Jim Caveizel's "Count of Monte Cristo" vs. the Richard Chamberlain version?
Of course, it's not so much a remake but that both (and more) are based on the same book. And I say "based on" loosely with regard to the Caveizel version. Oddly enough, though, even though the book's great, so is the movie version that plays fast and loose with the details.
|
See, I've seen both and think it's more like the Count of Monte Cristo above.
I happen to like the newer version of both, but the Things are radically different from each other.
The original Thing was a pretty decent movie, especially considering the amount of money spent on it and the fact that it was made in 1951.
John Carpenter's version was indeed radically different version. But perhaps because of that, it's a fantastic "reimagining" (to coin a Hollyweird term) of the original movie.
As for The Count of Monte Cristo, I'll heartily agree that the one with Caviezel was great, but my favorite is the version from 1934. But go do a search of www.imdb.com and you'll see there has been 18 differnt versions, including several TV series.
How about The Fly? I love the one with Jeff Goldblum.
And, one for my fellow fans of westerns, 3:10 To Yuma. I remember seeing Glen Ford's portrayal when I was a kid and thought he was an awesome bad guy. But then Russell Crowe just knocks it out of the park for me.
Any Others? Completely disagree with me? ;)
|
I can think of several that were 'as good, but in different ways', but better?
Can't really think of any, other than The Fly which was mentioned already and Pulse which was a remake of the Japanese film Kairo. Other than those, I think I prefer most originals to remakes. But I do like most remakes as well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gladiator is largely a remake of The Fall of the Roman Empire and surpasses it.
The 1959 version of Ben Hur is better than the 1907 version.
The remake of Ocean's 11 is a better heist film, is better filmed, and hangs together better as a whole work than the original. The original is a Rat Pack film. You're really going to see the antics of the Rat Pack, not a greatly written or filmed story.
I think there are versions of Invasion of the Body Snatchers better than the 1956 version. The 1978 version, for example.
The Three Musketeers has been made and remade many times. The best, I think, is the 1973 version. But that's a remake of previous versions in the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s...
Remakes have been around as long as Hollywood has been along and screenwriters/directors/producers/actors have had different views of the source material. Some have been good. Some not so good. Some exceed the achievements of the original, some do not, some equal them.
Is this only limited to Movies? I think my Dungeon flip-mat is better than the original. Can't wait to get my hands on this in a few weeks.
|
|
I do prefer John Carpenter's the Thing better than the original and also the 70's body snatcher over the one from the 50's. And the modern Ocean's Eleven as has already been mentioned as well. The newer Mummy movie is also a good reimagining of the tale.
Personally, I prefer the American version of The Ring just a litle bit over the Japanese version, though the original is still pretty good.
Jackson's Lord of the Rings is most certainly preferable to the cartoons.
Also The remake of Casino Royale is probably my favorite of all the Bond movies and one of the truest to the book from which it came. A little further abroad, A&E did a remake of Emma with Kate Beckinsale that I thought was superior to others I had seen.
The story behind The Ghost and the Darkness (1996?), about the Tsavo man-eaters had already been told once in the movie Bwana Devil in 1952. I haven't seen Bwana Devil but I do like Ghost and the Darkness and the movie is generally rated as superior.
|
|
Really? Wow. You're the first person I've seen who feels this way.
Personally, I prefer the American version of The Ring just a litle bit over the Japanese version, though the original is still pretty good.
Its just a personal preference, as I indicated, I can see it going either way. Generally I think many western remakes of oriental films lose a little something - much prefer Ju-on to the Grudge for instance and Seven Samurai to the Magnifecent Seven. But I thought the makers of the Ring did an excellent job of lifting the movie from it's Japanese setting and placing it the US. I also think the scenes on the American Versions 'tape' are just a little better done. But I know there are others that like the Japanese better. I did like the Japanese sequel much better than the American Sequel.
And then of course there's the book as well.
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
Really? Wow. You're the first person I've seen who feels this way.
