Recent Posts
I have been really hesitant to see the remake. Remakes of true classics are tough, and even a good film in it's own right can be overshadowed by the original easily when talking about a true classic like King Kong. I might have to give it a try now though just to be fair.I think they are both incredible movies, and I would hesitate to say which one I like better. As Jackson interwove his movie around the original, I would prefer to think of Jacksons as a companion piece to the first.You're not alone.
Would I be alone in saying I liked Peter Jackson's remake of King Kong over either of the previous versions? I mean the original is a classic and incredible for its time, but I think I enjoyed Jackson's Kong a little bit more.
It is certainly worth seeing and much to be preferred, IMO, to the 70's version. In Jackson's version, the character played by Jack Black is making a movie. The movie he is making is understood to be the original black and white film. Thus the first is not undone by the second but the second serves to show us, in story, what inspired the first.
Here's a better remake -- Jeremy Irons as Humbert in "Lolita" almost makes you feel sorry for him, as opposed to James Mason in Kubric's version, who just makes you want to shoot him in the head. Then again, the movies ate both based on Nabokov's book, so by the Toyrobots Rule, they're disqualified...
Of course, Nabokov made you want to shoot him in the head...
The bulk of the middle of the movie "Tombstone" is a shot-for-shot, scene-for-scene remake of the old James Garner/Jason Robards movie "Hour of the Gun" (right down to the pool table assassination). Although I'm a big James Garner fan, I've got to say that Tombstone was a far better movie in almost every respect.
"I'm your huckleberry."
Alas, I missed the Toyrobots test. Was that in this thread?
Yeah, his point was that if BOTH movies are based on a book, then one of them isn't, strictly speaking, a remake of the other. I guess an exception could be made if the first movie had very little to do with the book, and the second movie followed the first one, rather than following the novel.
Ooh -- here's a good one. I loved "Point Blank" (1967), starring Lee Marvin; John Boorman is one of my favorite directors, too. But I 'm forced to admit that I liked "Payback" (1999), with Mel Gibson even better.
EDIT: Oops -- never mind! I see now they're bothed based on the novel The Hunter (1962), by Donald Westlake (aka Richard Stark). Dammit.
Alas, I missed the Toyrobots test. Was that in this thread?Yeah, his point was that if BOTH movies are based on a book, then one of them isn't, strictly speaking, a remake of the other. I guess an exception could be made if the first movie had very little to do with the book, and the second movie followed the first one, rather than following the novel.
Ah, an interesting test. On the other hand, that would cut out a LOT of "remakes." If one traced such movies to a source, what about movies that were based on the same person, event, and so on? Would such movies count as remakes? How would we locate previous movies on a sliding scale from "source" to "influence"?
This is going to be an unpopular opinion, but half of Night of the Living Dead '90. Some things were better in the original, some things were better in the remake. It evened out for me.
For example: The impact of the original's final scene couldn't be beaten, but the remake's Barbara was superior in every way.
Also, John Carpenter's The Thing, which wasn't so much a remake as it was a more faithful adaptation of the original story, "Who Goes There".
Also also, Ocean's Eleven.
edit-beaten on two out of three
The Maltese Falcon comes to mind.
Already mentioned as well :)
One that I don't think has been mentioned is Ron Howards Ransom (1996) with Mel Gibson and Gary Sinise (thinking of Sinise brought this to mind earlier today). I believe it is a remake though I haven't seen the original and thus can't testify to which is better.
The Three Musketeers (1993, with Sutherland, Sheen, and Platt)Dear god, I figured, given your awesome screen name, I'd have similar movie tastes with you -- alas, I was horribly, horribly wrong! There is no end to how much I disliked the Disney "Musketeers" (although Tim Curry was really good). On the other hand, I never get tired of watching the Gene Kelly version, as hokey as the acting is.
Ah, come on! It's just one movie!
There's a lot to like about the Three Disney-teers:
1: Rochefort. Isn't that a smelly kind of cheese?
2: Porthos: Champagne?
Athos: We're in the middle of a chase, Porthos.
Porthos: You're right - something red.
3: Bad Guy: Dead. They're all dead!
Aramis: Not all of us.
4: Tim Curry!
The Three Musketeers (1993, with Sutherland, Sheen, and Platt)Dear god, I figured, given your awesome screen name, I'd have similar movie tastes with you -- alas, I was horribly, horribly wrong! There is no end to how much I disliked the Disney "Musketeers" (although Tim Curry was really good). On the other hand, I never get tired of watching the Gene Kelly version, as hokey as the acting is.Ah, come on! It's just one movie!
There's a lot to like about the Three Disney-teers:
1: Rochefort. Isn't that a smelly kind of cheese?
2: Porthos: Champagne?
Athos: We're in the middle of a chase, Porthos.
Porthos: You're right - something red.
3: Bad Guy: Dead. They're all dead!
Aramis: Not all of us.
4: Tim Curry!
I also liked the Disney-teers! :)
Plus it had Dr. Who in it (all be it one of the worst Doctors, but still...)
This is going to be an unpopular opinion, but half of Night of the Living Dead '90. Some things were better in the original, some things were better in the remake. It evened out for me.
