Remakes better than the original?

doncarlos · 02-09-2009 9:41am #1

A workmate and I were discussing the remake of the Warriors and how rubbish it would probably be when we tried to think of a remake that was better than the original and couldn't come up with one. Is there any movie remakes that are better than the originals?

miles teg · 02-09-2009 9:46am

thomas crown affair

02-09-2009 9:49am

doncarlos wrote: »

A workmate and I were discussing the remake of the Warriors and how rubbish it would probably be when we tried to think of a remake that was better than the original and couldn't come up with one. Is there any movie remakes that are better than the originals?

"Batman Begins" is a lot better than the original Batman Films.
Can't think of any others.

Otis Driftwood · 02-09-2009 9:52am

Remakes are something that are nearly exclusive to the horror genre.

Some remakes are better than the original eg The Thing,The Fly or The Blob however the vast majority of remakes suck donkey balls.

My Bloody Valentine
Friday the 13th
Dawn of the Dead
Last House on the Left
Day of the Dead
Texas Chainsaw Massacre
etc

The problem with modern day remakes is that they are by and large taken from movies that came out in the last 30 odd years,and most of the originals are considered to be genre classics so the raping that they get by untalented hacks makes it all the harder to swallow.

Some remakes outside of the horror genre,such as The Departed,while great movies,arent as good as the original IMO.I think Infernal Affairs is a better film than The Departed but thats not to say I didnt hugely enjoy The Departed.

So im basically saying,remakes,in the over whelming majority,suck.

Otis Driftwood · 02-09-2009 9:55am

Deleted User wrote: »

"Batman Begins" is a lot better than the original Batman Films.
Can't think of any others.

BB isnt a remake though.

Black Lead · 02-09-2009 10:01am

Deleted User wrote: »

"Batman Begins" is a lot better than the original Batman Films.
Can't think of any others.

That isn't a remake for me the best remakes would be Wizard of Oz and The Ten Commandments allot of people don't realise that remakes are nothing new they have been around since the beginging of film silent films remade into talkies, black and white made into colour.

homerun_homer · 02-09-2009 10:13am

Vanilla Sky was a great remake of Abres Los Ojos but I can't watch it anymore cause I really can't stand Tom Cruise anymore.

Cactus Col · 02-09-2009 10:33am

nedtheshed wrote: »

Remakes are something that are nearly exclusive to the horror genre.

Some remakes are better than the original eg The Thing,The Fly or The Blob however the vast majority of remakes suck donkey balls.

My Bloody Valentine
Friday the 13th
Dawn of the Dead
Last House on the Left
Day of the Dead
Texas Chainsaw Massacre
etc

The problem with modern day remakes is that they are by and large taken from movies that came out in the last 30 odd years,and most of the originals are considered to be genre classics so the raping that they get by untalented hacks makes it all the harder to swallow.

Some remakes outside of the horror genre,such as The Departed,while great movies,arent as good as the original IMO.I think Infernal Affairs is a better film than The Departed but thats not to say I didnt hugely enjoy The Departed.

So im basically saying,remakes,in the over whelming majority,suck.

I think that the reason horror remakes are so prevalent these days is because of the cookie cutter nature of a lot horror / slasher films. Bunch of kids, a bad guy/slasher/butcher, extravagant death scene setups, one survivor chick. It's easier to reuse a horror franchise name, then it is to think up an original hook to a film.

But that said, I thought the Dawn of the Dead remake was great, much better than the original. The Day of the Dead remake however was terrible, and did not bare any relation to the original at all .... or even to the Dawn of the Dead remake.

Anyway I would put forward Ocean's 11, Scarface, Evil Dead 2 (I would say is more of a remake than a sequel), Hairspray, and 12 Monkey's (if that counts, not sure if I would count it)

Creature · 02-09-2009 12:06pm

nedtheshed wrote: »

BB isnt a remake though.

Either is The Thing if thats the case

.

krudler · 02-09-2009 12:11pm

Creature wrote: »

Either is The Thing if thats the case .

