Remakes: the good, the bad, the what were they thinking...?

Cafe Society
1

…In which Cuckoorex attempts to evaluate original movies in comparison to the remakes that have been attempted over the years. First, a few caveats and explanations:

  1. The original will always be listed first, and if multiple remakes have been attempted (for example there are multiple remakes of Dracula and several adaptations of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde), they will be listed in chronological order. In any case, I can only evaluate originals and remakes I have actually seen, so I’m definitely not going to be able to evaluate every single remake ever made of Dracula, for example.

  2. Many movies are adaptations of books, and for the sake of this thread I will consider multiple attempts at an adaptation as “remakes” even though technically it could well be argued that a different adaptation is not necessarily an attempt to remake a previous film; however I am not going to necessarily rate a remake higher than the original movie based on faithfulness to the source book unless I feel that the remake (or retry, in some cases) is actually a better movie because of it.

  3. I love horror and sci-fi movies, therefore expect a lot of titles in those genres.

  4. I’ll start each off by listing the original and remake(s) along with release year, and the one I prefer will be bold and in a larger point size for easy recognition. In the case of multiple remakes, the preference will be from largest point size to smallest.

  5. I’ll try to list my reasoning for my preferences in each case with two relatively brief statements about the movies in question, unless there are just a bunch of remakes that I feel deserve comment.

  6. I’m not even going to attempt to list these in any kind of order. Sorry.

OK, here we go…

The Haunting (1963) vs The Haunting (1999)

  1. The original is a classic example of how a film can utilize sound, lighting, camera angles, and acting to produce a sense of foreboding and dread which I feel is essential to a good haunted house story.
  2. The CG crapfest of a remake discards nearly everything that made the original effective and poops out an unintentionally funny and amateurish attempt at a horror movie.

**
Nosferatu (Max Shreck -1922)** vs Dracula (Bela Lugosi -1931) vs Horror of Dracula (Christopher Lee -1958) vs Dracula (Jack Palance -1973) vs Dracula (Frank Langella -1979) vs Nosferatu (Klaus Kinski -1979) vs Bram Stoker’s Dracula (Gary Oldman -1992)

  1. Shreck, Lugosi and Lee produced perhaps the most iconic versions of the character, but I’m evaluating the films overall and not just the actors’ portrayals of the titular character.
  2. That being said, Shreck’s version of Dracula (renamed Count Graf Orlock for purposes of trying to avoid copyright issues) is the most visually arresting and horrifying of all the characterizations of Dracula in films thus far. Oldman’s is perhaps the most sympathetic and I just enjoy Oldman’s acting immensely as he portrays the Count manifesting in different ages and forms. I can’t look at Frank Langella’s Dracula without imagining him doing an ad for Stetson cologne or something. Klaus Kinski’s Dracula comes across as rather frail and weak in many scenes and it’s too much of a disconnect for me to see the makeup which recalls Shreck’s Orlock but without the dread and malice that Shreck projected.

The Last Man on Earth (Vincent Price -1964) vs The Omega Man (Charlton Heston -1971) vs I Am Legend (Will Smith -2007)

  1. The Last Man on Earth is not only the most faithful to the original book, it’s also the best of the adaptations of Richard Matheson’s I Am Legend.
  2. The Will Smith version totally botches the storyline at the end, rendering the gravity and meaning of the title impotent.

War of the Worlds (1953) vs War of the Worlds (2005)

  1. As much as I think Tom Cruise is an annoying loon, I think the movie overall is more entertaining and believable than the original, which may largely be just a question of aesthetics and style.
  2. Even so, the ending of the 2005 version seemed like a bit of a cop-out.

The Fog (1980) vs The Fog (2005)

  1. Many would argue that the Carpenter version of The Fog (1980) is superior even to his Halloween.
  2. The remake made me want to take naps.

Halloween (1978) vs Halloween (2007)

  1. Here’s where people are going to violently disagree with me, but that’s OK.
  2. In the remake, the actors are more believable (Laurie Strode is portrayed by an actual teenager the same age as her character is supposed to be, for example), Michael is given a clear (though twisted) sense of purpose, Tyler Mane cuts a more terrifying and intimidating profile as Michael, and, quite frankly, the girls are cuter. (I never said this was serious film criticism!)

Godzilla (1954) vs Godzilla (1998)

  1. The American Godzilla could have been an OK monster movie if they hadn’t called it “Godzilla” and had designed the monster a bit differently. But they didn’t, and so it sucks.
  2. The Japanese Godzilla, despite having gone through many changes and “versions” throughout the decades since the original, remains one of the most iconic monsters ever put on film.

Frankenstein (Boris Karloff -1931) vs Frankenstein (Randy Quaid -1992) vs Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (Robert DeNiro -1994)

  1. Karloff’s Monster is up there with Lugosi’s Dracula as one of the most iconic portrayals in film history, but I find the film itself to be somewhat lacking.
  2. Deniro’s Monster is perhaps the most frightening and “realistic.”

