MovieChat Forums > We're No Angels (1955) Discussion > Much better than the 1989 version.

Much better than the 1989 version.


Robert de Niro is no Humphrey Bogart.
As to Sean Penn....

reply

Remakes are a touchy business; and nobody comes close to Humphrey Bogart.

reply

Hey folks,

I have never seen the 1989 remake. There are some actors I simply will not watch in anything, and Sean Penn is one of them. While I have enjoyed Robert de Niro since I first saw him in "Bang the Drum Slowly" back in the 1970s, I certainly have not liked all his films.

Do I think he could have played one of the three angel characters? Yes, I do. I think he could have played any one of the three roles. Do I think a remake with Robert de Niro would be better than the original? Like Merman said, "Remakes are a touchy business..." I have seen three versions of Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men," and I liked them all equally. I guess there may be some film remakes I may like better, but generally speaking, I think I would usually prefer the original films - remakes are a touchy business.

Best wishes,
Dave Wile

reply

Dave, I believe your two comments I've read so far are right on the dot. I've never watched the remake, my understanding is it wasn't even close, just loosely based. Either way the combo of the 3 actors was too perfect to be touched! I disagree with those who say Aldo can't hold a candle to Bogart. In this film the 3 actors play off each other as a long standing acting team would. I wouldn't watch another remake & I think it's perfectly cast! My favorite Christmas movie!

reply

I agree. The 1989 remake stinks to high heaven!

reply


Saw them back to back starting with the De Niro/Penn version and yeah this on is much much better.




When there's no more room in hell, The dead will walk the earth...

reply

The 1989 version is not bad, but they might as well be two different movies. Other then involving escaped convicts, there is no resemblance between the stories. I prefer the 1955 movie.

reply