Batman Begins isnt a remake its a different film in a different franchise of Batman movies, new actors, new universe, new everything, The Thing is a remake of The Thing From Another World

I'd vote Dawn of the Dead as well, the originals message is still as relevant as it ever was but the acting, production and effects have dated horribly, the new one was a huge surprise as to how good it actually was

Eoin · 02-09-2009 12:18pm

I don't know if Heat is considered a remake of LA Takedown, but I think they're close enough to compare. If so, then I'd say Heat was much better.

Creature · 02-09-2009 12:27pm

krudler wrote: »

Batman Begins isnt a remake its a different film in a different franchise of Batman movies, new actors, new universe, new everything, The Thing is a remake of The Thing From Another World

It's not though. Its a reimagining/reboot of the literature just like BB. It's nothing like The Thing From Another World.

humanji · 02-09-2009 12:48pm

It's pretty similar in scope to the original. Some of the scenes are even identical. Both are about an alien killing everyone off one by one and their attempts to stop it. For the remake they simply changed the nature of the alien and made the whole plot more claustrophobic and paranoid (and got rid of the woman with inordinately huge breasts).

Batman Begins isn't a remake of a particular Batman film. It's taking the core ideas of the Batman comics and making them into a new franchise. That's how I'd see it, anyway.

House on Haunted Hill and 13 Ghosts are two horror remakes that I liked better than the orginals. The films weren't great, but they were a bit of fun, where as the originals were horrific.

And, I know I'll get a lot of stick for this, but I actually liked the Psycho remake more than the original. It's the exact same movie but with better actors.

krudler · 02-09-2009 1:00pm

humanji wrote: »

And, I know I'll get a lot of stick for this, but I actually liked the Psycho remake more than the original. It's the exact same movie but with better actors.

:eek: GTFO!

Vince Vaughn was a better Norman Bates than Anthony Perkins? blasphemy!

humanji · 02-09-2009 1:05pm

krudler wrote: »

:eek: GTFO!

Vince Vaughn was a better Norman Bates than Anthony Perkins? blasphemy!

I really think he was. But I've always hated Perkins in everything he's in.

krudler · 02-09-2009 1:24pm

But he's amazing in Psycho, its the way he plays Bates as just a shy, normal guy that makes it so chilling

Magic Eight Ball · 02-09-2009 1:33pm

Reservoir Dogs was an interesting remake of City on Fire..

Creature · 02-09-2009 1:41pm

humanji wrote: »

It's pretty similar in scope to the original. Some of the scenes are even identical. Both are about an alien killing everyone off one by one and their attempts to stop it. For the remake they simply changed the nature of the alien and made the whole plot more claustrophobic and paranoid (and got rid of the woman with inordinately huge breasts).

Batman Begins isn't a remake of a particular Batman film. It's taking the core ideas of the Batman comics and making them into a new franchise. That's how I'd see it, anyway.

To be fair you can say exactly the same thing about Batman. BB is pretty similar in scope to the old Batman. They both feature a bat-themed super hero crusading through Gotham city taking out the bad guys and so on.
The Thing is only a remake on the surface. The characters and events are really quite different. Most importantly Carpenter's version retains the core themes of tense paranoia and suspicious fear featured in the original novel, which were pretty much ignored in Howard Hawkes film.

ScumLord · 02-09-2009 2:03pm

The 2nd Brady bunch film, the one where they all do shrooms. That was a funny film.

humanji · 02-09-2009 2:08pm

krudler wrote: »

But he's amazing in Psycho, its the way he plays Bates as just a shy, normal guy that makes it so chilling

He has his moments in it, but overall, I just didn't enjoy watching him. I really don't rate him at all.

Creature wrote: »

To be fair you can say exactly the same thing about Batman. BB is pretty similar in scope to the old Batman. They both feature a bat-themed super hero crusading through Gotham city taking out the bad guys and so on.
The Thing is only a remake on the surface. The characters and events are really quite different. Most importantly Carpenter's version retains the core themes of tense paranoia and suspicious fear featured in the original novel, which were pretty much ignored in Howard Hawkes film.

True. But Carpenter himself calls it a remake, so that's something going for that theory.

