sure women were represented wasn't necessary.  There were just good stories that provided strong female roles.  And there was an abundance of talented women in Hollywood to fill those parts.

But I was reading in the Washington Post this week of the list of the movies driving the box office right now and it's telling.  No. 1 is Finding Dory ($473 million to date).  No doubt a well made movie, entertaining and carrying a good message.  But every one of these top movies is either animated or a comic book film.  They have huge numbers.  And most of these super hero/CGI flicks are dominated by male actors.  There can't be a big incentive for major studios to fight back a winning formula.  Especially if the demand isn't there.

Dont know the answer to this problem.  But an abundance of better women centric stories flooding the market could help.  And smaller, independent studios taking the lead in quality storytelling might help allow for an organic (hate that word), not contrived, revival of  women becoming more formidable in the movie industry.

You're so right, Fingersandtoes, Lizzy and Donna!

When I watch the list of new movies, there's hardly one which really interests me. Ghostbusters - well  I wasn't a big fan of the 'old' movie so the female remake didn't appeal to me...
There are always animated films but I have to be in the right mood to watch it. (I really liked 'Inside Out' because the idea appealed to me.). I'm also not a big fan of these 'Bridesmaids / Hangover' sort of fun movies.
And then the movie has to be shown in a nearby cinema. We've got an independant theatre nearby which I try to support because I like the idea of a local cinema (apart from the fact that it's cheaper than the other ones). And then there's a  bigger cinema about 20 miles away. If a movie isn't screened there, I have to drive at least 40 miles to go to another one, and I would only do this if I'd desperately wanted to see a movie. Otherwise I'd wait until it's shown on TV. When I was a kid, we had two cinemas in my small hometown, and we went there quite often. Now we have to find out which cinema screens the movie I want to see, then I have to pre-book the tickets, have to drive at least half an hour to get there, have to be there 30 minutes before it starts to get my pre-ordered tickets, pay 10 € for the ticket plus 2 € if it's a top-movie plus 2 € if it lasts more than 120 minutes plus 2 € if it's a 3D-movie. That's 32 € for my husband and myself, 2 € cheaper for each kid. So that's 60 € for the four of us, and that doesn't include a drink, popcorn or fuel to get there by car. 
If I compare this to my childhood when we went to the movies about once a week (and my parents didn't have much money when I was a kid) we usually think twice before we decide to watch a movie. 
If you add the fact that movies are shown on TV much sooner than years ago that might explain why people don't go to the cinemas as much as they used to do. 

But it certainly doesn't explain why there aren't many intelligent female - centred movies like in the 1950s. Maybe at that time people liked these sort of movies because a lot of it was fiction at that time, women  mostly weren't as independant as in these movies. Now we've got emancipation at home and at work, maybe people (or at least men) don't want to watch it on screen as well...

I suppose if the movie fails it chalked up to the female leads and not bad writing or other factors and Hollywood will say "female" movies don't make sense financially.  If it succeeds, we'll probably see a bunch of movies remade with female casts instead of writing smart new roles for women.  Blues Sisters, anyone?

In any event, not sure this type of film advances the cause of females in movies much. Except perhaps women are getting paid for being leads.  

And Rihanna??

Carolhathaway - It's the same here. There are way fewer theaters than there used to be and the cost of a movie ticket has gotten so high that unless the movie is something really spectacular it isn't worth going to a theater to see it. It will be on tv or online soon enough.

I  don't know how we got to this point, but I think at least part of it stems from the industry belief that young (read: immature teenage) boys were their main market and they have geared their movies to them for years. These kids want action, sex and bad language and stupid, slapstick humor because that's what they're experimenting with in real life. Eventually most of them mature and grow out of it. Apparently the movie industry does not.

LizzyNY wrote:These kids want action, sex and bad language and stupid, slapstick humor because that's what they're experimenting with in real life. Eventually most of them mature and grow out of it. Apparently the movie industry does not.

Lizzy,
you nailed it!!!

I wouldn't let girls off the hook. I think there have been just as many silly and mindless comedies that girls and young women have gravitated to over the years.

So many young people especially don't have the patience to sit through a thoughtful and complex film without complaining on the way out of theater how boring it was. That's where fast paced action, gratuitous sex and low brow comedy come to the rescue. Some have been brought up on this type of entertainment and don't know any better. It's really sad. I don't mean to stereotype the typical moviegoer but I do think it's true for a large segment of that population.

