RE: Old Movie Remakes. Are they Better?

RE: Old Movie Remakes. Are they Better? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

IrishMist -> RE: Old Movie Remakes. Are they Better? (2/16/2008 12:56:38 PM)
It has been very rare that I have seen a remake that I felt was just as good, if not better, than the original. Off the top of my head, only one comes to mind and that is the remake of Assault of Precint 13. The remake was just as good as the original; I could even go so far as to say that it may have surpassed the original.

bipolarber -> RE: Old Movie Remakes. Are they Better? (2/16/2008 12:58:19 PM)
I prefer the remake of the Thing to the original, because it was far closer to the original story "Who Goes There?" by John W. Campbell. The original was okay, but dumbed down to be a story that the "avereage american audince member would root for the heroes." At least, according to the biography of Howard Hawks. When it comes to Dracula... I actually prefer the spannish version that was shot at the same time, on the same set as the Lugosi/Tod Browning version. But, I still feel that Frank Langella's version in the late 70's was the best. (There was also a PBS/BBC version with Louis Jordan as Dracula, which gets an "A" for being closest to the book, but unfortunately came off as a bit stiff. Peter Jackson's King Kong was pretty good, but suffered from being really overlong and self indulgent. I still think the original is the better one. Oh, and I think I still prefer the original Casablanca to the Pam Anderson remake, called Barb Wire.

IrishMist -> RE: Old Movie Remakes. Are they Better? (2/16/2008 1:04:38 PM)
I had forgotten about The Thing. I do agree with you that the remake was much better than the original. Dracula movies; I have seen so many of them that I can't even tell you what was the original and what was a remake anymore. I do remember one that I used to watch as a teenager, but for the life of me I can not name who starred in it. It was a German movie; they played it on PBS and it was about 4 hours long but man......it fucking rocked. The absolute best I have ever seen to date. Another remake they did that I felt was better was The Fly. I had a hard time following the original, which is really strange because it's a pretty simple movie when you think of it.

GreedyTop -> RE: Old Movie Remakes. Are they Better? (2/16/2008 3:51:23 PM)
Yanno.. I was just thinking of a movie that I think would be a DISASTER to remake... Soylent Green There's NO WAY it could be remade and even begin to compare comparably with the original...

Nosathro -> RE: Old Movie Remakes. Are they Better? (2/16/2008 8:42:42 PM)
I still have not forgiven Nichlos Cage for the remake of "The Wicked Man".

MadameMarque -> RE: Old Movie Remakes. Are they Better? (2/16/2008 10:12:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bipolarber [clipped] When it comes to Dracula... I actually prefer the spannish version that was shot at the same time, on the same set as the Lugosi/Tod Browning version. But, I still feel that Frank Langella's version in the late 70's was the best. (There was also a PBS/BBC version with Louis Jordan as Dracula, which gets an "A" for being closest to the book, but unfortunately came off as a bit stiff.) [clipped] But Jordan was unexpectedly great as Dracula, wasn't he? He had a cold reptilian quality to his face, theretofore unrevealed. The last time I saw this British, Louis Jordan production televised, they had editted out (even on PBS) a scene in which Dracula brings home food for his brides, in a bag. He drops it on the stone floor with a soft thud, and points at it, for them. I remember the first time I watched this, long ago, thinking how shockingly true to the concept this was - that they viewed humans as truly another species and their prey. That they were as merciless as humans slaughering a calf. My favourite version is Copolla's Dracula. It hit me at a deep level. Now I'm curious about the early Spanish version of Dracula. Though you have to hand it to Browning and Lugosi, for theirs. Sometime, when watching Lugosi, look at his hands. He had the most magnificent hands. (or at least he did in his healthier days)

MissMorrigan -> RE: Old Movie Remakes. Are they Better? (2/17/2008 5:24:09 AM)
Generally speaking, remakes tend to be hideous and on a par with most sequels. There are a few that have not only surpassed the original, but have been thought of to be the orignal: The Fly - Later with Jeff Goldblum (saw the orignal, nuff said). Dangerous Liaisons - Who could resist promiscuity in the French aristocracy? And... Martin Scorcese's Cape Fear, starring Robert de Niro. The original was in 1962. I also loved Dirty Rotten Scoundrels. The Grudge and The Ring films were originally Japanese (and superb), later becoming Hollywood remakes and disasters.