I think a better explanation of my thoughts on it is that The Thing and The Thing From Another World are based on a novella and are versions of that story. Batman Begins and the old Batman films aren't based on one story, but on a whole universe created over many years, in many different stories.

Ah hell, who cares. It's giving me a headache thinking about it. But It does make me want to go watch it again.

Creature · 02-09-2009 3:52pm

humanji wrote: »

True. But Carpenter himself calls it a remake, so that's something going for that theory.

Well Carpenter is wrong dammit! *Bangs fist on table*

humanji wrote: »

I think a better explanation of my thoughts on it is that The Thing and The Thing From Another World are based on a novella and are versions of that story. Batman Begins and the old Batman films aren't based on one story, but on a whole universe created over many years, in many different stories.

Yeah I agree with that, they're adaptations of Who Goes There, one very very loosely and the other quite faithfully. I agree with your ideas on Batman, well I never thought it was a remake just using the comparison as a weapon against those evil "The Thing is a remake" campaigners.

Now onto the important business. Batman vs The Thing?

02-09-2009 5:32pm

nedtheshed wrote: »

Remakes are something that are nearly exclusive to the horror genre ... and large taken from movies that came out in the last 30 odd years,and most of the originals are considered to be genre classics

Add to that the persistence in re-making foreign films because people are too lazy to read subtitles, the remake of Let the Right One In is in casting :rolleyes:

Agree with The Thomas Crown Affair, Dawn of the Dead and Evil Dead 2 and I also preferred 3.10 to Yuma and The Fly.

Otis Driftwood · 02-09-2009 5:39pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Add to that the persistence in re-making foreign films because people are too lazy to read subtitles, the remake of Let the Right One In is in casting :rolleyes:

Agree with The Thomas Crown Affair, Dawn of the Dead and Evil Dead 2 and I also preferred 3.10 to Yuma and The Fly.

Again,the vast majority of remakes of foreign movies are also from the horror genre

The Ring
The Eye
Dark Water
Quarantine
etc

Horror is just an easy target.Add a good looking cast to an MTV2 soundtrack and ker-ching.

02-09-2009 6:12pm

Cactus Col wrote: »

I think that the reason horror remakes are so prevalent these days is because of the cookie cutter nature of a lot horror / slasher films. Bunch of kids, a bad guy/slasher/butcher, extravagant death scene setups, one survivor chick. It's easier to reuse a horror franchise name, then it is to think up an original hook to a film.

But that said, I thought the Dawn of the Dead remake was great, much better than the original. The Day of the Dead remake however was terrible, and did not bare any relation to the original at all .... or even to the Dawn of the Dead remake.

Anyway I would put forward Ocean's 11, Scarface, Evil Dead 2 (I would say is more of a remake than a sequel), Hairspray, and 12 Monkey's (if that counts, not sure if I would count it)

I don't agree that remaking a horror film is easier than coming up with an original idea. I think it's more a case of studios recognising that revenue can be generated far easier by using existing templates.

My Bloody Valentine is one of the few remakes which can stand on it's own feet as a genuinely decent film. That the studio refuses to make a sequel to one of it's biggest money makers says a lot.

Saying that there is a lack of original horror out there tells me one thing and that is somewhat true but only in regards to mainstream horror. In recent months we have had Undead or Alive, The Burrowers, The Lost, etc, all of which have interesting premises and not rely on simply copy and pasting from more successful films. Even the recent The Killing Room while far from original is a far more effective film than the recent Friday the 13th.

humanji wrote: »

True. But Carpenter himself calls it a

True but then again much of Carpenters CV is made up of thinly veiled remakes.

niallon · 02-09-2009 7:24pm

Deleted User wrote: »

True but then again much of Carpenters CV is made up of thinly veiled remakes.

Following on from that thought, Assault On Precinct 13 is a deadly remake!