Ju-On (2002) vs The Grudge (2004)

  1. Maybe it’s significant that I saw the original first; in any case, I didn’t see any benefit to bringing in an American heroine other than avoiding subtitles for lazy American audiences.
  2. Nearly every scare is more effecively done in the original.

Gin Gwai (2002) vs The Eye (2008)

  1. Once again, it seems like the only real benefit of bringing in an American actress is to avoid subtitles as much as possible.
  2. Once again, nearly every scare is more effective in the original.

Ringu (1998) vs The Ring (2002)

  1. For once, I prefer the American remake; I know this is another preference which will not find agreement with purists, but there it is. There’s enough difference that it isn’t a shot for shot remake and enough of not only the language but also the sensibilities are adapted for American audiences that it becomes, IMO, more effective for American audiences than the original.
  2. Has one of the best opening scenes for a horror movie ever, again IMO.

Psycho (1960) vs Psycho (1998)
1.The remake was pointless. Horribly miscast, poorly conceived, it should never have been made.
2. Vince Vaughn? Really?

Friday the 13th (1980) vs Friday the 13th (2009)

  1. Another choice that may be unpopular; I prefer the remake because it combines all of the best aspects of the lengthy original series of sequels into one movie, for the most part.
  2. Many people still don’t remember that in the original, Jason isn’t killing anyone, in the first sequel he doesn’t have a hockey mask, in the third one (in 3D!) he gets the hockey mask but viewers have to endure one of the most annoying characters ever (Shelly) for most of the movie.

Manhunter (1986) vs Red Dragon (2002)

  1. For the most part I agree that the original adapation is superior in many respects, but I had seen The Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal and Red Dragon before I ever saw Manhunter, so I just can’t see anyone else as Hannibal the Cannibal. Not to say that Brian Cox didn’t do a good job, it’s just that for me, Hopkins IS Hannibal.
  2. It’s kind of funny watching Manhunter knowing that William Petersen would one day be Grissom.

King Kong (1933) vs King Kong (1976) vs King Kong (2005)

  1. Purists will hate me, but I prefer the Peter Jackson version by far, though I fully acknowledge the iconic status of the original.
  2. The 1976 version is MST3K material at best. What were they thinking?

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) vs The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)

  1. The cheaper production values on the original actually make it more effective, like an amateur documentary almost.
  2. The best part about the remake was Jessica Biel’s caboose.

The Hills Have Eyes (1977) vs The Hills Have Eyes (2006)

  1. I much prefer the remake in this case.
  2. It took multiple viewings for me to realize that “Big Bob” was Ted Levine (Jame “Buffalo Bill” Gumb from Silence of the Lambs). It puts the lotion in the basket!

The Last House on the Left (1972) vs The Last House on the Left (2009)

  1. Nearly everything is superior in the original, with the glaring exception of the bizarre slapstick interludes with the bumbling cops. If you can somehow excise those scenes from the original, it is IMO far superior instead of just barely so.
  2. Nobody plays a scumbag as well as David Hess.

[REC] (2007) vs Quarantine (2008)

  1. Nearly everything is done better in the original in this case, especially the ending. The only benefit of the American remake is for those who simply cannot stand subtitles.
  2. Though I’ve been a huge fan of Jennifer Carpenter since she did The Exorcism of Emily Rose and has been portraying Deb on Dexter, the Spanish actress Manuela Velasco has the role of Angela Vidal nailed down. And she’s unbearably cute, too!

The Thing from Another World (1954) vs John Carpenter’s The Thing (1982)

  1. Carpenter’s version is one of my favorite horror movies of all time, and I love how it ties into the Lovecraftian theme that continues in his Prince of Darkness and In the Mouth of Madness.
  2. One of the best open-ended endings ever.

Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971) vs Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)

  1. When I first heard that a remake was in the works I thought it would be pointless. It came out better than I anticipated, but can’t touch the original.
  2. The snozberries taste like snozberries!

The House on Haunted Hill (1959) vs The House on Haunted Hill (1999)

  1. Have to say I very much enjoyed Geoffrey Rush’s very Vincent Price-like character.
  2. Campy, over the top, but fun.

Funny Games (1997) vs Funny Games (2007)

  1. The original is sadistic filmmaking, forcing the viewer to sit through several minutes of…well, nothing going on, presumably for “impact” or something. I don’t recall the English language remake being as torturous, but it also lacked something in the remake, some of the element of vulnerability in the victims gets lost.
  2. Never trust clean-cut young white men who wear white gloves all the time.
2

Crap, forgot the Romero zombie flicks; I’ll cheat a bit here and say that the Dawn of the Dead remake is the only one that is superior to the original. There, I cheat!

