Post by Rodney Farber on Dec 24, 2022 18:10:43 GMT
Has a film remake ever been better than the original?
Do they only remake good movies? Have they ever remade a film that was a flop at the box office?
This morning, two film critics were talking about the original “Miracle on 34th street”. At the end, they both agreed that it was better than the remakes. (I've only seen the original) It got me to wondering: has any film gotten better reviews and done better financially than the original?
I don’t have much to compare it to as I seldom watch remakes. I didn’t like the Psycho remake even though the script was almost verbatim with the original. The original "Little Shop of Horrors" (early Jack Nicholson) was better than the remake.
I’ve seen The Taking of Pelham 1-2-3 (1974) a few times. It was an OK movie, but not worthy of a remake. I was a bit surprised when they did a poor remake in 1998. It wasn't even filmed in NYC. My mind was really blown when they did another remake in 2009. I’ve never watched the latter remake.
I'd take exception to the OP's comments on The Taking of Pelham 123. It was a tidy little thriller, with style, wit and a great cast. The remakes (both of them) blew chunks, the 2009 version a mindless action film that completely missed the tone of the original, the 1998 one so blah I actually recall absolutely nothing about it--except that it was absolutely blah.
There may be remakes that topped the original, but none of the ones I've seen would qualify. In all fairness, I seldom bother with watching them. If the original was a good film, I doubt it could be bettered, and if the original was mediocre, I don't have a lot of interest in catching a re-do of it. (I will grant that the Maltese Falcon would assuredly qualify as the exception that proves the rule in this case, however.)
Post by Mulder and Scully on Dec 26, 2022 0:29:36 GMT
Scarface 1983 is better Scarface 1932. The remake is one of the most iconic films ever made. It's a part of pop culture. Not a lot of people even talk about the 1932 original.
The Ten Commandments 1956 is the better than The Ten Commandments 1923. Heston and Brynner FTW. Again, the remake is one of the most iconic films ever made. Not a lot of people care about the 1923 original.
Probably a minority opinion but I preferred 1990 Night of the Living Dead over 1968 Night of the Living Dead. I found the remake more atomspheric and better acted.
2004 Dawn of the Dead over 1978 Dawn of the Dead. Zak Snyder's movie is just badass.
2006 The Departed is better than 2002 Infernal Affairs. The remake makes the original seem like amateur crap. You can't go wrong with DiCaprio, Nicholson, Damon, Wahlberg, Sheen, Winstone etc under the direction of Scorsese.
f the original was a good film, I doubt it could be bettered, and if the original was mediocre, I don't have a lot of interest in catching a re-do of it.
Every year hundreds of poor films are released, including many straight to DVD or streaming. Quite a few of them contain ingenious plots or original characters, yet are let down by one or more other aspects (budget, poor acting, direction, camerawork, score, editing, or whatever). These are the movies they ought to remake, rather than esteemed successes.
Maybe they sometimes do, and the poor original has become so obscure that we do not realise we are watching a remake.