I must say I quite enjoyed The Hills Have Eyes remake too, adding it to the short list of decent horror remakes. I thought Spielberg's War of the Worlds remake was pretty good too for what it was, still sickens me that he wouldn't just do a faithful adaptation but as an updated version of the original 50s version it was good.

irish_bob · 02-09-2009 8:27pm

king kong , sacreledge i know but i perfer 2005

invasion of the body snatchers 1978 with donald sutherland , better than the 1950,s original

the fly

the mask of zoro , very entertaining remake with banderas , zeta jones and hopkins

oceans 11 , possibley the best remake ever in that its miles better than the original

CliffHuxtabel · 03-09-2009 4:45am

+1 The Fly

The Don · 03-09-2009 10:13am

I agree with The Thing, Scarface, the Mask of Zorro, the Fly, King Kong. I haven't seen the originals of most of the others but I'd would imagine that they are better than the originals.

And that brings me to Ben Hur and Cape Fear which I'd imagine is better than the originals.

The debate about the Batman films is making me ask about all the Robin Hood films. The best of those that I've seen would be The Adventures of Robin Hood (Errol Flynn) and Robin Hood Prince of Thieves (Kevin Costner). Also James Bond, Casino Royale (Daniel Craig) is better.

Last of the Mohicans (Day-Lewis) and The Three Musketeers (Sutherland) are better than the originals imo.

L31mr0d · 03-09-2009 11:14am

I found "Last Man Standing" a better remake of a "A fistful of Dollars", but not as good as "Yojimbo".

So as a remake of a remake it's very good, but as a remake of the original, the original is still better.

Dubhthamlacht · 03-09-2009 11:41am

Wasn't "Insomnia" with Al Pacino and Robin Williams a remake of a norwegian film? Can anyone remember what the original was called? Insomnia was a decent film, though not having seen the original I can't vouch how good it was.

The horror genre is too easy to pick on. Hollywood has very few original ideas for horror movies, they just usually remake old franchises or remake better foreign films. The director of "Martyrs" is in talks about a US remake - lord only knows what toned down mess they will make of that.

Karl Hungus · 03-09-2009 12:22pm

Dubhthamlacht wrote: »

Wasn't "Insomnia" with Al Pacino and Robin Williams a remake of a norwegian film? Can anyone remember what the original was called? Insomnia was a decent film, though not having seen the original I can't vouch how good it was.

Yep, it was also called Insomnia, and had Stellan Skarsgard in the lead. It was a much better film in my opinion, Skarsgard was infinitely better than Pacino in the remake, and the ending was a bit darker as well. I'd really recommend the original over the remake tbh.

faceman · 03-09-2009 12:28pm

As previously mentioned, Heat is a far superior version of L.A Takedown. Goes to show the difference quality actors and a budget can do.

Casino Royale, wasnt that a remake of a previous Bond film too?

Eoin · 03-09-2009 1:02pm

I haven't seen the original 12 Angry Men in ages, but even though (I think) the remake in the 90's was a made-for-TV film, I thought it was pretty good. A very good cast anyway. James Gandolfini, Tony Danza etc.

humanji · 03-09-2009 1:02pm

faceman wrote: »

As previously mentioned, Heat is a far superior version of L.A Takedown. Goes to show the difference quality actors and a budget can do.

Casino Royale, wasnt that a remake of a previous Bond film too?

I don't think you could class the original Casino Royale as even a film. It's appalling.

faceman · 03-09-2009 1:08pm

humanji wrote: »

I don't think you could class the original Casino Royale as even a film. It's appalling.

Scratch my last post. Im thinking of Never Say Never Again. Its a remake of Thunderball.

geuro · 03-09-2009 1:09pm

Thought 'The Departed' was a better than 'Infernal affairs'. Better cast anyway.

Can't believe a remake of 'Let the right one in' is in casting - that's going to be an insult to a great original..

PunkFreud · 03-09-2009 7:05pm

Red Dragon was better that the original (Man Hunter). It had a better cast (emphasis on Hopkins) in my opinion.

krudler · 03-09-2009 7:50pm

PunkFreud wrote: »

Red Dragon was better that the original (Man Hunter). It had a better cast (emphasis on Hopkins) in my opinion.

Manhunter is great in its own right though, only the horrible 80s synth score has aged it, Brian Cox is a great Hannibal Lektor

Mr. Presentable · 03-09-2009 7:54pm

What about Pelham 123 or Invasion of the bodysnatchers, which seem to be remade each generation. Is the original always the definitive? I think so for Pelham, but not for Invasion (I like the 1978).