sharainks -> RE: Old Movie Remakes. Are they Better? (2/17/2008 6:08:04 AM)
I think part of the reason the remakes are not as good is that the new ones are more politically correct. When it comes to horror movies it seems that many people don't understand that horror comes from the mind and heart not how much blood is splashed. In order for something to be truly horrifying it has to reach something in your mind and engage it in the situations being presented. I think Hollywood is not as good at that as it used to be. To me one of the worst remakes ever was the Stepford Wives. From the horror of the first one with women realizing something was terribly wrong in Stepford and men willing to kill their wives to get a sexy robot to a comedy-egads what a jump. The remake of The Shining was just bland and a total zero imo.

adoracat -> RE: Old Movie Remakes. Are they Better? (2/17/2008 6:11:12 AM)
the 1968, based on an actual story, movie "yours, mine, and ours" shouldnt have been remade. lucille ball and henry fonda had an AMAZING chemistry. first movie for tim matheson, too. the remake took FAR too many PC liberties with the story, and it was ridiculous. the movie "cheaper by the dozen" was another one that shouldnt have been touched. the original was, again, based on an actual family, and the remake made fast and loose with the facts. kitten, who actually does like a few remakes, but by the gods make them WORK.

FangsNfeet -> RE: Old Movie Remakes. Are they Better? (2/17/2008 6:56:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MissMorrigan Dangerous Liaisons - Who could resist promiscuity in the French aristocracy? I think the Cruel Intentions was meant to appeal for a younger 90210 fan based audiance. This group is more interested in the sex than the Story, Drama, Acting, and Costuming. It's may also be easier for this group to relate to college students versus a middle age upper class set back to sophisticated period of time.

TheBanshee -> RE: Old Movie Remakes. Are they Better? (2/17/2008 7:37:58 AM)
However, some movie classics should always remain to be unchanged. Gone with the Wind Rocky Horror Picture Show The God Father Star Wars I suppose you didn't like the 1983 version of Casablanca - not Humphrey Bogart - you know, the David Soul version????

subrob1967 -> RE: Old Movie Remakes. Are they Better? (2/17/2008 7:40:00 AM)
I agree some movies that are remade, are loosely based on the original, and brought up to date, like "The Thing" & "Magnificent Seven", these I don't mind too much. But the "Americanised" remakes of foreign films, kinda piss me off. Which "The Shining" did you guys prefer, Nicholson/Duvall or the much more accurate Weber/De Mornay version?

TheBanshee -> RE: Old Movie Remakes. Are they Better? (2/17/2008 7:45:00 AM)
Just an FYI, the Magnificent Seven is a remake of the Japanese version "The Seven Samurai" so it is an Americanized verision of a classic foreign film (one I personally believe works very well however).

IrishMist -> RE: Old Movie Remakes. Are they Better? (2/17/2008 9:19:48 AM)
Ok, I am going to do some deep delving into the memory here. Originals that SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN REMADE: Cheaper by the Dozen Yours Mine and Ours The Parent Trap War of the Worlds Invasion of the Body Snatchers The Shining Planet of the Apes The Poseidon Adventure Those are just a few right off the top of my head that I can think of now. The originals were so good that they should never have even touched them for remakes; doing so destroyed the movies completely.

BitchGoddessD -> RE: Old Movie Remakes. Are they Better? (2/17/2008 9:40:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FangsNfeet So, does anyone remember the original Little Shop of Horrors with Jack Nicholson or is that to far back after watching the Nick Moranis and Steve Martin remake? I watched the original all alone and late at night. Scared me silly when the flowers open at the end. Love it and recently got the original on dvd. The Shining with Jack is also a bone chiller. Hitchcock was and is that rare individual who understood that the best scares come from the mind's imagination not blood and gore. Although I love Depp, I cannot see Willy Wonka if its not the original. I know it's not quite on topic but I also dislike movies that don't live up to the book.

winterlight -> RE: Old Movie Remakes. Are they Better? (2/17/2008 9:50:52 AM)
Most remakes stink. They cannot come up with anything new or original so they turn to remakes. Very rarely do you find something new out there. It is amazing how they did things in the old movies without special effects. You learned your craft by making a lot of movies and by practice. Do the stars of today even compare to the stars of yesterday? I can think of a few...But for legitimate star power i think the old ones were IT!