Personally, I prefer the American version of The Ring just a litle bit over the Japanese version, though the original is still pretty good.Its just a personal preference, as I indicated, I can see it going either way. Generally I think many western remakes of oriental films lose a little something - much prefer Ju-on to the Grudge for instance and Seven Samurai to the Magnifecent Seven. But I thought the makers of the Ring did an excellent job of lifting the movie from it's Japanese setting and placing it the US. I also think the scenes on the American Versions 'tape' are just a little better done. But I know there are others that like the Japanese better. I did like the Japanese sequel much better than the American Sequel.
And then of course there's the book as well.
Interesting. I've found most Japanese horror films that have been remade in the US to be inferior in atmosphere. The Ring is one of them, but The Grudge is the one I believe that suffered the most in translation. 'Pulse' also comes to mind.
Have you seen Ringu 0? A decent prequel, but not as good as the original. I don't think that one's been "westernized" yet...
|
|
Interesting. I've found most Japanese horror films that have been remade in the US to be inferior in atmosphere.
In general I agree with that.
On the other hand, horror is a highly subjective object. What one person considers atmosphere or scary another will simply shrug at. I found the Ring to be good horror with decent atmosphere.
As to the sequels and prequels and what have you, reading the books (At least the Ring and Spiral) sort of put me off of them as i could see that there was a real potential to depart from the original storyline in the books and I don't remember that I watched the prequel, though I might of a few years ago.
|
|
Some more good remakes:
The Parent Trap (1961). The original novel had already been adapted to film three times between 1949 and 1961.
The Maltese Falcon (1941).
The Truth about Charlie (2002). (I like the remake anyway. I don't think its universally popular.)
The Italian Job (2003).
The Man who Knew too Much (1956).
The Ten Commandments (1956).
The Italian Job (2003)
I thought the original was far superior, and found the remake awful and trivial. I particularly hated the ending. The way the original ends, with the
The Wicker Man.
About remakes that I found superior, I would say Dracula by Coppola.
Maltese Falcon -- yes! Bogie's is a timeless classic, my favorite movie of all time. Good call, Wicht!
And if we're looking at various takes on the same book, Michael Mann's Last of the Mohicans is superior to all of its predecessors, mostly because he knew which parts of the novel to follow, and which parts to abandon and completely redo.
---------
Italian Job? -- Taliesin is dead-on; there's no contest, Caine's version beats Marky-Mark's by a factor of 1,000,000 to 1. (He's right about Omega Man and Wicker Man as well, IMO.)
But the worst remake ever perpetrated? Has to be the travesty Scorsese made of Infernal Affairs -- that's like remaking The Godfather with Jack Black as Vito.
Speaking of Coppola... Dracula? -- ugh! One of the only movies I've been unable to finish. I turned it off with like 20 minutes left in it, because I felt like watching the rest would be throwing away good time after bad. Maybe my problem was that I actually enjoyed the novel.
For Japanese horror flicks, the original beats the hell out of the SMG "Grudge" -- but coversely, I genuinely found The Ring to be a lot creepier than Ringu (which just seemed sort of hokey when I saw it) -- I'm with Wicht there as well, I guess.
----------
One question for everyone: Did Tom Cruise realize that MI:3 was a much lamer remake of True Lies? I mean, was that, like, on purpose?
|
|
I also must disagree with Coppola's Dracular being a better remake. I'm not actually sure which Dracula I would prefer as I tend to think there haven't been any really successful adaptations of the novel. I think I would have to pick between either the 1931 Lugosi film or the 1958 Christopher Lee film.
As to the Italian Job, the newer version is one of those films I don't mind rewatching as a bit of meaningless fun. I don't think its great cinema but for some reason I can rewatch it rather easily so its probably, for me, a guilty pleasure.
And I would have mentioned Last of the Mohicans as a good remake but I haven't actually seen the predecessors so it would not be fair for me to rate it as superior.