Mr. Presentable · 03-09-2009 7:55pm

humanji wrote: »

I don't think you could class the original Casino Royale as even a film. It's appalling.

Disagree. You must take it in the spirit of the time, and how it was intended.

Otis Driftwood · 03-09-2009 8:41pm

PunkFreud wrote: »

Red Dragon was better that the original (Man Hunter). It had a better cast (emphasis on Hopkins) in my opinion.

Couldnt agree there.Red Dragon may have had a sparklier cast but at that stage Hopkins was playing Lector like some kind of pantomine villain.Totally OTT and without any kind of malice.Cox on the other hand played Lector with a calm and calculated demeanour,much like Hopkins did in Silence of the Lambs.

MelonieHead · 03-09-2009 9:19pm

Cape Fear.

Karl Hungus · 04-09-2009 7:54am

geuro wrote: »

Thought 'The Departed' was a better than 'Infernal affairs'. Better cast anyway.

Better supporting cast maybe, but no way was Matt Damon and DiCaprio better than Andy Lau and Tony Leung.

Same with Red Dragon, I think the only actor who didn't completely dial in their performance was Ralph Fiennes. Ed Norton was at his absolute worst in that film.

faceman · 04-09-2009 9:46am

PunkFreud wrote: »

Red Dragon was better that the original (Man Hunter). It had a better cast (emphasis on Hopkins) in my opinion.

I disagree, i think Manhunter is a far superior film to any of the Hopkins/Lector movies. Hopkins is a fantastic actor but I felt Manhunter had a more realistic gritty feel to it.

hobochris · 04-09-2009 9:48am

Inglorious bastards(title spelling was slightly different for copyright resons)

bnt · 04-09-2009 12:23pm

MelonieHead wrote: »

Cape Fear.

I don't know ... I thought De Niro was over-acting, while Robert Mitchum in the 1962 original was more subtle and sneaky.

I know Ocean's 11 was a well-reviewed remake, but I haven't seeing either version, so I can't say which is better. Don't forget that Scarface was a remake of a 1932 film: (Al Capone was the original "Scarface".)

speedboatchase · 04-09-2009 2:28pm

Ocean's Eleven

and...

*opens can of worms*

Run free my pretties... The Departed

EDIT - Dammit, was already mentioned.

04-09-2009 2:37pm

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Better supporting cast maybe, but no way was Matt Damon and DiCaprio better than Andy Lau and Tony Leung

I think the main reason people prefer the Departed cast is because they are familiar with them from a dozen films, magazine covers, etc. Say the words Andy Lau to 90% of the people who saw the Departed and watch the blank stares you get.

04-09-2009 3:23pm

nedtheshed wrote: »

Again,the vast majority of remakes of foreign movies are also from the horror genre

The Ring
The Eye
Dark Water
Quarantine
etc

Horror is just an easy target.Add a good looking cast to an MTV2 soundtrack and ker-ching.

Without a doubt ... still, there's also a (possibly growing) trend of simply translating foreign films ... The Departed (as you say), My Sassy Girl, Shall We Dance, The Lake House, Taxi, Wicker Park, Swept Away, Welcome to Collinwood, Pathfinder, Vanilla Sky, Insomnia, etc. just from the past few years ... even the original directors are jumping on the bandwagon!

Necronomicon · 04-09-2009 3:42pm

Deleted User wrote: »

even the original directors are jumping on the bandwagon!

That's something I find a bit perplexing. Michael Haneke making a shot-for-shot US remake of Funny Games springs to mind (or so I hear, watching one was enough for me).

04-09-2009 3:44pm

Necronomicon wrote: »

That's something I find a bit perplexing. Michael Haneke making a shot-for-shot US remake of Funny Games springs to mind (or so I hear, watching one was enough for me).

I bought Funny Games US a few months back and have yet to watch it. Twice I've put it in the DVD player and both times it's been substituted for something else. I think that deep down I want to be left with my memories of the original and not tarnish them with a sub par remake.

Remakes better than the original?

Comments