Move remakes that are better than the original.

Cafe Society
21

I’m with Eve on The Thief of Baghdad. I heard so much about the 1940 version that I was really looking forward to it, and when I finally sw it I was disappointed. OTOH, I was really blown away by the restored version of the silent TOB that ran on PBS’ “Great Performances” back in 1987.

(I was brung up on a even later version – the 1960 Steve Reeves Italian version, and I understand there was yet another circa 1978.)

To be fair, the plots of the 1925, the 1940, and the 1960 versions differ so significantly that, like The Fly and The Thing, I’m not sure you can even call them all the same movie.

22

Little Shop Of Horrors was better as the musical remake; it’s one of the rare cases where Bill Murray is an improvement on Jack Nicholson :slight_smile:

23

Rib Eye: What is it about the Savini remake you liked more?

I was so hyped up, looking forward to it, when it was released, and just felt let down by the ending. Granted, the films were made 20+ years or so apart (is that right?) and so both the pacing and characterizations were reflections of that, but…

I dunno. I just remember being bowled over by the end of the original; after going through all the crap that he did, poor Ben gets whacked not because the guys are a bunch of racist idiots, but because of ‘city-hunter’ mentality: “There’s something moving over there. Shoot it, and we’ll go see what it is!” (Yes, that’s a sweeping generalization, sorry.)

Then, in the remake, although we do get a strong female lead, who determines to take charge of her own life, and rise above her gut level responses (unlike the men around her) to do the intelligent thing, in the end…

      • SPOILER - - -

She ends up descending to the same level, anyway. “You screwed things up for me, jack. So…” <bang>

Don’t get me wrong, I liked 'em both, but the first one was just the better film, IMHO.

Gotta also chime in here, and say I’m with CalMeacham on both The Thing, and The Fly. Vast difference from the the originals, but I did find 'em all equally fun, for the most part.

24

Nobody ever, ever agrees with me on this one: I liked the remake of Sabrina a 100 times better than the original. Blasphemy! Sure, Julia Ormond is no Audrey Hepburn, and Harrison Ford’s not as cool as Humphrey Bogart, and of course 100 Greg Kinnears put together wouldn’t be half as much of a bad-ass as William Holden on a bad day.

But I think that’s part of why I liked the remake better than the original. It was great actors, poorly cast. I never bought William Holden as the annoying spoiled kid, but Kinnear is so naturally annoying that it worked. And I definitely never bought Audrey Hepburn with Humphrey Bogart. That was just kind of creepy, IMO. She was even younger than Lauren Bacall! Another thing I liked about the remake was that it showed how both Ford’s character needed to be with Sabrina as much as she wanted to be with him. In the original, it was clear that Hepburn was a foolish little girl who should wise up and realize she was lucky to have a guy like Bogart. I’m usually not sensitive to that kind of thing, but I thought it was kind of creepy and offensive.

25

I have to differ with Fallen Angel on the issue of Get Carter. Not only was the Caine original a great flick, but Stallone’s remake was so fucking god-awful that no comparison is even warranted.

26

I may be the only person on Earth who thinks Never Say Never Again is better than Thunderball.
Why? Well, for two things, a better cast and a tighter script.

27

Not the only one, I’ve always enjoyed the remake a lot better than the original. (Although the theme song to Thunderball is a classic, and the scene in the original where he uses his dance partner as a human shield is probably the all-time great “Bond is an a-hole” moments.)

Of course, I’m the guy who thought the remake of Sabrina was better than the original, so maybe that’s little consolation.