It’s also frequently performed on the regional-theater circuit as a stage play, often with a mixed-gender cast under the title “Twelve Angry Jurors” (and occasionally with an all-female cast as “Twelve Angry Women”).
Has anyone seen Fanfares of Love, the movie that Some Like It Hot was based on? The remake is obviously a very popular film.
You can spend a lot of time on definitions. I agree that you can havetwo different films based on the same original, but which are so very different that it’s hard to call one a remake of the other.
On the other hand you have a case like Steven Soderburgh’s Solaris, which is definitely a remake of Tarkovski’s 1972 film Solaris, and not another film based on Stanislas Lem’s original novel. I know this because they clearly didn’t go back to the novel – they only filmed things that appeared in the fist film. So just because two films are ostensibly based on another original work doesn’ keep one film from being a remake of the other. So I’m just going to avoid the issue.
The third film version of The Maltese Falcon, directed by John Huston, is far and away superior to the first two versions. It captured the noir feel and style, and the others didn’t. One didn’t even try.
The 1925 The Lost World is far superior to the 1960 version, despite the fact tha the remake had sound, color, and an impressive cast. The original had state-of-the-art stop-motion animation and the blessings of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. The remake had lizards with fins glued on.
I much prefer the original 1924 silent Thief of Bagdad to the 1940 color remake (or the 1960 remake. I’d probably prefer it to the 1978 remake, but I’ve never seen that one). The original had superb acting and dirction and pretty good special effects. The remake completely rewrote the story and severely weakened it. It was the first big British fantasy film in full technicolor, which is impressive. And I liked William Cameron Menzies 9art director for both versions) re-tooling the Stealing the Eye of the Idol scene (which still stands up, even in these CGI days). Otherwise, the chief importance of the film seems to be as source material for Disney’s Aladdin.
king Kong – the 1933 film was a groundbreaker and masterpiece. They invented a slew of new special effects techniques for the film, and it effectively resced RKO financially. A classic film. The 1977 version was garbage, except for Rick Baker’s suit and Carlo Rambaldi’s mechanical arms. But the 2005 Peter Jackson version was superb. I think I am precisely the audience the film was aimed at, because it hit deep.
I still think the 1951 The Day the Earth Stood Still is one of the greatest science fiction films ever made. The special effects still stand out as impressive, especially Gort’s laser eyes. The remake, with Keanu Reeves, on the other hand, is awful, with logical lapses all over. And the CGI Gort manages to look cheaper and less convincing than Lock Marti n in his aluminum-painted leather suit.
Nothing inherently ‘good or not so good’ about remakes; the quality of the remake and the reason for remaking the original determines goodness or not-so-goodness. Even Shakespeare took older existing stories as the basis of some of his plays-- so many of his most famous works are ‘remakes’.
Though it does seem like Hollywood has been out of ideas for maybe the last, I don’t know, 20 years or so? Seems like 90% of Hollywood entertainments in recent memory have been remakes, reboots, ‘reimaginings’ or sequels.
I always liked Roger Ebert’s comment about remakes: “Instead of remaking good movies, they should remake bad movies and this time make them good.”
I love the original 1937 Lost Horizon, but have never seen the 1973 remake. I didn’t even know there was a remake until I started researching the original.
eh, the PJ version had a lot to like, but I think Adrien Brody was miscast as a sensitive, moody Jack Driscoll instead of a man of action as in the original. I agree the 1977 version was garbage (although I was enamored by it when I was 8 years old and first saw it). I would rate them: 1933 original > 2005 version >> 1976 version
Howard Hawks’ His Girl Friday (1940) was a remake of The Front Page (1931). Both are good and funny, but Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell put the former over the top.
I remember the 1974 Billy Wilder remake, starring Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau, also being pretty good.
Any film connected with those three couldn’t help but be good!
I probably should have mentioned Ralph Bellamy in His Girl Friday too.