For example: The impact of the original's final scene couldn't be beaten, but the remake's Barbara was superior in every way.
Also, the way it played with the audience's expectations near the beginning was great. And that crazy guy who called everyone a "bunch of yo-yos"? Priceless.
I'm willing to raise you. I will wager extreme unpopularity by throwing the Dawn of the Dead remake in there. It did a good job of modernizing the story while keeping very true to the original, and damn those actions scenes were awesome. Also, a friend of mine played a zombie in that movie, so that was also cool.
Other remakes not mentioned...
Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory with Gene Wilder was better then Charlie and the Chocolate Factory with Johnny Depp, though the latter one was not bad.
Heat an Excellent Remake the the TV movie L.A. Takedown, was much better then the letter mentioned TV Movie.
There is I Am Legend which is a remake of The Omega Man which is a remake of The Last Man on Earth which all are based on the novel I Am Legend. I enjoyed the one with Charlton Heston (The Omega Man) the most.
Talking about Charlton Heston, His planet of the Apes was much better then the latter Planet of the apes.
I consider movies based on books to essentially be re-makes, and should be included in this type of discussion. Even if the latter one isn't a remake of a previous movie, they still go up against each other when compared critically, sucessfully, or which ever.
Sure, but when has any movie been better than the book it was based on?
I agree, though I have to say that the visuals in the remake and some of the reimaginings were brilliant. There was just not enough in the story to quite live up to the trappings.
Talking about Charlton Heston, His planet of the Apes was much better then the latter Planet of the apes.
I enjoyed the remake well enough, what killed me was the ending. It totally drained the OMG value of the original, and worse it wiated until the very end of the movie to do so. It was a total slap in the face to existing fans. (At least I thought it was. Examined without comparing it to the original, it's really not that bad of a movie.
I consider movies based on books to essentially be re-makes, and should be included in this type of discussion. Even if the latter one isn't a remake of a previous movie, they still go up against each other when compared critically, sucessfully, or which ever.Sure, but when has any movie been better than the book it was based on?
Thats a whole different thread. Personally I like the Princess Bride Movie much better than the book. Also The IRon Giant.
Sure, but when has any movie been better than the book it was based on?
At the risk of getting amazingly toasted by flaming here, but I'd have to say Peter Jackson's Lord of The Rings movies did far more for me than the books ever did, and I read them 4 or five times. I found his vision of them far more compelling and indeed had a more bleak outlook than Tolkiens books.
I'd also nominate these as movies that were far better than the original animated movie.
And another for some argument - "Last man standing" with Bruce Willis was a pretty good remake of Clint Eastwoods "Fist full of dollars." But then, I like the prohibition era better than the spaghetti western setting.
Cheers
I consider movies based on books to essentially be re-makes, and should be included in this type of discussion. Even if the latter one isn't a remake of a previous movie, they still go up against each other when compared critically, sucessfully, or which ever.Sure, but when has any movie been better than the book it was based on?
A Room with a View.
Sure, but when has any movie been better than the book it was based on?At the risk of getting amazingly toasted by flaming here, but I'd have to say Peter Jackson's Lord of The Rings movies did far more for me than the books ever did, and I read them 4 or five times. I found his vision of them far more compelling and indeed had a more bleak outlook than Tolkiens books.
Cheers
I'm torn. I love the books, I love the movies. I don't know that I would say the movies are better, but I wll concede that a valid argument could be made.
A Room with a View.
Have not seen or read this, summary?
And another for some argument - "Last man standing" with Bruce Willis was a pretty good remake of Clint Eastwoods "Fist full of dollars." But then, I like the prohibition era better than the spaghetti western setting.
That's because the book they were based on, Dashiell Hammett's Red Harvest, was prohibition-era. And, yeah, I thought that novel was even better than all three of the movies.
Sure, but when has any movie been better than the book it was based on?
Michael Mann's Last of the Mohicans vs. James Fennimore Cooper's novel;
Stanley Kubric's The Shining vs. Stephen King's novel;David Cronenberg's The Dead Zone vs. Stephen King's novel;
Michael Ritchie's Fletch vs. Gregory McDonald's novel;
Francis Ford Coppola's The Godfather vs. Mario Puzo's novel.
And John Huston's The Maltese Falcon was every bit as good as Dashiell Hammett's novel.
Sure, but when has any movie been better than the book it was based on?Michael Mann's Last of the Mohicans vs. James Fennimore Cooper's novel;
Stanley Kubric's The Shining vs. Stephen King's novel;
David Cronenberg's The Dead Zone vs. Stephen King's novel.
I haven't seen The Last of the Mohicans and I'm not sure I saw The Dead Zone (all I can bring to mind is the TV series), but I strongly disagree with The Shining. The movie was good, and was far superior to the mini-series, but the book is a hallmark of horror fiction. There is so much going on the Kubrick didn't even touch on. I'm afraid book strongly trumps movie on that one.
