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.