The Italian Job (2003)I thought the original was far superior, and found the remake awful and trivial. I particularly hated the ending. The way the original ends, with the ** spoiler omitted ** was one of the all time classic scenes in cinema, and the chase scenes were far superior as well.
I liked the remake. I thought it wasn't superior to the original but rose to about its level. But then, I think the two movies have very different philosophies. The original was as much about style and showing off as it was about the heist. The artfully placed mafia guys, the silliness of the mini car chase (even if artful), put the original in a very different space as a movie. The remake breaks the original story down into a different set of essentials - the minis are there and the chase is reasonably inventive, but less Esther Williams-ish - and the movie becomes more of an ensemble-heist film than it is a Charlie Croker's scheming charm/1969 cinema style film.
|
|
Ok, guess I'd better add one. I liked the Shining Miniseries over the original movie.
Ack. I might agree with this IF they had gotten decent actors. Both the Jack and Wendy characters felt so... forced. And Danny? That was truely BAD acting.
I prefer the better acting, but less acurate story of the original.
Did Tom Cruise realize that MI:3 was a much lamer remake of True Lies? I mean, was that, like, on purpose?
Speaking of which, True Lies is apparently itself a remake of a low-budget French farce called La Totale! -- it might be a good one to put on the list of superior remakes, if anyone has actually seen the original and can comment on it.
Seven Samurai and Samurai 7...equal in epicness...love them both!
I liked Yojimbo and Fistful of Dollars both (and absolutely loved the source novel, Dashiell Hammett's Red Harvest)... but I have to admit I preferred Magnificent Seven to Seven Samurai.
|
Seven Samurai and Samurai 7...equal in epicness...love them both!I liked Yojimbo and Fistful of Dollars both (and absolutely loved the source novel, Dashiell Hammett's Red Harvest)... but I have to admit I preferred Magnificent Seven to Seven Samurai.
I loved Seven Samurai. It's one of my favourite movies of all-time. That said, while I didn't like The Magnificent Seven AS much, it was still a fantastic film, and a worth remake, even if only for the quote "We deal in lead, friend."
As for Samurai 7, a friend of mine is watching that right now and is telling me that it's great, but I'm not sure I'd like it. I just have never been able to get into Anime, so I doubt I'd judge it fairly.
|
|
Seven Samurai and Samurai 7...equal in epicness...love them both!I liked Yojimbo and Fistful of Dollars both (and absolutely loved the source novel, Dashiell Hammett's Red Harvest)... but I have to admit I preferred Magnificent Seven to Seven Samurai.
I also like Yojimbo and Fistful of Dollars about equally. But I think Seven Samurai was much better than Magnifecent Seven. And I couldn't finish samurai 7. Just lost interest about 3/4 of the way through.
I also like Yojimbo and Fistful of Dollars about equally. But I think Seven Samurai was much better than Magnifecent Seven. And I couldn't finish samurai 7. Just lost interest about 3/4 of the way through.
We picked up a copy of Samurai 7 for my daughter's birthday (she had checked out a few disks from the library so I knew she'd like it). She's really enjoying it. I'm not sure if she'd really like the original.
The Kate Beckinsale Emma actually predated the Gwyneth Paltrow version by several months IIRC. So that would be a case where the "remake" (again, not so much a remake as another movie based on the same source material) was NOT better than the earlier version. Nothing against Gwyneth (loved her in Iron Man), but she was absolutely wrong for the part in every way. Kate was fantastic. However, I preferred the rest of the cast from the Gwyneth version to those in the A&E. So ... meh.
As for Coppolla's Dracula, I went to see it with one of my high school friends. We spent the whole movie either laughing (not at things that Coppolla meant to be funny, unfortunately) or checking her watch to see how much longer it was going to go on. Unbearable, IMO. However, the rest of the audience glared at us every time we started giggling, so I'm prepared to admit ours was probably a minority view.
|
Funny Games
Just kidding. That's a trick answer. Both versions are basically, shot for shot the exact same movie with different actors.
