|
|
Post by london777 on Nov 7, 2019 16:39:30 GMT
Which remakes have been flops?
Which remakes have either improved on the original or have at least added something valuable?
I suppose, strictly speaking, a remake is defined as a makeover of a previous movie or screenplay rather than a film which goes back to an original literary source, but let us not get bogged down in that distinction. But if you want to make an issue of it, then, by all means, bog away!
My favorite "remake" is The Maltese Falcon (1941) dir: John Huston which is a giant step up from the mildly entertaining version directed by Roy del Ruth (1931), though the earlier film does have the advantage of livewire Bebe Daniels over the frumpy Mary Astor.
.
Two "remakes" which are well worth having alongside their celebrated predecessors are:
Cape Fear (1991) dir: Martin Scorsese
Cape Fear (1962) dir: J Lee Thompson
Michum's performance, which largely recycles his "Harry Powell" from Night of the Hunter (1952) makes DeNiro look camp and vulgar, but jailbait Juliette Lewis adds another dimension not present in the earlier movie. The unsavory family dynamics make the later version more complex and morally ambiguous.
The Killers (1964) dir: Don Siegel
The Killers (1946) dir: Robert Siodmak
Siegel shifts the focus from the victim (Cassavetes) to the investigating killer (Lee Marvin). Reagan is a much more interesting Big Bad than Albert Dekker, who meets the 1930s definition of a "heavy'. But nothing matches the way Lancaster and Ava Gardner command the screen.
Henry V (1989) dir: Kenneth Branagh is respectful of Shakespeare's original, but is haunted by Branagh's reverence for Laurence Olivier's The Chronicle History of King Henry the Fifth with His Battell Fought at Agincourt in France (1944). (Who thought excessively long film titles were invented in the 1960s?)
|
|
|
|
Post by spiderwort on Nov 7, 2019 17:03:05 GMT
I was talking about real classics, not just remakes. And, yes, those you have mentioned are classic remakes that are indeed notable (though personally I prefer the earlier versions of Cape Fear and The Killers). Appreciate your comments though. Very insightful. Oh, and I definitely agree with you about The Maltese Falcon. But in my construct, it's the remake in that case that's the classic, not the original. And remaking that would not be a good idea, in my opinion. In general I believe that most remakes of what we consider renowned classics are never as good as the originals.
And as for Shakespeare, that's really a subject unto its own. Many great interpretations of his works have been done through the years, because the landscape is perpetually rich and open to interpretation and very few "definitive" renditions have been done (though personally I think Zefferilli's Romeo and Juliet is). It's a very interesting topic though, in need of further discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Nov 7, 2019 19:47:09 GMT
Although I personally wouldn't call it a remake, John Carpenter's The Thing (1982) is the greatest of all. It's actually for me, the greatest film of all time
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Nov 7, 2019 22:26:19 GMT
The Coen Bros's True Grit is actually better than the John Wayne original...I think. I don't know how much more successful it was than the Duke's.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Nov 7, 2019 22:27:48 GMT
Which remakes have been flops? Which remakes have either improved on the original or have at least added something valuable? I suppose, strictly speaking, a remake is defined as a makeover of a previous movie or screenplay rather than a film which goes back to an original literary source, but let us not get bogged down in that distinction. But if you want to make an issue of it, then, by all means, bog away! My favorite "remake" is The Maltese Falcon (1941) dir: John Huston which is a giant step up from the mildly entertaining version directed by Roy del Ruth (1931), though the earlier film does have the advantage of livewire Bebe Daniels over the frumpy Mary Astor. . Two "remakes" which are well worth having alongside their celebrated predecessors are: Cape Fear (1991) dir: Martin Scorsese Cape Fear (1962) dir: J Lee Thompson Michum's performance, which largely recycles his "Harry Powell" from Night of the Hunter (1952) makes DeNiro look camp and vulgar, but jailbait Juliette Lewis adds another dimension not present in the earlier movie. The unsavory family dynamics make the later version more complex and morally ambiguous. The Killers (1964) dir: Don Siegel The Killers (1946) dir: Robert Siodmak Siegel shifts the focus from the victim (Cassavetes) to the investigating killer (Lee Marvin). Reagan is a much more interesting Big Bad than Albert Dekker, who meets the 1930s definition of a "heavy'. But nothing matches the way Lancaster and Ava Gardner command the screen. Henry V (1989) dir: Kenneth Branagh is respectful of Shakespeare's original, but is haunted by Branagh's reverence for Laurence Olivier's The Chronicle History of King Henry the Fifth with His Battell Fought at Agincourt in France (1944). (Who thought excessively long film titles were invented in the 1960s?) There's also Welles's Falstaff, the Chimes at Midnight, though that focuses more Sir John more than Prince Hal.
