Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Culture Forum

Culture Forum

  1. 27 Apr '12 13:09 / 2 edits
    Film snobs usually mock all remakes without difference, but there are remakes and remakes. Some of them are good, or even better.

    1. "Narrow Margine" (1990) - a remake which is better than original from 1952
    In this remake with Gene Hackman, Anne Archer, J.T. Walsh etc (directed by Peter Hyams) the script is improved; old version was too much naive.

    2. "Young Guns 2" (1990) - pointless try when you see the original Sam Peckinpah's "Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid" from 1973.
  2. 27 Apr '12 15:22
    Originally posted by vandervelde
    Film snobs usually mock all remakes without difference, but there are remakes and remakes. Some of them are good, or even better.

    1. "Narrow Margine" (1990) - a remake which is better than original from 1952
    In this remake with Gene Hackman, Anne Archer, J.T. Walsh etc (directed by Peter Hyams) the script is improved; old version was too much naive. ...[text shortened]... try when you see the original Sam Peckinpah's "Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid" from 1973.
    Thanks for posting on my thread. I was getting worried!

    I agree with what you say, but given that cautious studios will tend to remake great films, they often are worse.

    And it is not as common as people who say "The films good, but not as good as the book" when really they are simply commenting on the difference in the genres.

    Anyway, my tuppence is:

    1) The Ring - I saw the Japanese version first, liked it, then was dragged relunctantly to US remake, and have to say it freaked me out more - the scene of the horse going over the side of the ferry drew gasps from the audience - that rarely happens these days.

    2) The Thing - this was the other way round in terms of viewing, but I think the remake is a classic which spawned a thousand poor copies. Original is good though.

    3) The Browning Version is the opposite. The remake is good, but the original (for someone of my background) is spot on. Painful to watch at times.
  3. Subscriber sonhouseonline
    Fast and Curious
    27 Apr '12 20:22
    Originally posted by Rank outsider
    Thanks for posting on my thread. I was getting worried!

    I agree with what you say, but given that cautious studios will tend to remake great films, they often are worse.

    And it is not as common as people who say "The films good, but not as good as the book" when really they are simply commenting on the difference in the genres.

    Anyway, my tup ...[text shortened]... good, but the original (for someone of my background) is spot on. Painful to watch at times.
    What about the recent remake of the Three Stooges? That sounds pathetic from the git go.
  4. Standard member mikelom
    Ajarn
    28 Apr '12 04:41
    "Jesus of Nazareth" , starring Robert Powell, was much better than the original!

    -m. 😉
  5. Subscriber FMF
    Main Poster
    28 Apr '12 10:07
    I enjoyed the Scorsese DeNiro/Nolte remake of Cape Fear more than the Mitchum/Peck original.
  6. Subscriber sonhouseonline
    Fast and Curious
    28 Apr '12 12:47
    Originally posted by FMF
    I enjoyed the Scorsese DeNiro/Nolte remake of Cape Fear more than the Mitchum/Peck original.
    Yep, it was superior to the original. But 20 odd years of better special effects could have an effect too.
  7. 28 Apr '12 13:15 / 1 edit
    In some cases are remake and original equally good

    "Lady Vanishes" from 1938 (Hitchcock) and version from 1979, directed by Antony Page and with Eliot Gould & Cybill Shepherd (Angela Lansbury played vanished "Miss Froy"😉
    I love the original, but the remake is modernised just as much the film needed.

    On the other hand, some Hitchock's films didn't have any luck with TV-remakes, even when producers optioned for star casting

    "Shadow of a Doubt" from 1943 had a poor remake for TV in 1991 with Mark Harmon, and "Rebecca" from 1940 had a dull remake for TV in 1997 with Charles Dance and such dames as Diana Rigg & Faye Dunnaway, who both (sadly) agreed to play, hm, grannies (that was acting, that was method acting, or so called transformation)...
    ... and "Suspicion" from 1941 was remade as a 90 minutes episode for series "American Playhouse" in 1988.



    What about Gus Van Sant's "Psycho" from 1998 with Anne Heche, Vince Vaughn, and Julianne Moore?
    It's not a remake but rehearsal in editing. 😉
  8. 28 Apr '12 14:26
    Originally posted by vandervelde
    What about Gus Van Sant's "Psycho" from 1998 with Anne Heche, Vince Vaughn, and Julianne Moore?
    It's not a remake but rehearsal in editing. 😉
    One of the most pointless things ever filmed, were it not that Anne Heche is (or at least, was then - haven't seen anything from her for a wile) cute.

    I thought the remake of The Fly was rather good. The original wasn't bad, but the slow transformation is so much creepier.

    Richard
  9. 28 Apr '12 21:53 / 1 edit
    1. Invasion of the body snatchers, 1956 classic
    2. Invasion of the body snatchers, 1978 I feel was just as good as the original.
    3. Body snatchers, 1993 I never saw.
    4. The Invasion, 2007 I feel was a very good remake (although not great reviews) being the fourth film adaptation of the 1955 novel The Body Snatchers by Jack Finney
  10. 05 May '12 14:33
    King Kong.
    A couple of remakes that I know of.
    Personally, I enjoy the original more than the others. I have a bias towards b/w films.