Donna,
in a way my way of watching movies has changed as well - at least when I'm at home:
I don't have to sit all the time because I'm able to stop every program, I can record or DVR it, I can watch it on the Internet.
And we've got much more programs than years ago and I zap around inbetween. Especially during commercial breaks.
I've got my tablet with me while watching TV. So I can check the news or look at the internet because 'this actor looks familiar. Where have I seen him before? Oh, it was that movie. Who else was there? Oh, it's this actress. And that certain director. ... - what happened on TV during the last 15 minutes?'
So I'm often not as focussed and concentrated on watching a movie as I should be...
And a complex story gets lost because we've lost the ability to stay focussed on a topic. 

Plus: Who prefers to watch daily soaps? Mostly young people (well, at least here). And how long do they last? About 45 minutes. So a movie which lasts twice or three times as long often asks too much of them.

I agree that modern media has shortened our attention spans and made us less able to focus. But even so, that doesn't mean that we all have to be treated as if we're 14 years old with an I.Q. of 6! They could make some movies for grown-ups. George does.

And what does it say about women that they feel they have to be as crude and gross as a bunch of drunken frat boys to be considered "cool"? I think the Melissa McCarthy-type movies make women look like idiots - the kind of girls that wake up the morning after and don't have a clue what they did last night. Maybe I dealt with too much of this kind of nonsense when I was teaching to enjoy this kind of immature low-brow humor. I heard it all in the school hallways and classrooms from pre-teens.

I just watched the suicide squad, and was do sad that one of my favourite characters ever (Harley Quinn) got  such a horrible writing. The character is LOVED, the material is already there, but they scrap it screen writing it. No wonder female leads don't get hyped up. Either women are written as men or just written so horrible you can't root for the character. 

I've almost given up on big budget movies, there are much better indie films out there, with better writing for female characters.

Fingersandtoes you're right.  The writing is crucial.  

There is a new movie that just opened in the states today called "Equity".  It's a drama about women executives dealing with sexism on Wall Street.  The standout about this movie is that it was written, directed and produced by women.  Women lead the cast.  The Washington Post review claims that the movie falls short and ends up being all too familiar, obvious and contrived.  The biggest criticism ..... the lack of "character depth"  and "rich writing".  But it does seem that The New York Times and Rolling Stone liked it.  I would like to see this one.  I would like to see it be successful for the obvious reasons we've discussed here.

I wanted to add that I just checked Rotten Tomatoes and there were far more positive critic and audience reviews. So I'm excited about this one!

Donna,
I think we all know movies we really although somebody (maybe even critics) reviewed it quite badly. And critics are also just human beings and not objective. If a critic had a fight with his wife before watching, doesn't like a romantic comedy but has to write a review about one...
On the other hand I remember watching 'American Beauty' who was highly acclaimed by critics, and I expected a comedy and was in the mood for that. And I was so shocked when I watched it that I left the cinema and cried. And I still can't watch it on TV...

carolhathaway, if there is a movie I'm intent on seeing I usually will disregard the critics unless it was universally panned by them. There aren't too many movies these
days that interest me in the first place so it's not an issue.

American Beauty ..... Saw it when it first came out and I think I might have watched once on TV years later. I thought is was a very well made and effective story. Not one of my personal favorites though. A very raw, cynical and somewhat disturbing look at life, love, and sexuality. It was a critical and popular success but it's not a movie for everyone. It certainly wasn't a comedy in the classic sense. I think it won the Oscar for Best Picture and some other awards.

This movie's suckiness is not a foregone conclusion, but it gets more likely with each bit of news.

Gary Ross is receiving writing credit now, which means that he rewrote a hefty piece of the (female-written) script that Bullock and Blanchette - two real actors - signed on to. A male perspective on a female-centered story. Just what they all need.

And now we have the stunt casting of Rihanna and Awkwafina, two singer/performer/hip-hop artists who have recently made it known that they want to "get more into acting."

Neither of these developments bodes well, in my mind, for artistic credibility. Maybe it's all organic - a word I use often. We'll have to wait and see. But I have my doubts.

Anna Wintour as consultant? 