philosophy -> RE: Old Movie Remakes. Are they Better? (2/17/2008 11:02:08 AM)
..i think there are two sorts of remakes to consider here. The first sort would include films like 'The Shining', 'Casablanca', 'The Wicker Man', and, say, 'Love Story'. Let's call them films that basically function because of their narrative. The second sort of films are things like 'Superman', 'Dracula', 'Jack the Ripper', or 'Frankenstein'. These are movies that depend on our understanding certain things about the central character before we even see the movie. These are movies about culturally iconic characters rather than being based on their story per se. Therefore, the second type of movie remakes relatively well. Because they are essentially the same sort of generational cultural reinvention that the theatre has done to Shakespeare for centuries. The first type is much harder to remake....they have to tread an extraordinarily thin line between multiple peoples with expectations. (edited for clarity)

RealityLicks -> RE: Old Movie Remakes. Are they Better? (2/17/2008 11:56:18 AM)
What about loose remakes? The Big Lebowski is a remake of The Big Sleep - albeit with elements of the Maltese Falcon thrown in. You don't necessarily see Sam Spade in The Dude but with the right perspective, it becomes clear that the idea of a labyrinthine crime story in LA takes on a certain logic which derives from the earlier work.

samboct -> RE: Old Movie Remakes. Are they Better? (2/17/2008 2:00:09 PM)
I think some of us have reasonably convergent taste- wholeheartedly agree with bipolarber that the Thing remaks is far superior to the original and closer to John W. Campbell's story. Also agree with Greedy Top that a remake of Soylent Green would be problematic. However, I really liked the updated War of the Worlds- thought it was damn scary when I saw it on the big screen, although the 50s version isn't bad. Another perennial remake favorite is Invasion of the Body Snatchers- I liked the Donald Sutherland version best, but that's a remake too. In terms of King Kong- I thought the middle one was the best- the 70s Jeff Bridges version. A couple of more remakes that worked- the best of the Three Musketeers was the 70s pair of movies, the Three and Four Musketeers with Oliver Reed. Michael York, and Faye Dunaway (and a whole bunch of others.) Another Dumas remake that worked very well was the Count of Monte Cristo with James Caveziel. Speaking of DeMornay- nobody mentioned "And God Created Woman." Haven't seen the original- liked the remake because I really like her. Some remakes are really different- the Italian Job comes to mind- the second movie is much darker and is really a different movie. Fun with Dick and Jane- both work- but they're different movies. I wonder why they don't come up with new titles for these movies- they're not really remakes rather than borrowing titles and some plot elements. Breathless with Richard Gere was a lot better than A Bout de Souffle which is pretty lame in my book. The Hitcher- remakitis- the first version is quite a thriller- the second version is so similar it's silly with one twist. I'm with the original Psycho though- I've seen the remake and can't remember a damn thing about it. In terms of the Superman canon- I remember really liking Lois and Clark, but then again, I also really like Smallville. Much better than the original TV shows. The recent Superman movie didn't do a lot for me- it's too depressing. See sweetwenchie- you're not alone, there are clearly a bunch of movie buffs here. Sam

MadameMarque -> RE: Old Movie Remakes. Are they Better? (2/18/2008 2:13:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: samboct [clipped] Breathless with Richard Gere was a lot better than A Bout de Souffle which is pretty lame in my book. [clipped] ha, I was just about to name Breathless, as it somehow came to my mind, this evening. Though it was critically denounced, I thought Gere was very real in that character, and his co-star, Valerie Kaprisky, was touching, too. Kurosawa's Yojimbo, which RealityLicks mentioned, about a masterless Samurai who wanders into a small town occupied by two warring gangs, was remade as A Fistful of Dollars, by Sergio Leone with Clint Eastwood, then by Tony Scott with Bruce Willis, as Last Man Standing. Yojimbo's the best - very entertaining, by the way - but I also really like Last Man Standing, on its own merit. I'm a Tony Scott fan, anyway. (Can't comment on Fistful of Dollars, don't think I've seen it.) Did you know that Tom Hanks' movie, Perdition, is a remake of Babycart Over the River Styx, the Japanese "Lone Wolf and Cub" manga-turned-movie series?

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625