Page 1 of 4
Was the remake better?
Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 5:14 pm
by Jacques
Remakes, were they better?
Get Carter? No
The Ring? No
Manhunter? No
The only one I can think of is The Thing, Any others?
Re: Was the remake better?
Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 5:14 pm
by Jacques
Oh! and Heat
Re: Was the remake better?
Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 5:35 pm
by The Cream Bun
Cape Fear?
Actually both versions were pretty good.
Re: Was the remake better?
Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 5:37 pm
by Jacques
That is a tough call
Re: Was the remake better?
Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 5:41 pm
by IdolDroog
I really liked the Dawn of the Dead remake a couple of years back. I thought it was excellent but its not a fair comparison with the original because of its context, influence etc. But either way it was a damn good remake for a modern film. I prefer it, possibly because the originals a bit dated.
Its a very good example of a film that shouldntve been a remake but couldve easily been named something else and it would have retained its own originality.
Re: Was the remake better?
Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:46 pm
by Pervert
The Maltese Falcon----the Bogart/John Huston version was the second time it had been filmed.
His Girl Friday---much better than The Front Page
Lord Of The Rings---The cartoon may have had its moments, but couldn't live up to Peter Jackon's version
You should only remake movies (or cover songs) if you feel you can improve them. Slavish, scene for scene remakes (with a touch of sex and/or violence) are a waste of time---Wicked Lady, Psycho, for example.
Re: Was the remake better?
Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:52 pm
by The Cream Bun
On the song subject, I have a clear rule - "Better" or "different", Otherwise don't bother.
Nothing worse than an earnest but slightly worse copy of the original
Re: Was the remake better?
Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:53 pm
by The Last Word
There's been two excellent remakes of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. In fact, remake is probably the wrong word as the trio look like three seperate takes on the same idea, which is quite how it should be.
A fourth possible, I've read somewhere.
Re: Was the remake better?
Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 9:09 pm
by SAFCSA
Has anyone seen the remake of The Omen released on 6 June this year? I cannot believe it is a patch on the original with Gregory Peck and Lee Remick that was a classic horrror film.
Re: Was the remake better?
Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 9:41 pm
by hattertim
Evil Dead II was virtually a re-make of Evil Dead (with a bigger budget)....both pretty good IMHO!
Both versions of the Thing are excellent, but in different ways....the first version (The Thing From Another World) was classic Hawksian stuff, but the Carpenter version is apparently closer to the original short story...can't fault either of 'em, especially the '82 film for the line "You've gotta be fucking kidding!"...
Have to agree with both versions of Dawn of the Dead being excellent as well...the original is my fave film of all time, and I went along to see the new version thinking it might piss all over it's memory, but they actually took the original premise (fighting off zombies in a mall) and spun it into an entertaining new take! Can't beat a good bit of zombie carnage!
Sucky remakes? I've not seen any of these yet, but surely The Fog, The Amityville Horror, The Omen, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Hills Have Eyes (notice a trend here) can't be as good as the originals...but then that's Hollywood for you, they've even started re-cycling recent movies...