All supposed to take place at the Met Ball...

Maybe George and Amal will make a cameo appearance. That might sell a couple of tickets and give Amal a chance to dip her toe into a new career - just in case the lawyer thing doesn't work out.

That would be a sure bet to tank the film!

LizzyNY wrote:Sevens - That's what I saw, too. Maybe George put some money behind the film but isn't actively involved. Whatever, I have my doubts about this one. I  agree with Donnamaarie - it all hinges on the script and director. I wish them luck.

PS - Where have you been? I hope you're having a great summer, but pop in once in a while!

Hi Lizzy I've been away with travelling, watching sports(NBA, Olympics,soccer etc.), meanwhile George doesn't seem to have much news during the summer... but I just watched Money Monster online-Gosh, loved that smoothly talking George! Thanks for your concern, and I'm ready to visit more often when George returns to work!

Donnamarie wrote:carolhathaway, if there is a movie I'm intent on seeing I usually will disregard the critics unless it was universally panned by them.  There aren't too many movies these
days that interest me in the first place so it's not an issue.

American Beauty ..... Saw it when it first came out and I think I might have watched once on TV years later.  I thought is was a very well made and effective story.  Not one of my personal favorites though. A very raw, cynical and somewhat disturbing look at life, love, and sexuality.  It was a critical and popular success but it's not a movie for everyone.  It certainly wasn't a comedy in the classic sense.  I think it won the Oscar for Best Picture and some other awards.  

Actually American Beauty is my favorite film and ranks No.1 on my list of all-time greats. Watched it three times and recently with my mom. Remember that raw, speechless shock on my first viewing. I tend to like those deep, tragic plots and characters.

Nice to hear from you Sevens. We do miss your input here. But so glad you are enjoying your summer travelling and what not.

American Beauty is one of my husband's favorite movies .... and he doesn't even like movies that much. Also a fave of some friends. For me it left an unsettling feeling that has stuck with me over time.

It's interesting how different we feel about certain movies. I don't know how I'd feel about 'American Beauty' if I'd known what it was about. So I was just shocked and this feeling still remains...

Maybe it's similar when you hear very good or very bad news while listening to a certain song and you always have this combination of the news and the song. I still know which song was played on the radio when there were breaking news about two planes which crashed into World Trade Center, and every timeI hear this song I remember hearing these news and how I felt...

Rumor is that Salma Hayek has been asked to be the ocho-th member of this 'Ocean's Ocho' cast but has reservations and hasn't signed on.

Again, only rumor.

... And now comes word - from someone more likely than the original storytellers to know - that neither part of this above-reported rumor is true.

I'm trying to get my hands on a copy of the original draft of the script.

Way2Old - Do you think it being a sequel/remake/whatever gives it a better chance of succeeding than if it was a stand-alone all female heist movie? I'm wondering why they'd want to risk the comparison to the originals.

Short answer: No.

But then, you're probably asking the wrong person. I don't like remakes, and I detest stories made for one gender but played by another as a gimmick. Men and women do not act or react the same for the purposes of most cinema-worthy events, and characters of both sexes need depth and nuance particular to them.

So I would hope that this is an original concept written especially for these women as women, and that somebody has run with the boneheaded idea to call it an 'Ocean's' movie because they think that gives it an automatic audience and credibility, rather than bill it as a female-driven story "in the vein of" 'Ocean's'... if that franchise had to be mentioned at all.

There is an industry term that was applied to action movies starring females in the roles formerly reserved for men: MWT, meaning Men with Tits. None of them were worth the time and effort to make them. Unfortunately, that sub-'genre' has now moved to comedy, and I think it's going to be even less successful than it was with the action movies... to put it nicely.

Way2Old - Totally agree with you about remakes and MWT films - especially the "comedies". We all know that men can be incredibly mind-numbingly stupid and immature. I never understood the appeal of women imitating that kind of "humor". Maybe I taught 9 year olds for too long! I just don't find that kind of thing funny.

Do you think Soderbergh really expects this to work, or was it just too good a deal to pass up? (I still hate him for making a movie that doesn't make sense! - and he even admitted it! He just didn't care enough to fix it.)