|
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Nov 7, 2019 22:39:55 GMT
I have yet to see a version of the Seven Samurai or Invasion Of The Bodysnatchers stories that I haven't enjoyed
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Nov 7, 2019 22:45:38 GMT
My basic view is--if it is based on a book, it is ok to do a remake, although only if it is bringing something worthwhile. So remaking Ben-Hur in 1959 was a good idea. Remaking it in 2010-something is not. No point remaking it with a dull cast or inferior thrills.
I didn't care for I DIED A THOUSAND TIMES as a remake of HIGH SIERRA except Lon Chaney was more interesting as the old criminal than the guy in the original.
I saw the Cape Fear remake first.
I think the original works better overall but the remake is not a bad film. It is a good re-think on it-they used an interesting cast, and did some changes to the story to make it suspenseful. If there has to be a remake, it was well done.
It's the only Scorsese film I have seen where central characters change-and for a positive--the girl becomes resourceful and the family seem to be more united.
Cady is kind of a Devil figure in the story.
The Thing--I have mixed feelings. I think it has a better monster closer to the story than the 1951 movie, however, I think one can argue the film is governed by the FX which isn't bad per se given how impressive they are but it kind of loses steam after the Norris-Thing.
Bill Warren, author of Keep Watching the Skies, had a detailed criticism of Carpenter's working class hero which after I read, I have to agree with.
Kurt Russell is not the tough man type when compared to Kenneth Tobey. And the characters don't really seem to like each other despite being stuck together for an extended period. Is it the best version that can be done of the story? I don't think so.
Invasion of the Body Snatchers - I think the 78 film was a very good remake (or is it a sequel--since you have Kevin McCarthy running for help?). I prefer it to the original. The ending is so shocking. Again, it's not a needed remake, but it so well done with interesting characters and it does generate a lot of suspense.
King Kong--nope sorry. I think the remakes are bad bad bad ideas. They bring nothing worthwhile to it.
The 76 film lacked the action and monsters and the 2005 version had an inferior cast to the 76 version. There was no point doing a remake.
|
|
|
|
Post by london777 on Nov 8, 2019 0:53:43 GMT
I have yet to see a version of the Seven Samurai ... that I haven't enjoyed This raises another issue. The Magnificent Seven (1960) dir: John Sturges is obviously a version of The Seven Samurai (1954) dir: Akira Kurosawa, but is so different in setting and genre that there can be no direct comparison of the two movies. Thus neither can "suffer" in comparison. As it happens, "The Magnificent Seven" is a good film, but even were it a total dud, no-one would seriously criticize it (spiderwort style) as a pointless and impertinent slur on a classic, but just as a lousy western.
|
|
|
|
Post by OldAussie on Nov 8, 2019 1:57:58 GMT
I'll stick up for the remake of The Manchurian Candidate. Half way through I was wondering " Why did they bother?" But then there's a pretty good twist on the original. The 1962 movie is clearly superior but the latter version is well worth a look.
On the other hand, the recent remakes of Total Recall and Robocop seem to be nothing more than cash grabs riding the coattails of the originals.
Yes. The best thing about the Scorsese movie.
The Killers is a good example of a worthwhile remake as the story is seen through the eyes of very different characters.
|
|
|
|
Post by louise on Dec 24, 2019 14:46:31 GMT
I like the remake of the Thomas Crown Affair much better than the original.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Dec 24, 2019 15:26:34 GMT
The Coen Bros's True Grit is actually better than the John Wayne original...I think. I don't know how much more successful it was than the Duke's. I hate the original and love the remake. It was a hit but I don't think anyone got an Oscar from the 2010 film.
|
|
|
|
Post by marianne48 on Dec 27, 2019 0:59:49 GMT
I was all ready to hate the 1983 remake of the classic To Be Or Not To Be; the 1942 film is a comic masterpiece; Jack Benny was particularly great; and the subject matter was very timely. I was pleasantly surprised by how good the remake was;
while it can't compare with the original, the opening scene of Mel Brooks and Anne Bancroft (singing "Sweet Georgia Brown" in Polish) was terrific, and it was a reasonably good comedy. "Mutki" the dog was fun, too.
|
|
