Other than Frankenstein (1910 silent version vs. 1931 classic), I can't really come up with one remake that I liked better than the original film.
Any nominees?
Why does Hollywood cling to the mistaken belief that films need to be remade? Van Sant's awful "Pyscho" should be the final nail in the remake coffin.
The Thing (1982) remake of The Thing from Another World
The Wizard Of Oz (1939) remake of old 20's silent film.
"We pretended nothing had changed, but in reality the party was over."
I'll agree with you on "The Wizard of Oz."
As for "The Thing," I liked the old one better than the remake.
The only remake which I liked better than the original was 'Lolita'.
share-His Girl Friday (1940) a remake of The Front Page (1931, I think). WAY. WAY. WAAAAAAY. Better.
-The Maltese Falcon (1941, Humphrey Bogart *classic*) was a remake of, I think, a Bette Davis movie from around 1936 of a different name (although both were based on the same book)
-Little Women (1949) beats out the Katharine Hepburn version (not to mention ITS remake with Winona Ryder, if you ask me...)
-Bridge to Terabithia, but I don't know if that counts because if I remember correctly the original was a TV movie. A pretty terrible one.
-as an adaptation, Scorsese's 1993 Age of Innocence beats out the 1930s one, partial as I am to Irene Dunne.
-1995 A Little Princess remake of the original Shirley Temple version... a lot better, if you ask me
With this version of Psycho, though, I REALLY don't understand the point. If van Sant made virtually every shot EXACTLY THE SAME, what is the point of doing it?! So I know what color Marion's shirt was before she took it off for the shower? So he could show more skin? UGH, this is SO HORRIBLE.
"Just close your eyes...but keep your mind wide open."
[deleted]
I thought the new HALLOWEEN was really well done, and i dont know why people are complaining Rob made it his own and thats what makes it great.
shareI think that a good "re-imagining" is ok-like in the case of Halloween or Charlie and the Chocolate Factory-but something so completely stupid as this version of Psycho it is just a self-indulgent pet project meant to seem more important than it is and (loosely) veiled as an homage. And these days remakes and bad sequels are Hollywood's favorite way to cash in. Unfortunately the audience is eating it up instead of demanding better fare.
share<<these days remakes and bad sequels are Hollywood's favorite way to cash in. Unfortunately the audience is eating it up instead of demanding better fare.>>
Is that really the case? I feel like every time a particularly bad remade is released, it does really badly with the critics and the audiences. Especially something like "Psycho." It was receieved horribly by both.
"Just close your eyes...but keep your mind wide open."
the 1999 mummy remake
share[deleted]
The only remake which I liked better than the original was 'Lolita'.
Martin Scorsese's "Cape Fear" great film.
shareAlexandre Aja's The Hills Have Eyes (2006) remake is far more intense and much better in many ways than Wes Craven's original (1977). However, the original is still a great film and a classic horror movie without question. The remake is my favorite horror movie, so I'm a tad bias.
shareThe Fly and Scarface are both good movies.
I'll also add 'The Departed' and 'Ben-Hur'. Two remakes which won best picture Oscars.
And Finally 'The Man who Knew Too much', Hitchcock's remake of his own movie.
King Kong
The Ring
Dawn of the Dead
A 'Good' Hollywood remake?
Let's see, there's Holiday (1938), The Blob, The Bat, Scarface, Night of the Living Dead (1990), The Nutty Professor, Hell's Kitchen (1939), Last Holiday...can't say there's been a LOT, but once upon a time they did know how to do remakes right.
3:10 to Yuma
"You're a suit wear'in buisnessman... I'm just a gangsta I suppose"- Avon Barksdale(THE WIRE)
Yep, in addition to the ones already mentioned there have been several "good" Hollywood remakes. Some others that I can think of are:
The Magnificent Seven
The Bourne Identity
The Champ
A Perfect Murder
Dangerous Liaisons and
A Fistful of Dollars
[deleted]
The Charlton Heston version of 'The Ten Commandments' is a remake, and it's got a 7.9.
sharei think 'Psycho' was indirectly responsible for all this remake of 'classic genre films' malarkey; indirectly because the movie flopped, but once you remake a classic film like 'psycho'--an 'untouchable'--the floodgates are blown wide open.
i agree that the remake of 'lolita' is better than Kubrick's version. it has more depth. Kubrick's film was garbage.
as for other superior remakes:
3:10 To Yuma(2007)
The Fly(1986)
Nosferatu(70's; Herzog)
The Thing(1982)
Remakes have always existed. Psycho didn't do *beep* And it's just a film, no movie should be untouchable. It's not like they destroy the originals copies, like they used to do in the 30s. Making everything sacred is crap.
shareI don't consider Scarface a remake. They are both gangster movies with the same name, but entirely different. The original is about Al Capone. The better-know Scarface with Al Pacino is about a Cuban immigrant.
The 1978 "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" is every bit as unsettling as the original, though both stand well on their own.
shareI haven't seen the original, but I found the 1978 version pretty scary.
Cape Feare, the Departed, King Kong, and The Magnificent Seven are all remakes that I consider superior to the originals.
The Angels Have the Phone Box
[deleted]
I'm generally against remakes, but there are a few that I think turned out well;
The Thing
Invasion of the Body Snatchers
Cat People
The Postman Always Rings Twice (loathe the original)
Lolita (I love James Mason, but Kubrick focused way too much on Sellers' character, Quilty).
What's interesting to note is that, except for Lolita, all these remakes were made in the '70's or early '80's; the "New Hollywood" era, when filmmakers knew what they were doing, gave a damn about the medium and weren't driven solely by money.
I think the term "remake"gets a little hazy in the case of movies based on famous novels. Like Lolita, the '62 is a masterpiece in its own right (mostly because of Peter Sellers) whereas the '97 may have been truer to the novel, it's more a reinterpretation of the novel than remake of the earlier movie.
Just like the '97 mini series of The Shining is not so much a remake of the Kubrick film but a version truer to the book (because Stephen King hated Kubrick's version.
Casino Royale is another film that skips past the previous '67 film and mines form the novel as source material.
A few good remakes (although not necessarily better than the originals)
Fistful of Dollars
Twelve Monkeys
Magnificent Seven
Scent of a Woman
I think if you take the famous novel factor out the list of remakes that are definitively better than the original the list is very short, just because the original always has a slight edge for doing it first. Like Fistful of Dollars is a great movie... but I really don't think I can say it was better than Yojimbo.
No all the remakes are generic to the classics.
share