Nobody sets out to make a bad movie. But I think a lot of people are willing to give in to questionable creative choices in the hopes that they will get a good movie out of it, while they make money. Soderbergh's track record doesn't seem to indicate that he's entirely motivated by profit, but maybe he's come to the point where he needs a big payday or something. Who knows?

(Picture me with a sly grin, arched eyebrows - thin as they are - and rubbing my hands together.)

I may have found someone who knows somebody who used to hook up with the cousin of a guy whose sister might know where to get this script...

This is only a slight exaggeration.

To one of our points...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Sorry. For some reason, my tablet isn't in the mood to copy the article. I'll try it when I can get to the laptop.

These Upcoming Original Films Will Make You Forget All About Remakes and Sequels

August 22, 2016



[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
You may have read my column Friday about Ben-Hur and when, exactly, it is that it’s okay to remake a movie (short version: rarely), and then, over the weekend, I saw Hell or High Water, which is, without question, the best film I’ve seen so far this year. Sing Street is a not too distant second, and they’re both from original screenplays, and that got me to thinking a couple things.
First of all, a smart production company or studio should pony up a lot of money to corral Taylor Sheridan’s next few screenplays because between this and Sicario, he is clearly one of the best writers of smart, thoughtful, gritty action films currently out there. Secondly, in all this talk about how bad this summer’s movies have been, and all the remakes and adaptations and everything else (admittedly, much of this talk coming from me), I think we have lost something in the process.
If we really want the studios to once again start making the kinds of movies that made us fall in love with the movies in the first place, we need to start supporting films that are based on original ideas, because otherwise, they’re going to keep doing the same thing they’ve been doing that has ticked us off so much that we (okay, I, but also a lot of you tweeting at me at [url=sendto:https://twitter.com/neilturitz]@neilturitz[/url]) can’t stop taking about it.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
So I decided to take a look at what we have coming out over the final four months of the year, what wide release movies based on original ideas and not on something else — a comic book or a sequel or a book or a short story or a real life event or anything other than someone’s thoughts, which they put into a screenplay and sold to the highest bidder — are in our immediate future, and then discuss them here, so that maybe we can all get out there and show the studios that, in fact, we are big fans of this kind of thing and would like to see more of it.
A quick bit of qualification, because I think it’s important: I’m going to acknowledge that short shrift is being given to animated films (Storks, Moana, and Sing), and horror (Morgan, Keep Watching, and Incarnate), and throw an asterisk at Rules Don’t Apply, because while Warren Beatty’s long-gestating Howard Hughes pic is not actually based on real events, it is based on real people. Of course, it’s also a Warren Beatty film, so we should probably all see it, anyway, because they’re more often than not pretty great (see: Shampoo — yes, I know Hal Ashby directed it, but come on — Heaven Can Wait, Reds and Bulworth, but maybe skip Dick Tracy), but I think it’s okay to not exactly include it here, even though I kinda just did.
That leaves us with just an even baker’s dozen movies coming out between now and the start of 2017 that qualify for this list, and all of them have something interesting about them, even if you have to delve a little below the surface to do so.
So let’s give that a shot, shall we?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
It essentially starts in mid-October with The Accountant and Keeping Up With the Joneses. The first one is actually a mid-range budget drama that doesn’t seem to fit into the Grand Master Plan of the studios, but rather as a sort of throwback that has me more than a tad intrigued. While I’m no Ben Affleck fanatic (he’s fine, I suppose), I do like the work of Gavin O’Connor, who helmed the best movies ever about hockey (Miracle) and ultimate fighting (Warrior), and also, it should be noted, stepped into a thankless directing gig to save Natalie Portman’s Jane Got a Gun. If the only reason to see it was because he was directing, that would be enough for me, but now there’s the added benefit of supporting an original screenplay.
Likewise, Joneses looks very funny, with a killer cast — Jon Hamm, Zach Galifianakis, Isla Fisher and Gal Gadot — and comes from Superbad and Adventureland director Greg Mottola. Any time you have a combination like that, odds are good that you’re going to get your money’s worth in belly laughs by the time you exit the theater. I don’t know about you, but those are the kinds of movies I like to support.
