Fassbinder’s Berlin Alexanderplatz over Piel Jutzi’s
Talented Mr. Ripley is better than Purple Noon
Kurosawa’s Lower Depths is neck and neck with Renoir’s
You know, films were remade more frequently 50 years ago than they are today, and 70 years ago more so than they were 50 years ago.
Plein Soleil is half as long and at least twice as good as The Talented Mr. Ripley.
Plein Soleil starts off strong and actually get better as the body count rises. Ripley begins so-so and gets worse as the body count goes up because it allows for even more screen time for Matt Damon.
>>Whoever thought the Solaris remake was superior Tarkovsky’s original is insane and clearly a victim of the Clooney effect
Nope. I’m not a fan of Tarkovsky’s version. Granted, the scenes involving seaweed and Tokyo’s highways are the highlights of Tarkovsky’s version, but the floating candelabra, the fire in space, and the long stretches of nothing that are supposed to imbue the viewer with a sense of meditative calm nullified these beautiful moments for me. There are too many long takes and wanky philosophizing. It is a little too melancholic to no good purpose.
I prefer Soderberg’s tighter version. It has very little to do with Clooney, and more to do with competent editing. When Clooney discovers he’s been talking with ephemera from Solaris, though this scene is completely silent, it is frightening. The entire story is relayed in 90 minutes without the narrative dead-ends and empty navel-gazing.
On the other hand, Stalker is just as long, meditative, and quiet as Tarkovsky’s Solaris and yet the Stalker is so full of ideas, images, and stories, while the Solaris is dull and didactic. In my opinion, Stalker is everything Solaris is touted to be: nearly peerless, thoughtful sci-fi.
Damon is actually more likeable, slippery, ashamed, hustling, scary, and tender than Delon, who gives another of his patented “just lay there and look pretty” performances. (Only for Italian directors and maybe Melville did he sometimes try harder to give a little extra more of something — otherwise, we don’t feel his desperation as much as we do Damon’s.)
Is Ripley supposed to be desperate?
Yes. Sirk’s Imitation of Life, in comparison to the 1934 one.
SOLARIS? Wow are you serious right now? Tarkovsky is unmatchable my friend.
No, Delon is the more likeable of the Ripleys. We almost want him to get away with his crimes for that reason. In contrast, Damon makes Law and Hoffman likeable because Damon’s Ripley is such a pathetic little victim, but—unfortunately—not victim enough.
Dawn of the Dead. I like my zombie movies brutal and in ya face!
The scene in the beginning where all hell is breaking loose is enough to make it superior for me. That scene ruled.
I always thought Romero was vastly overrated. With that said, the original NOTLD was great.
I’m with Jacob on the superiority of Snyder’s Dawn of the Dead (though it would feel like heresy to declare Romero overrated).
And Tom Savini’s Night of the Living Dead w/Tony Todd and Patricia Tallman is a damned good horror movie, too…
red dragon over manhunter despite brett ratner
“Are there any remakes that are better than the original film?”
if they’re novel/poem/play/comic/any adaptations,it’s all about personal preference.
if it’s original screenplay,then no…they can either suck or equally match the original’s greatness but never over-crush it if they’re original screenplays!
Red Dragon is NOT better than Manhunter. NO WAY!
Twelve Monkeys is better(?) than La Jetee, but it’s not a fair comparison as the latter inspired the former.
Ripley’s Game is better than The American Friend.
the Killers (‘46) by Siodmak and the Killers (’64) by Siegel are not very similar even though they are both based on the Hemingway short story. One is not really any better than the other.
I adored 12 Monkeys but we both know that La jetee is infinitely better.
heaven can wait (1978) is a classic Here Comes Mister Jordan less so.
Also new shaft isnt any worse than original
Definately 1990 NIght of the Living dead over the 60’s version….B & W zombies, so not scary
always enjoyed the American version of the Ring…pretty much agree with every remake mentioned in these pages as well…
Romero is a king,any fuckin’ remake of his oeuvre is an insult!
Agreed. Romero’s breakthrough horror is untouchable! I’d like to hear Alex’s viewpoint on any B & W horror films: Psycho, Vampyr, Frankenstein, White Zombie, I Walked With A Zombie.
I’m sure this will be unpopular, but…
The Beat My Heart Skipped > Fingers
Julia > Gloria
“red dragon over manhunter despite brett ratner”
“Definately 1990 NIght of the Living dead over the 60’s version”
“I’m with Jacob on the superiority of Snyder’s Dawn of the Dead (though it would feel like heresy to declare Romero overrated).”
I love the original Dawn, but I have to admit, Snyder’s version is pretty great. The first 15 minutes kick major ass. And I love how it uses the Johnny Cash song so damn effectively over the closing credits.
“Speaking of remakes,just saw the trailer for ‘Death At A Funeral’,directed by Neil LaBute.With Chris Rock and Danny Glover.Good cast,but WHY ? The original was kind of funny,not great.Plus wasn’t it released just 2 years ago? "
I just watched the trailer online the other day and it looks awful. Did Neil Labute really direct it? What the fuck happened to him? The Wicker Man, Lakeview Terrace, now this? His career started out with so much promise.
I usually despise remakes, but there is a notable exception for me; the excellent 1978 version of “Invasion of the bodysnatchers” with Donald Sutherland.
the thing, the fly, funny games, cape fear
the remake of Funny Games is a copy-cat version,anyone who prefers it over the original,probably doesn’t appreciate real acting… (or hasn’t even seen the original)
once again,just because it’s Scorsese,doesn’t mean we forget Mitchum!!! jeez…
no remakes are better than the original but can only REACH THEM,the examples of Thing,Body Snatchers are quite evident.
however,in the case of book remakes like Maltese Falcon or Cyrano,history has proved that they have been better than their primary adaptations.
I’m going to see The Wolfman when it comes out later this month, and I’m trying to decide whether I should see the 1941 original first. I’m sure it’s vastly different, coming from a different time and a different sensibility. My question is, will seeing the original somehow deepen my appreciation of the remake? Or will it just spoil it for me, either by giving away plot points, or by creating a nagging association with an older, cheesier, less atmospheric movie?
Funny Games. I haven’t seen the original, but I would be biased towards the remake just because I love the actors. Same thing with Vanilla Sky.