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.
Oh, I just remembered a good one: Little Shop of Horrors. The 1986 version is far superior. The 1960 version does feature Jack Nicholson in one of his first film appearances, but that doesn't save it from being a pretty bad movie (although it is pretty good for a Roger Corman film.)
The Thing
I hear they're doing it again.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
The ThingI hear they're doing it again.
Ugh! Yeah I know... CG ahoy! I always found well done animatronics had more of a "real" feel than CG. I'll see it, but I can't see it topping Carpenter's version.
Remakes that I think are better than the original (or prior attempts):
The Thomas Crown Affair (with Pierce Brosnan and Rene Russo)
Cheaper by the Dozen (with Steve Martin and Bonnie Hunt)
Of Mice and Men (with Gary Sinese and John Malkovich)
Hamlet (1996, with Kenneth Branagh)
The Three Musketeers (1993, with Sutherland, Sheen, and Platt)
That's five I can think of off the top of my head. I picked the 1993 Musketeers over the others with the noted performance of Tim Curry.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
The Three Musketeers (1993, with Sutherland, Sheen, and Platt)
That's five I can think of off the top of my head. I picked the 1993 Musketeers over the others with the noted performance of Tim Curry.
The Disney Musketeers was a nice romp, very 'low magic D&D vibe' (I laughed when Tim Curry offers 5000 gold pieces) It also was the beginning of me liking Kiefer Sutherland.
But it was *not* the Three Musketeers.
|
|
The Three Musketeers (1993, with Sutherland, Sheen, and Platt)
That's five I can think of off the top of my head. I picked the 1993 Musketeers over the others with the noted performance of Tim Curry.
The Disney Musketeers was a nice romp, very 'low magic D&D vibe' (I laughed when Tim Curry offers 5000 gold pieces) It also was the beginning of me liking Kiefer Sutherland.
But it was *not* the Three Musketeers.
Took you that long? I think my man-crush on Kiefer started way back with The Lost Boys.
I don't recall the 5000 gold pieces line... I'm gonna have to watch that one again.
About remakes that I found superior, I would say Dracula by Coppola.
I think we probably have to exclude film adaptations of books, even if there was more than one made. To me, it doesn't really qualify as a "remake" unless it was originally a film (or maybe a TV show, etc).
I actually love Coppola's Dracula, but it's more or less an homage to all the previous versions, more than a remake!
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.
Along the same lines as remakes better than the original, are there any actors' bratty kids who are actually better than their parents?
Martin Sheen > Charlie Sheen or Emilio Estevez;
Kirk Douglas > Michael
Donald Sutherland > Kiefer...
Wait! I've got two:
Tony Curtis << Jamie Lee Curtis
And Miguel Ferrer is just as good as Jose, when he wants to be.
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...
|
|
My comments about the 3 musketeers would be similar to those about Dracula, there has not been a movie that I think really does the book well. With the Musketeers, it seems to me that they just lift rough character sketches from the text and ignore the rest of the plot.
On the other hand, Sinise's Of Mice and Men is a most excellent movie.
On the other hand, Sinise's Of Mice and Men is a most excellent movie.
Sinise is incredibly good even in lousy movies (e.g., "Albino Alligator").
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.
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.
You're not alone.
|
|
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.
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.
Battlestar Galactica.
...I have nothing nice to say about the remake. So I will say little but I will say the original was enjoyable and in my veiw much better then the remake.
I would say the The Magnificent Seven was a good remake of the Seven Samurai. Maybe not wholly better but a very good film in it's own right and certainly "better" for it's intended audience.
I was thinking of whether or not Spiderman (2002) counts as a remake and I remembered the Punisher. Its not my favorite of movies but I do think the newer Punisher (2004) is better than the Lundgren version (1989).
True, but the only film I might rate lower is Istar, the '89 version of Punisher was painful to watch....static on the screen would be an improvement....well almost.
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.
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.