November gets us another trio of originals, with Almost Christmas first up on Veteran’s Day. That’s a comedy about a family asked to get along for one five-day stretch during the holidays. Not normally my cup of tea, but this fall is different, so maybe I’ll give it a shot, after all. A week later comes The Edge of Seventeen, a teen dramedy with Hallee Seinfeld and Woody Harrelson with a great trailer that had me laughing and marking my calendar. That same week, Kenneth Lonergan’s Manchester By the Sea hits theaters. A Sundance standout, this dark drama from the writer-director of You Can Count On Me is pretty much right in my wheelhouse. It’s exactly the kind of movie that gets lots of awards chatter going, and the early word suggests it won’t let us down.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Which takes us to December, and the last eight of our chosen films. The first two come out on the 2nd, with Damien Chazelle’s Whiplash followup, the musical La La Land with Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone, and if you need me to flog this pony even remotely, then you were never going to see it in the first place. More interesting to discuss is the Halle Berry thriller Kidnap, which should have come out in 2015, but was delayed by the Relativity bankruptcy. It has had no less than five release dates, and one hopes that it will finally make this one, but until it actually sees the inside of theaters, we won’t know for sure.
We can be sure, however, about the Jessica Chastain vehicle Miss Sloane and the raucous ensemble comedy Office Christmas Party. The former has Oscar bait all over it, especially for its star, while the latter has an amazing cast and one of the funniest trailers I’ve seen in years. I suspect that Miss Sloane will benefit from awards chatter (which, as we know, leads to bigger box office), while Party is exactly the kind of holiday comedy that serves as good counter-programming for all the heavier fare.
Speaking of counter-programming, Collateral Beauty hits screens the same day as the Star Wars spinoff, Rogue One. That worked out pretty well last year for Sisters, and I imagine the same will be true for this heavy-duty drama, especially with a cast that includes Will Smith, Edward Norton, Kate Winslett, Helen Mirren, Keira Knightley, Naomie Harris and Michael Peña. I mean, who wouldn’t want to see that bunch in one film?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
A week later, one of the year’s most highly anticipated flicks opens, and I don’t mean The Space Between Us, which might actually be a pretty good movie, but you can’t really tell by the treacly trailer. In fact, I’ve had no fewer than five different people tell me that they actually laughed at it, which is not the desired effect. Interestingly, we haven’t even seen a trailer for the movie I am talking about, Passengers, starring Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt. If there was one movie that was really needed by both actors to firmly, once and for all, establish their draw as movie stars away from franchises or ensembles, this would be it. Yes, Lawrence got some people into theaters last year to see Joy, but this one is different. This is a big budget sci-fi flick that is clearly resting very firmly on their shoulders, and I, for one, will be among the first in line to see if they can pull it off.
Finally, there’s Why Him?, which comes out on the final Wednesday of the year, and even if it looks fairly ridiculous, it also serves as a comedic lead role for last year’s Oscar nominee, Bryan Cranston. I don’t know about you, but seeing someone who has worked so hard for so long, for him to achieve something akin to movie star status this far into his career — even if it’s in a more limited capacity — that just kind of warms my cockles.
All of these do, really. And they should warm yours, too, because what they are is increasingly rare. We should all agree that we’re going to support these projects, whether they’re good or bad, in the hopes that the companies making them get this particularly strong message:
We want more of them. A lot more.

Way2Old and Mel - Thanks for the find. A lot of these films sound really interesting. I just hope they get released somewhere where we can all see them instead of some obscure art house in the middle of nowhere.

Seen this yet?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

This is not 'on topic,' but it's kind of related if you stretch it... But it doesn't deserve its own thread.

I just read the treatment for the remake of 'The Intouchables.' Not the screenplay, just the detailed notes that summarize the script. But if they stick to it - and there is no guarantee they will - it is going to absolutely break my heart. The 'Intouchables' is a great little movie. Heartfelt, charming, and with touching, nuanced performances. I love it.

The new one has Kevin Hart as the co-lead.

Bryan Cranston is the other lead, and he might be able to pull his role off. But I'm doubting that, too.

If you haven't seen the original, find it and watch it. And then imagine Kevin Hart in it.

'The Intouchables' was a wonderful movie with terrific performances by the two leading men. Can't remember the actors' names.

I can't imagine Kevin Hart in the role of the caregiver!
There is nothing nuanced about Kevin Hart and he lacks the physicality and I think the charm of the original actor.

Why mess with the original? In fact, the original came out only a few years ago ... 2011 or 2012 I think?