|
 |
|
Go
 |
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
Know-It-All |
With King Kong coming out soon I thought it would be interesting to discuss which movies were made better and which ones were made worse in their second attempt.
To be honest I haven't seen many of the remakes. I actually tend to avoid them. I accidently rented the new "Psycho" once and promptly returned it when I realized my mistake. In the next two years "The Wicker Man" and "Don't Look Now" are possibly being remade according to IMD. Since I really liked these movies I'd be interested to see how they are portrayed. At the same time why do it if it's already a classic? Are there reasons beyond money? I can't think of a good remake of a movie. Maybe I'm being snobbish, but I would like to be enlightened if they are out there. So either trash or praise a redone movie. |
||
|
|
Jedi |
There are obviously a ton one could trash, but I will offer a few worthy remakes. I am not saying these are necessarily better, but they are good, in my opinion...
Invasion of the Body Snatchers - I actually like this one more than the original. The end is classic. The Fly - Cronenberg's remake is a lot scarier than the original. Cape Fear - I like the original, but I think this is one of De Niro's scariest characters. The Thomas Crown Affair - Nobody beats Steve McQueen, but Pierce Brosnan is pretty smooth and I thought the remake was very entertaining. City Slickers - This is actually a remake of a movie called The Cowboys in which John Wayne plays the "Curly" character. Magnificent Seven and A Fistful of Dollars - I think these two are pretty obvious. The Bad News Bears - The original is one of my top ten baseball movies of all time, but I laughed my ass off watching the remake. The Wizard of Oz - There were actually several silent films that came out in the teens and twenties before the 1939 version. This message has been edited. Last edited by: PRG, |
|||
|
|
Guru |
Charlie and the chocolate factory- one of those movies you either love or hate. I thought it was awesome, though it isn't really a remake, more of a different view of the book.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: LordSmoogsbottomIII, |
|||
|
|
Guru |
Red Dragon (2002) was a pale imitation of Manhunter (1986) that was crisp clean, natural, and developed slow into a cresendo climax - even an improvement on the novel itself.
|
|||
|
|
Jedi |
I agree. I didn't include any pans in my post, but if I had,Red Dragon would have been included. I liked Michael Mann's version a lot better. |
|||
|
|
Slacker First Class |
I think the recent rash of horror film remakes deserves a mention, specifically "Texas Chainsaw Massacre," "Thirteen Ghosts," "The Fog" and "Amityville Horror."
The specific problem with these films is that they generally miss the point of the original, attempting to ramp up the horror by making everything big, abrassive and overbearing. This goes back at least as far as the remake of the "The Haunting," which turned the quiet psychlogical fear of the original into an exercise in special effects wizardry. They think they are updating the films for a modern audience and end up ruining the tone that made the premise work in the first place. I think it's important to keep in mind the reason for so many remakes it that they are easy to market because of name recognition and, though I know it has been said before, Hollywood seems often bankrupt for ideas. That said, I think "The Ring" worked pretty well on its own by not attempting to crib directly from the original, and "Dawn of the Dead" was a decent film in its own right provided you don't mind shutting your brain down for a bit. |
|||
|
|
Apprentice Guru |
Don't forget the remake of Hitchcock's Psycho. It was like watching a "paint by numbers" imitation of the original. Boy, you got to carry that weight a long time! |
|||
|
|
"Forum Moderator" Super Bad-Ass Jedi |
It's funny that you call the original The Haunting "quiet". The film uses LOUD sounds a lot, and many of the scenes are over the top, but I agree with you that it's much better than all these crummy remakes. "Naked Woman, Naked Man Where did you get that nice sun tan?" |
|||
|
|
Slacker |
I really do think that Hollywood is underminding the American public with its spate of sh1t remakes. It seems everything has to be explained and shown e.g. at the begining of the original Japenese Grudge we were only told about the first carer going missing, so it creates a sense of mystery ('I wonder what happened to her?'). In the American remake we are shown what happens to the carer, there was no need for this, because then Sarah Geller walks in the house, and we know pretty much what will happen to her. These remakes also peak too early, for instance the little girl ghost in the Amytaville remake is shown far too soon (in the window), dispersing any possibility of a shock when the daughter tells the mother about the girl (ghost) half way through the film. I think Hollywood is afraid that Americans won't understand whats going on if things aren't spelled out for them, or even worse they will get bored and leave the cinema.
LESS IS MORE This message has been edited. Last edited by: NIP NIPS, |
|||
|
|
"Forum Moderator" Super Bad-Ass Jedi |
I thought Steven Soderberg's "Ocean's Eleven" was a great remake.
