Cat People, The Maltese Falcon, The Thing, and strangely enough, I prefer the Lee Marvin version of The Killers.
Remakes are almost always worse, but one that isn’t is A Star is Born (50s version of the 30s original) – only one that comes to mind, so far. But go back to being cynical.
I prefer The Beat That Skipped My Heart over Fingers.
I also prefer the remake of The Thing to the original. I also prefer Omega Man to The Last Man On Earth. I prefer the most recent screen adaptation of Crime and Punishment to the two older versions that I’ve seen, although there are several – maybe more than a dozen – versions of Crime and Punishment. Generally I don’t feel too strongly about remaking films that started out as really famous novels or plays, especially since many classic novels have been made into films a lot of different times. Of these three films that I mentioned all of them were novels or written stories before they were made into films. Generally I think of remakes as fitting into a certain category and it’s pretty much only when a certain category of film is remade that I have a gut reaction (why, why, why?) I would say that hearing that The Lives of Others will be remade made my stomach turn a little bit. I had a little more ugly reaction hearing that my favorite Kurosawa film, Ikiru, is going to be remade by Jim Sheridan and possibly star Tom Hanks.
Here are some films that I think are in this category that I thought were good or better than the originals: ‘Fistful of Dollars’ ‘For a Few Dollars More’ ‘The Man Who Knew to Much’ ‘Funny Games’ ‘The Fly’ ‘His Girl Friday’ ‘12 Monkeys’ ‘Little Shop of Horrors’ ‘Evil Dead 2’ ‘The Maltese Falcon’. I would also include Oceans Eleven, even though I didn’t like Oceans Eleven very much, the original was just plain awful.
When a story was born as a film and is subsequently remade I almost always feel that the original is being violated in some way, for example ‘Texas Chainsaw Massacre’. When a story was born into a different medium I’m not as picky since the first film adaptation isn’t exactly an original.
Cape Fear, but neither version is great.
It’s a Wonderful World.
THE THING, THE FLY and THE HILLS HAVE EYES come to mind for me.
THE THING, THE FLY and THE HILLS HAVE EYES come to mind for me.
yes to THE THING and THE FLY! but also VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED, SCARFACE, CASINO ROYALE, THE THIN RED LINE,
and TWELVE MONKEYS.
If you refer to Casino Royale the new bond film, then it wasn’t a remake. The original was a comedy spoof satirizing the bond films. It was, however, the first novel, so Casino Royale became the new re-imagining of the films.
Funny Games i found the remake way better plus michael pitt played a amazing part. Well everyone actually did a lot better.
Quarantine. [REC] gets the kewpie doll for originality, but Quarantine executed it much better. Which reminds me of another rare American remake that got it better: “The Ring.”
Cat People? Are you serious?
I hesitate to say “improvement,” because Don Siegel’s original was such a tidy piece of work, but Philip Kaufman’s Invasion of the Body Snatchers pays sweet homage while cranking up the paranoia factor.
I agree with Adam Cook on Cape Fear.
I just saw Scorsese’s version recently, it had some pretty cheesy cinematography, and some parts bordered on ridiculous (Robert DeNiro strapping himself to the underside of a car) but it was tense as hell especially the scene in the auditorium with DeNiro sucking Juliette Lewis’s thumb. It wasn’t straightforward good vs. evil like the original, and ultimately it was an improvement.
Both versions of Cape Fear are kind of perfect.
Thanks for not asking for THE best remake ever. I have only seen a couple of handfuls of both versions of the same film — Rarely does the remake out do the original.
The one that does stand out is Scarface.
@ Coronel X and B Judge: really, you think 12 Monkeys is better than La Jetee?
My vote would be The Thing and The Fly.
I find it hard to compare La Jetee and 12 Monkeys. It’s not really a remake as much as it was inspired by the earlier film. I enjoy both.
Doubt that this will improve upon the original.
Hilary Duff Takes On Bonnie And Clyde Remake11 January 2009 12:15 PM, PST | From cinemablend.com | See recent Cinema Blend news
About a year ago, Hilary Duff posed for Allure magazine dressed like Faye Dunaway in Bonnie and Clyde. Who knew that would be a hint? Apparently Duff is now preparing to work on The Story of Bonnie and Clyde, another movie about the famed gangsters that will presumably feature Duff in the female title role. This week’s Production Weekly says that production will begin in April in the Deep South, with Tonya S. Holly (When I Find the Ocean) directing Duff, Kevin Zegers, Natalie Canerday and Rance Howard. The plot description offers up nothing but the details of Bonnie and Clyde’s lives, but how much do you want to bet this won’t be trying to approximate the groundbreaking filmmaking that the original Bonnie and Clyde represented back in 1967? I’m not willing to call this a remake, and I think it’s probably just another movie based on the same real-life story.
(more)
See full article at cinemablend.com
Horror films and action movies tend to fare best in remakes because they often rely on special effects and stuntwork, technologies which improve over time. Everything else should probably just be left in its original state. Although of course Fassbinder’s Berlin Alexanderplatz is a zillion times better than the 1931 Piel Jutzi film of the novel.
Though they don’t measure up to value of the originals, Herzog’s Nosferatu and Soderbergh’s Solaris are worthy attempts and very good in themselves.
I prefer I Am Legend over The Omega Man.
p.s., Does the Five Obstructions count?
whoever said THE HILLS HAVE EYES…. yessssssssssss!
also Scorsese’s Cape Fear is remarkable improvement on the original.
Brandon—Solaris is a good point. Sure Tarkoksky’s is amazing—stunning and important—I think Soderbergh seems to go after the essence of the film. As if his is a chamber piece as opposed to Tarkovsky’s more symphonic vision.
the thief of bagdad although walsh’s original was great too.
I think The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake improved the original, not in terms of horror, but intensity.
Son of Paleface with Bob Hope
i’m sorry i don’t think i understand… is somebody actually saying that Soderbergh’s Clooney Garbage is better than Tarkovsky’s???
it was the last film i would expect to be named in a forum named REMAKES THAT IMPROVED TO THE ORIGINAL.
and yes it’s an interesting point Oerkfitz about La jetee and 12 monkeys, it’s quite true and they’re both great films but my reply to Deming wil be yes, if i have to choose it’ll be 12 monkeys, even though i’m not a Gilliam fan at all. just being honest.
Girl bites pen
Hmm. This thread came out of my brain after finding out that the Weinsteins are developing an English language version of ‘The Lives of Others’ (why, why, why?) which I have to suspect won’t improve on the original… Consequently I want to restore my faith in cinema by finding out that perhaps not all remakes are bad. Enlighten me.