The Dawn Patrol of 1938 was virtually a scene-by-scene remake of the 1930 original. Both are excellent, so I guess any preference boils down to which cast you may prefer:
When I was a teenager, I spent an afternoon at the movies with some of my cousins, presumably to get us out of our parents’ way. We saw Deathrace 2000, followed by the execrable Eat My Dust, and then the third feature was a thing called Vanishing Point. Compared to the first two movies, Vanishing Point was breathtakingly good.
AIUI, there was a remake in the mid-90s. I have read about it, and nothing I have read about it is good, so I have little interest in wasting my time with it.
I have seen Alan Smithee’s Dune, and have heard that the more recent TV series rendering is better, but then, the movie had serious issues.
We saw The Return of The Tall Blonde Man with One Black Shoe – obviously a sequel – and I have seen fragments of The Man with One Red Shoe, enough to know that it is at least as junky as the original, if not more.
Then, of course, there is Star Trek: the Motion Picture, which is a remake of original Star Trek episode The Changeling (albeit with a different ending) and not at all an improvement.
According to DeForest Kelley, the original story was more like “Let’s find God and have him turn out to be evil.”
I guess the idea was put on hold until Star Trek V.
The “Allen Smithee” version was the TV version of David Lynch’s Dune. The Lynch version has, I think, a lot to recommend it, but they made too many changes ("weirding modules!!!) and it was too short for the stuff it had to cover.
The Allan SMithee version actually restored a lot of footage that had been cut, and added an introductory sequence using paintings. It wasn’t Lynch’s vision (or FRank Herbert’s, for that matter), but at least it was done by someone who knew and loved the material, and not a completely talentless hack.
The version made for the Science Fiction channel was longer and more faithful to the book, but it lacked the divine weirdness that Lynch’s version had. Plus it was followed by Children of Dune, which actually adapted elements of “Dune Messiah” as well as “Children of Dune”.
I misremembered slightly here. He was referring to Christ and Lucifer.
The infamous Tom Snyder interview of 1976. The relevant comment comes around the 24 minute mark. I guess they still hadn’t decided which BIG story they wanted. But hey, check out all that denim!
I’ve seen both. And I prefer the 1937 version too.
It would be easy to dismiss the 1973 version. While it does use the same plot as Hilton’s novel and Capra’s film, with the same elements, it is often regarded as quite different. Perhaps most noticeable is that Capra’s 1937 drama has been made into a light, frothy musical, with songs written by Burt Bacharach.
It’s got the star power, with Peter Finch, Michael York, Liv Ullmann, and John Gielgud, among others, but what ruins it are the musical numbers every so often that interrupt the flow of the story. To me, anyway; if you were unfamiliar with the novel and the Capra film, and are a fan of musicals, you might like it.
But in the end, it’s up to you. You might want to have a look at the 1973 version, just to satisfy your curiosity. Me, I’ll stick with the 1937 version if I feel like watching a film adaptation of Lost Horizon.
Full-length versions of the movie are available on YouTube in French, German, and Russian. Just the sort of thing for a weekend marathon, if you’re so inclined. 
I know this isn’t a popular view, but I prefer Sorcerer to the French original Le Salaire de la peur. I saw Sorcerer first, and more often. I also think they’re representative of different eras of film making. It’s the story of four men who are down (way, way, way down) on their luck, and agree to transport unstable dynamite across harsh terrain to put out an oil well fire. In the original, the tension is very much on the faces of the actors. In the remake, we see more of the action, the rickety bridges, the pouring rain. It also gives backstories to the men, so we know why they’re hiding out in the last place in the world anyone would look for them. In the original, the ending is a moment of randomness and stupidity, which is somewhat unsatisfying. In the remake, one man’s past catches up with him.
I’m also a big fan of the original My Man Godfrey with William Powell. There’s a 1957 remake, but I haven’t seen it. Has anyone here?
I’ve not seen it yet, but I definitely will because it’s on YouTube. I’ll watch just about any film with David Niven or William Powell!
This sounds very much like a movie I remember seeing with (I think) Gary Cooper in the lead, Could I be confusing it with your original?