I was also impressed with Richard Linklater's recent "Bad News Bears" remake. I know the original is classic, but Billy Bob Thorton is just hilarious to watch. The worst remake has to go to Tim Burton for "Planet of the Apes". Seriously, was there really any need for that? ----- We were wasps with new wings, now we're bugs in the jar. |
|||
|
|
Know-It-All |
I know a lot of people love the original Yours, Mine and Ours with Lucille Ball so I am interested to see how the remake does. I think it comes out Wed and definitely looks modernized, but might be a nice film to take the nieces and nephews to on Thanksgiving afternoon...
|
|||
|
|
Guru |
I going to assume that mine is a minority opinion but I strongly felt that Point of No Return (1993) was a much stronger, vibrant, and haunting version of the French original La Femme Nikita 1991. The scene with a Clean Up man with Harvey Keitel was more chilling and sharp than Jean Reno who as came across as more soft and without as hard an edge as Keitel. The ending of the remake was also more emotionally insinuating than the original with the suggestive glimmer of freedom and attachment.
|
|||
|
|
Slacker |
i've seen point of no return...not bad
|
|||
|
|
Know-It-All |
Worst remakes…
The Big Blue The Vanishing …the originals are sobering and much more memorable. |
|||
|
|
Guru |
It is kind of tough finding a remake that is better than the original. It remains the exception rather than the rule.
I love the original Fred Zinnemann DAY OF THE JACKEL with Edward Fox in the eponymous title role, but the Richard Gere/Bruce Willis remake called THE JACKEL was a real dud. I remember seeing Sam Peckinpah's great THE GETAWAY with Steve McQueen, Ali McGraw and a boatload of great character actors (Dub Taylor, Slim Pickins, Al Lieteri) and then finding the Alec Baldwin/Kim Basinger/James Woods remake to be a complete dud. And I'll be a real contrarion here and get killed but I feel John Carpenter's THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD remake is a better movie than the Hawks/Christian Nyby well-regarded original. |
|||
|
|
Guru |
Finally someone who can appreciate real updated, contemporary science fiction that hits serious and hard. John Carpenter's The Thing when it came out brought out the shivers and terror of the 1956 Invasion of the Body Snatchers with a much stronger intensity and burst through to nightmarish shock and fear with a pounding Carpenter's soundtrack. This is one of the few movies that I have left the theater visible shaking. The 1951 original and its now outdated special effects and almost western operatic, stilted acting of the times made the original a poor beginning point for a remake. It hasn't held up at all through time as Forbidden Planet 1956 and The Day The Earth Stood Still (1951). |
|||
|
|
"Forum Moderator" Super Bad-Ass Jedi |
I truly believe you won't find ONE person at this site who doesn't prefer the Carpenter version to the original, although I don't think the original is bad (aka, dated) at all. It just can't compare with Carpenter's best flick.
 (Sorry, S, but it's better than They Live  )"Naked Woman, Naked Man Where did you get that nice sun tan?" |
|||
|
|
Guru |
That is interesting that the Carpenter version of THE THING is so popular here. I don't even really remember when it came out and always had the impression it was viewed as a stinker. I've seen it both on video and on the big screen and enjoyed it both times and always thought I was in the minority.
Meanwhile, there have been three versions of THE ISLAND OF DR. MOREAU, with the original early 1930's version, called THE ISLAND OF LOST SOULS, being the best of the three with a great performance by the formidable Charles Laughton. There was some real sexual tension in this one. It's been years since I saw the first remake, the 1970's era version with Burt Lancaster, but I remember that as being ok. The third version, directed by John Frankenheimer and starring a very hammy Marlon Brando, Val Kilmer & David Thewlis, came out in '96 is the only one I saw on its original theatrical release. This one could be considered a camp classic. The original director was fired because he couldn't get along with Kilmer -- not Brando -- and Frankenheimer inherited a mess. |
|||
|
|
Guru |
I have no interest in seeing the YOURS, MINE & YOURS remake, which has been castigated by the critics. It stars Dennis Quaid, the classic second- or third-tier actor, who takes the roles no one else wants. He ends up in junk like this or the ALAMO remake.
I did watch on video the original Y,M&O with Henry Fonda, Lucille Ball and 18 kids between them. First, what was Hollywood thinking by remaking this film in the first place? Y,M&O was dated in '68 when the original came out. It just goes to show you how bankrupt and bereft of ideas Hollywood is today. You can really see in the original Y,M&O how Hollywood lost its way. With everything going on in '68 -- the Vietnam War, the counter-culture movement, the '68 Democratic convention -- this film felt like it was in a time warp or in some sort of parallel universe. Many of the studio moguls, including studio founders Jack Warner & Daryl Zanuck, were still active in '68 and they didn't change with the world. One of Fonda's kids joins the Marines, but there is nothing acknowledged or where he would be sent. This movie was offensive. |
|||
|
|
"Forum Moderator" Super Bad-Ass Jedi |
Although this movie looks like it sucks, and probably does, I have to disagree with your assessment of Dennis Quaid's acting ability. He's done some great work in some terrific films lately, with back to back roles in "Traffic", "The Rookie", and "Far From Heaven" a few years ago, and a great turn in the terribly underrated "In Good Company" earlier this year. ----- We were wasps with new wings, now we're bugs in the jar. |
|||
|
| Previous Topic | Next Topic | powered by eve community | Page 1 2 3 4 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
|||
| Site | Metacritic Forums | ||
| Servlet | eve2da022 | ||
| Version | 1.2.22 build 9062 | ||
| Module | Forums 4.0.3 | ||
| Stylesheet | "Metacritic NEW DESIGN" | ||
| Wordlet Set | "Default Wordlet Set" | ||
|
©2006 CNET Networks Inc. All rights reserved.
 |
 |
 |
Home | FILM | DVD/VIDEO | MUSIC | GAMES | BOOKS | TV | About Metacritic |  |