We’ve discussed the occasional cases where a movie adaptation is better than the source story/novel, but very little time talking about superior remakes. And by “remakes” I mean a. movies redone years later in the same language and b. movies remade any length of time later to present the concept to an audience that speaks a different language than the one the original was presented in (non-English to English, English to Bollywood etc).
What’s your nomination for superior remake(s)? Which appealed to you more is what I’m seeking to know, since “better” is very subjective.
IMHO House on Haunted Hill (1999) is vastly more entertaining than House on Haunted Hill (1959). It’s a lot more horrific, for one, and less campy than the Price version.
Likewise **Thir13en Ghosts **(2001) appealed to me much more than 13 Ghosts (1960). When I finally saw the original I couldn’t believe how little actually happens in the movie.
Cecil B. deMille’s 1959 The Ten Commandments easily beats his silent original version, and not just because of sound and color.
Merian C. Cooper’s version of She is regarded as the definitive version, much better than the previous (silent) versions, but also better than the 1960s later remake.
A lot of films were based on the same story, and might not have had earlier film versions in mind, so I’m not sure how legit it is to call them “remakes”. That said, Rouben Mamoulian’s dr. Jeckyll and Mister Hyde trumps all previous (and later) versions. Given my druthers, I’d take the Per Oscarsson or Kenneth Branaugh versions of Frankenstein over earlier versions, and, despite its faults, the Francis Ford Coppola Dracula over most of the previous incarnations.
I rather like The Thomas Crowne Affair with Pierce Brosnan much more than the original. And not just because of Rene Russo topless. That’s just the cherry on the sundae.
I felt that the Ed Norton Hulk was a better movie than the one with Eric Bana. It came closer to the true origin story of The Hulk, the true reason for the Hulk to have his powers (nanites? really?), and gave a nice tie-in to the Captain America origin story.
Can’t follow you there. The funny thing about the Burton version is that, in its own way, it is even less true to the book than the old movie was. It’s also not internally coherent in my view.
Not sure if I’m in the minority on this, but I liked the Coen brothers True Grit more than the original.
If two movies are made of the same book, is one a “remake” of the other? I usually just use the word for cases where someone is redoing a previous film, not just a later film based on the same book or comic or whatever.
Seems weird to say, for example, that Coppola’s Dracula was a “remake” of the Bela Legosi movie, or for that matter: “Dracula: Dead and Loving it”
You are the first person in history to ever say that. :dubious:
I think one defining factor would be: if the first movie invents something or makes a unique interpretation, and the second movie continues it, then it’s more like the remake is primarily inspired by the first movie, not book/etc. Like the Bollywood Fight Club remake is probably more based on the movie, although the Wikipedia synopsis suggests it’s also in a way different direction. With dancing.
It seems that the three movie versions of I Am Legend at times were inspired by their predecessor more than the novella.
Once again, Batman doesn’t count as a remake, it’s a different movie based on the same source material. And was the 1992 Last Of The Mohicans really based on an earlier movie, or was it based on the novel?
Boy, I can’t even begin to imagine how terrible the 1960 movie is if the remake represents a significant improvement. I tell you what, though, I was taking a look through the Wikipedia entry for the remake, which details the fairly extensive back stories that they came up with for all of the ghosts, and it occurred to me that if they’d actually gone into more of THAT stuff on the screen, the film might have really had something going for it.
