A good remake of a film

C

C-lustin

New member
Has this ever happened? With a distinct lack of imagination many films getting churned out are remakes of good originals.
Have you ever seen a movie after seeing the original and thought the new version was better?
 
The Magnificent Seven is better than The Seven Samurai (IMO). Also, I prefer The Grudge to Juon (mainly because most of it is in English).
 
Dawn of the Dead, maybe not better but at least as good imo, same goes for Night of the Living Dead, add any number of Dracula and Frankenstein remakes that surpass the B&W Lugosi/Karloff originals and possibly King Kong as well (the Peter Jackson remake not the 70s nonsense).

Also maybe War of the WorlRAB as well, maybe.
 
I don't mean to sound rude but didn't we have a remakes thread a few days ago. It's all getting a bit too much like Groundhog Day.
 
Yes, The Thomas Crown Affair?

Do you think that the Steve McQueen multi-screen poor acting version is better than the slick, clever Pierce Brosnan version? Okay, your opinion. It differs to mine. That's what makes the world an interesting place.
 
oh now I get it, there's a kind of postmodern irony at work here. :D

here's my contribution -

Can't comment about Casino Royale as I've never seen it/them but there are a couple of remakes I quite like, John Carpenter's The Thing and the 1970's Invasion of The Body Snatchers in particular and although not as good as the originals I also quite liked the following remakes; Dawn of the Dead, The Hills Have Eyes, Assault on Precinct 13 and dare I say it, The Texas Chainsaw Mascara :o

:D
 
The first Casino Royale though is a fundamentally different film from both the book and the Daniel Craig film. It's essentially a James Bond spoof, so you can't really compare it, as plot, tone, and style are all very different.
 
I can't remember the Steve McQueen one, but the Pierce Brosnan one hinges on him smuggling a painting out of an art gallery in a briefcase that's half the size of the painting, without taking the painting out of the frame. How did he do that? It's not slick and clever - it cheats! Unless I'm missing something (which I admit I may be)
 
I wasn't comparing Casino Royale, in fact I wasn't making any comment on remakes at all but a comment on this thread.

It was early morning and I was just being arsey, pay no attention. :p
 
Going by really recent remakes the only one I've felt that was superior to the original was The Hills Have Eyes, fantasic remake. Shame about the guys next remake after that, and hope he does better for his NEXT remake...
 
No, whilst Karloff's Monster is hard to fault it wasn't scary, as for Lugosi as Dracula, camp rather than cape, personally I much prefer the Hammer interpretations.
 
The film's not just about a monster being scary (but anyway, I would say that Karloff's monster is way more scary than any of the Hammer ones). I'm not a big fan of the Hammer movies - I find them a bit cheesy and one-dimensional with a bit too much reliance on gore. James Whale's Frankenstein on the other hand is a masterpiece - only bettered by Bride of Frankenstein.
 
Back
Top