I just saw the original Ocean’s Eleven last night, and absolutely hated it. The plot had some major holes, and the ending was a total downer. And it may be the most blatantly sexist movie I’ve ever seen. Yes, yes,it was made 40 years ago, but I still found it offensive.
On the other hand, while the remake of Ocean’s Eleven wouldn’t make my top 10 list (or even top 50), I found it pretty entertaining.
So what other movies have benefited from remakes? What made them better than the original?
The Maltese Falcon stands out as the prime example of a better remake. The Humphrey Bogart-John Huston version actually the third version of this story, and it’s far and away the best.
The Wizard of Oz. The 1939 Judy Garland color musical was preceded by a pretty disappointing (and racist) silent version starring then well-known comedian Larry Semon as the Scarecrow (and a pre-Stan Laurel version of Oliver Hardy as the Tin Man!). L. Frank Baum’s own company had put out a series of silent “Wizard of Oz” shorts, too.
There are a lot of films that were done a quick, simplified cheapies in the silent era that were surpassed by almost any later versions (such as The Sea Beast = “Moby Dick”).
For my money, Cecil B. deMille’s The Ten Commandments from 1959 easily outclassed his earlier silent version.
Curse you, Cal, for beating me to that punch! I have actually seen all three Maltese Falcons, and No. 3 is indeed the best.
Well, the second Ben Hur (1925) was much better than both the 1907 original and the 1959 rermake (yes, I have seen all three). And the 1922 Orphans of the Storm was superior to the 1911 and 1915 The Two Orphans (despite the 1915 one starring Theda Bara!). And I venture to say that the 1931 Frankenstein was a tad more enjoyable than the 1910 version.
Cronenberg’s version of The Fly is a considerable improvement on the original, as is Carpenter’s The Thing.
Much as I like Cronenberg’s and Carpenter’s films, I can’t say I find them superior to the originals. In fact, in both of these cases the remakes were so significantly different from the originals as to be almost completely new films. Cronenberg’s Fly diverged almost completely from the original George Langelaan (sic) story, even changing the main character’s name. The new film is scientifically less outlandish, but the original film stuck closer to the story. The original version of The Thing is a classic, even if it did almost completely change the John Campbell story. In this case, it’s the remake that’s closer to its source, and I think Carpenter’s version excellent, but for different reasons.
Another case of a better remake: It’s generally acknowledged that the 1939 (?) Charles Laughton version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame is superior even to Lon Chaney’s version.
Most critics think (and I agree) that the Rouben Mamoulian/Frederic March version of Dr. Jeckyll and Mister Hyde is the best version, superior to its many predecessors (and the later versions as well).
Much as I like Cronenberg’s and Carpenter’s films, I can’t say I find them superior to the originals. In fact, in both of these cases the remakes were so significantly different from the originals as to be almost completely new films. Cronenberg’s Fly diverged almost completely from the original George Langelaan (sic) story, even changing the main character’s name. The new film is scientifically less outlandish, but the original film stuck closer to the story. The original version of The Thing is a classic, even if it did almost completely change the John Campbell story. In this case, it’s the remake that’s closer to its source, and I think Carpenter’s version excellent, but for different reasons.
Another case of a better remake: It’s generally acknowledged that the 1939 (?) Charles Laughton version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame is superior even to Lon Chaney’s version.
Most critics think (and I agree) that the Rouben Mamoulian/Frederic March version of Dr. Jeckyll and Mister Hyde is the best version, superior to its many predecessors (and the later versions as well).
Feh! I have differ with you on Hunchback. It’s not “generally acknowledged” by me that the Charles Laughton version is better than Lon Chaney’s! And don’t get me started on Claude Rains’ crappy Phantom . . .
Apparently, His Girl Friday was a remake, and it’s one of my favorite movies. So while I have yet to see the original, I doubt it’s better. How’s that logic?
I disagree about Ocean’s 11. I think the original is a real time capsule for Vegas and the 50’s mentality of arrogant sexist assholes like Sinatra. And the fact they filmed it with huge hangovers on a tight schedule for no money - turned into a pretty good home movie. The newer version was slick, but had no soul.