3

Abre los Ojos (1997) vs Vanilla Sky (2001) — fell free to yell at me, as I haven’t even watched Vanilla Sky… but while I’m reasonably sure it has better makeup than the original (just because Abre los Ojos had the worst latex I’ve seen in decades), the only reason it got remade was that the original wasn’t in English.

4

I’ve remarked before about the various Dracula’s, but briefly:

1.) I think in the original Nosferatu he was called “Dracula”. They didn’t care too much about copyrights, having not secured one in the first place. David Sklar agrees with you about Shreck’s appearance being probably the creepiest, and his association with rats and plague fits in rather neatly. Probably the least sexy Dracula ever, which is pretty much in line with the book (although later versions have gotten successively sexier and sexier).

2.) Bela Lugosi is my choice for the Best Dracyula Ever. He, I believe, is the most convincing as an ancient East European aristocrat.

3.) You didn’t include Louis Jordan’s BBC/PBS Dracula, which many rate as the overall best version. I like it, but it has too many boring, “psychedilic” pasages. Say what you will about the other versions, they’re not boring.

4.) Frank Lengella made it big in the rebvival of the original Broadway play, in which he reprised Lugosi’s role on an Edward Gorey-designed set. When they turned it into a movie it lost a lot of that charm, and I think a lot of the changes they made to bring it to the screen were ill-advised. Langella’s performance is still pretty damned good. And it’s good to remember that, before he became an old and grizzled face, he was once a romantic lead, too.

5.) Another version you didn’t mention is one of my favorites – Jess Franco’s 1970 Count Dracula, starring Christopher Lee, for once in a non-Hammer portrayal. I stumbled across this on TV and was blown away. The first 1/2 is really GREAT, and wonderfully faithful to the book. As Lee himself is fond of bragging, this was the only versiomn to really depict =Dracula as Stoker describes him (and as he appears in the earliest illustrations). Unfortunately, after that promising beginning, they ran out of steam. And maybe money. Some of the later scenes are embarrassing.

A for Frankenstein, again, you left out one of my favrites – 1977’s {b]Victor Frankenstein**, aka Terror of Frankenstein – a deliberate attempt to create a film, for once, faithful to the vook, starring nobody you ever heard of. Until the Brannaugh version came out, this was the only really faithful version of the story, and it’s really well done. In some ways I like it more than Brannaugh’s – although Robert de Niro’s studied portrayal of The Monster is superb).

5

I much much much preferred Peterson and Cox in the original Manhunter. Peterson plays the role much closer to how the character is in the book, while I wouldn’t have gone near Hopkins’ rendition of Hannibal with a 10 ft pole. Hopkins’ characterization screamed ‘creepy bad guy’, while Cox would have suckered me in.

Red Dragon had the better storyline, however, and I’d like to have seen it done with those two, but with Hannibal relegated back to his secondary status, where he belongs.

6

Spot on, here. I have to add that the Carpenter version is really close to the short story (closer than the other film version) and loved the skill of the adaptation.

7

A couple I forgot about:

The Fly (1958) vs The Fly (1986)

  1. Loved the Cronenberg version, Brundlefly is one of my favorites.
  2. I can’t look at stills of the original giant fly-head without laughing.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) vs Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)

  1. The man-faced dog haunted my dreams for weeks.
  2. The last scene of the remake was just great.
8

  1. Jamie Lee Curtis was only two years older than the actress from the remake at the time the respective movies were made, assuming IMDB’s dates are correct. She was 20 years old, hardly too old to play a high school girl.

  2. Casting a big, physically imposing guy like Mane as Michael completely ruins the character (well, that and all the stupid backstory about how abused he was). What made Michael scary wasn’t that he looked like he could chokeslam you thought a wall, it was that he wasn’t anything special to look at. He just looked like an ordinary, everyday guy, even when unmasked. He was just an ordinary, everyday guy who’d gone bad, and no one knew why, and that is really scary.

9

Ocean’s 11 (1960) vs Ocean’s 11 (2001)

The original isn’t bad, but the caper aspects are a bit thin – not much more than knocking over a liquor store. And there’s a lot of non-caper filler.

On the other hand, it has Dino singing “Ain’t That a Kick in the Head”. And it has a nicely ironic “crime doesn’t pay” ending.

The remake is a lot of high-tech & glitzy star-packed fun. The remake wins by a length.

10

The vampire in Nosferatu was named Count Orlok. A remake of sorts is Shadow of the Vampire, a movie about the filming of the original Nosferatu. The premise is that actor Max Schreck (played by Willem Dafoe) was an actual nosferatu hired by director F.W. Murnau to lend that extra touch of realism. (Willem Dafoe is already rather creepy looking even without the nosferatu makeup.)

11

Excellent movie btw. Highly underrated.

12

I checked my copy of Skal’s Hollywood Gothic – apparently they did name him Orlok in the original, which surprises me – I thought they only changed it after threats from Stoker’s widow. I certainly have seen versions with “Dracula” (and other names from Stoker’s novel)"