I enjoyed the remake well enough, what killed me was the ending. It totally drained the OMG value of the original, and worse it wiated until the very end of the movie to do so. It was a total slap in the face to existing fans. (At least I thought it was. Examined without comparing it to the original, it's really not that bad of a movie.I agree, though I have to say that the visuals in the remake and some of the reimaginings were brilliant. There was just not enough in the story to quite live up to the trappings.
Talking about Charlton Heston, His planet of the Apes was much better then the latter Planet of the apes.
I had always thought that there would be another movie to clear up the ending. There never was.
A Room with a View.Have not seen or read this, summary?
Eh, it's a chick flick. Merchant-Ivory period romance. Suffice it to say that Helena Bonham-Carter & Julian Sands did a much better job of making me care about what the heck happened to their characters than did E. M. Forster's prose.
Funny (now) story: When I was in high school, a friend gave me this movie for my birthday. I hadn't seen it yet and was watching it in my room. 99.8% of the movie is just terribly proper, period costumes up to the neck and not even a curse word in sight. So when does my mom walk in with laundry? During the less than one minute of full-frontal male nudity (going swimming in a forest pond).
A Room with a View.Have not seen or read this, summary?Eh, it's a chick flick. Merchant-Ivory period romance. Suffice it to say that Helena Bonham-Carter & Julian Sands did a much better job of making me care about what the heck happened to their characters than did E. M. Forster's prose.
Funny (now) story: When I was in high school, a friend gave me this movie for my birthday. I hadn't seen it yet and was watching it in my room. 99.8% of the movie is just terribly proper, period costumes up to the neck and not even a curse word in sight. So when does my mom walk in with laundry? During the less than one minute of full-frontal male nudity (going swimming in a forest pond).
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAAAA... Oh, that's great. I hate it when that happens. :)
But, um...I think I'll pass on this one. Doesn't sound like my kind of thing.
The Thomas Crown AffairJust curious if anyone can give me examples.
(Just realized how few movies I see)
Egads, I hated that movie! I never saw the original, but the remake made me want to take up arms in the class struggle. I was so sick of the "smug rich guy who always wins" constantly and predictably pulling one over on the "working class dumb cops".
Funny (now) story: When I was in high school, a friend gave me this movie for my birthday. I hadn't seen it yet and was watching it in my room. 99.8% of the movie is just terribly proper, period costumes up to the neck and not even a curse word in sight. So when does my mom walk in with laundry? During the less than one minute of full-frontal male nudity (going swimming in a forest pond).
A similar thing used to happen when a friend of mine watched a videotape of The Wall. His father always came in during the animated flowers scene.
A similar thing used to happen when a friend of mine watched a videotape of The Wall. His father always came in during the animated flowers scene.
My mother's sleep-addled review of Last of the Mohicans: "I HATE this movie! Every time I wake up, an old man is hitting someone with an axe!" She still thinks it was about a Lizzie Borden-style cult, I think.
A similar thing used to happen when a friend of mine watched a videotape of The Wall. His father always came in during the animated flowers scene.My mother's sleep-addled review of Last of the Mohicans: "I HATE this movie! Every time I wake up, an old man is hitting someone with an axe!" She still thinks it was about a Lizzie Borden-style cult, I think.
Last of the Mohicans was a fantastic movie. It was the first time I saw Daniel Day Lewis in action and I was pretty impressed. Great Actor.
I actually rented it out not long ago to watch again after nearly 12 years, and it hasn't lost anything in that time.
Never read the book, but pretty keen to do so now.
Cheers
Never read the book, but pretty keen to do so now.
Be warned: the book appeals mostly to people like me who grew up where it takes place, and have been to all the forts, etc. Other than that, it's pretty cheesy in places, for example
Sure, but when has any movie been better than the book it was based on?Michael Mann's Last of the Mohicans vs. James Fennimore Cooper's novel;
Stanley Kubric's The Shining vs. Stephen King's novel;
David Cronenberg's The Dead Zone vs. Stephen King's novel;
Michael Ritchie's Fletch vs. Gregory McDonald's novel;
Francis Ford Coppola's The Godfather vs. Mario Puzo's novel.And John Huston's The Maltese Falcon was every bit as good as Dashiell Hammett's novel.
Kubrick did two more that were equal to or better than the source novel: A Clockwork Orange and Full Metal Jacket (based on "The Short Timers" by Gustav Hasford).
I actually liked the Fletch novels better than the movies. Not a big Chevy Chase fan, I guess...
Puzo's Godfather? Eh...
Kubrick did two more that were equal to or better than the source novel: A Clockwork Orange and Full Metal Jacket (based on "The Short Timers" by Gustav Hasford).
I actually liked the Fletch novels better than the movies. Not a big Chevy Chase fan, I guess...
Puzo's Godfather? Eh...
See, again I liked both versions of A Clockwork Orange, but if I had to choose betwen the two... hard as it would be I'd have to go with the book. I don't know I guess I read, more than your average Joe. I find the written word and my imagination to be more powerful than most films. But... I love films too, so whatever.
Puzo's Godfather? Eh...
If I were a reconstructive surgeon obsessed with the inner geometry of the female reproductive cavity, I would have enjoyed about a third of the book a whole lot more than I did. (That, and my imagination could never have given Sonny's character half of what James Caan brought to the role).