There are 3 versions of Star is Born.
The second version (with Judy Garland) was by far the best of the three.
I know this is just me, but I prefer Savini’s (Romero produced) Night of the Living Dead to the original.
I was about to mention His Girl Friday as well. It is a remake of the Front Page which IIRC was remade again later.
I haven’t seen it either but from reviews it appears to a be a good film but not as good as HGF.
In particular the editor and reporter are both men (with presumably no romantic attraction). The stroke of genius in HGF was to make them a man and a woman where, as anyone who has seen it knows, the chemistry between Cary Grant and Rosalind Russel is absolutely sublime.
It’s a remake of The Front Page, the Ben Hecht-Charles MacArthur comedy that starred Adolphe Menjou. I’ve seen the original and like it. Probably about as much as His Girl Friday. It was later remade a The Front Page with Walter Matthau and Jack Lemmon and a lot of people you’ll recognize from 1960s and 1970s TV. I liked this version, too (Jack Lemmon! Walter Matthau!) And I think it was remade again after that.
Eve – I agree. You’ll notice that I didn’t say I felt that way. But I’ve noticed that a lot of critics seem to feel the later one is better. I’m not sure why – it has a sappier ending. But then again, no one has had the guts to film it straight, the way Hugo wrote it. And I agree about the Claude Rains POTO. And in spades for the Herbert Lom version. After that it went downhill even faster.
Don’t worry, HGF is better than The Front Page, and I’ll have to concur with Eve about Hunchback & Ben-Hur and Scupper about The Fly (but not The Thing).
I think the 1954 A Star Is Born, the 1938 The Adventures of Robin Hood, the 1973 The Three Musketeers, and the 1940 The Thief of Bagdad are the best versions of each story.
I also like Fritz Lang’s Scarlet Street better than Jean Renoir’s admittedly fine La Chienne.
Actually, A Star is Born was made four times—the first one was called What Price Hollywood? (1932) and starred Connie Bennett, Lowell Sherman and Neil Hamilton (later Commissioner Gordon on Batman). Terrific film, ewasily as good as the 1937 anfd '54 versions.
Yikes, ArchiveGuy—you like the 1940 version of Thief of Bagdad better than the Doug Fairbanks one?! Them’s fightin’ words!
The Fairbanks one is terrific, with Fairbanks, Raoul Walsh, Arthur Edeson & William Cameron Menzies making terrific contributions. But I still prefer what Michael Powell, Georges Perinal, Conrad Veidt, Rex Ingram, the Kordas, and most critically Miklos Rozsa bring to the table. And though Anna May Wong is generally stunning, the luscious June Duprez wins in this particular department for these particular films. 
I’d vote for Warren Beatty’s “Heaven Can Wait” as an improvement over the 1940s’ version “Here Comes Mr. Jordan.”
I agree about the 1970s The Three (& Four) Musketeers being the best version of the story. The actors are entirely the wrong age, but it doesn’t detract from the story one bit. Look at that Brat Pack version from the 1990s, not even Oliver Platt could save that one.
The Front Page/His Girl Friday was remade as Switching Channels in 1988. It starred Kathleen Turner, Burt Reynolds, and Christopher Reeve and was updated to the world of cable news instead of the newspaper business. Dreadfully dull and unfunny.
Count me in on preferring Carpenter’s The Thing to the original. It not just the effects, but the atmosphere of the remake that I like. The Cold War paranoia metaphor of the original make it seem very dated to me when I watch it now. It’s still a good movie, but a victim of its time.
What about The Prisoner Of Zenda? which version is considered the best?
Personally, I found the Menjou version disappointing after having seen Hawks’. As for the Billy Wilder version, that seemed terribly broad (though I usually have this reaction to Matthau and Lemmon together). I do however love the final scene - “That man stole my watch!”
Well, there was the Sly Stallone remake of Get Carter.
I wasn’t very good, but iIt kicked the stuffing out of the nightmare that was the original, even if both did suffer from the blighting presence that is Michael Caine.