Lovelier the second time around???

Remakes! Aincha sick of 'em?

I avoid them like the plague nowadays, in common with a lot of people. Most of the time the failure of imagination which leads film-makers to remake an old movie, is reflected in the limpness of what they end up producing.

Nevertheless, I wonder if anyone has any cherished remakes? Films maybe not as good as the originals, but still quite decent in their own right? I'll start with a few.

It's fashionable to sneer at the remakes of The 39 Steps in 1959 and 1978. I'll grant you they're neither of them as good as Hitchfrog's 1935 original, but for my money they're better than their reputations. All right, the Kenneth More version was the first one I saw, and I was a little boy at the time, so maybe I view it through nostalgic glasses, but I think it's a satisfactory entertainment in its unambitious way and full of agreeable touches. The Robert Powell one made an excellent job of getting back to Buchan and deserves to be judged on how well it succeeded. Pretty well, say I.

Then there's the 1952 Prisoner Of Zenda. OK, the pastel-shaded uniforms look pretty silly, and Stewart Grainger's no match for Ronald Coleman, but I prefer James Mason's Rupert to Douglas Fairbanks's (he chuckles too much for me) and dear Deborah Kerr was fabulous.

A remake I prefer to any of its predecessors is the 1983 Hound Of The Baskervilles. It may take a few liberties with the script, but far fewer than the Rathbone and Cushing versions. And I much prefer Ian Richardson's performance as Holmes.

Finally, bearing in mind that El Dorado is a remake of Rio Bravo in all but name, I'd call it a classic movie as opposed to a competent Western.

Before anyone points it out, I realise I've used the Perpendicuar Pronoun 12 times in the above paragraphs. Who cares what boring Byron thinks, you may feel, and you'd be quite right of course. Anyway, it's your opinions that are being asked for now.

I liked Hitch0ck's remake of his own movie The Man Who Knew Too Much. Although I did like the original alot too.

I can't think of any other remakes I have liked better. I"ll be back if I think of any.

John Houston's The Maltese Falcon, with Bogart, was actually the third version of Dashiell Hammet's brilliant book and pisses all over the previous versions..the original (1931) had Ricardo Cortez as Spade and the second version starred Bette Davis and was renamed 'Satan Met A Lady'

Oh yes good one Charlie.

Ok maybe it is just me, but I loved Charlie and The Chocolate Factory, I though it was better than Willy Wonka, even though I really love Willy Wonka too.

Actually The Wizard of Oz 1939 was a remake. It was made in 1910 and also in 1925, and it is certainly far superior.

Oh yes good one Charlie.

Ok maybe it is just me, but I loved Charlie and The Chocolate Factory, I though it was better than Willy Wonka, even though I really love Willy Wonka too.

Actually The Wizard of Oz 1939 was a remake. It was made in 1910 and also in 1925, and it is certainly far superior.

The 1965 Hammer version of 'She' was actually the ninth version of Rider Haggard's novel (and there's been another one since in 2001), The previous versions were all silent bar one in 1899, 1908, 1911, 1916, 1917, 1925(that one even had Rider Haggard's partcicipation!)and then the first talkie version in 1935. I've only seen the Hammer version (and despite Bernard Cribbins) I think it's a relly good version..given Hammer's infamous limited budgets. Peter Cushing, Chris Lee and Ursula Andress in a flimsy gown?? How can you go wrong? But I would like to see the 1925 and '35 versions just out of curiousity.

Boy I sat around all afternoon at work trying to think of some good remakes. And really I am at a loss.
Whereas I could go on until Doomsday citing crappy remakes.

A Christmas Carol with Alastair Sim was a remake, it was first made in 1938. Or was there another before that?? Anway what an excellent movie, even though the 1938 one is good too.

I've always thought the Lugosi Dracula was really dull and Lugosi's performance kinda hammy and the whole film very 'stagey' and lacking in any sort of tension..so I rate the '77 Langella version a better remake..the '58 Hammer Dracula which doesn't really follow the original story at all but as re-make is superior to the original..

Although I consider Lon Chaney's 'Hunchback of Notre Dame' and incredible achievment for a silent film, the Charles Laughton version for me, is the superior film (however the further versions with Anthony Hopkins and Anthony Quinn each having a crack at Quasimodo were pretty bad..). And, yes I admit it's easy to prefer a 'talkie' to a silent film for obvious reasons, but I don't think I've seen a better version of the Phantom of the Opera made since the silent version. Neither the Caude Raines version or the Herbert Lom version come close to Chaney's in my opinion. Although I confess I've not seen the more recent one with Robert Englund or the Lloyd Webber musical.

Glad to see I've set a bit of debate going.

I notice that with the exceptions of El Dorado and The Man Who Knew Too Much, every movie we've mentioned is based on a more or less classic work of literature. Maybe we shouldn't be calling them "remakes" at all - we don't call the Kenneth Branagh Hamlet a remake of the Olivier version.

One thing I suspect we'd agree on: any film based purely on another film is almost certainly going to be a stinkeroo.

I think versions of classic stories & literary works, such as "A Christmas Carol", "Hamlet", "Frankenstein", "Dracula" etc should not included because there would be way too many and they really aren't "remakes" per se, just different versions of the same story. I hesitated when I brought up A Christmas Carol, but I was really trying to come up with a good remake.

Let's face it, there really is an extremely small handfull of them.

I think versions of classic stories & literary works, such as "A Christmas Carol", "Hamlet", "Frankenstein", "Dracula" etc should not included because there would be way too many and they really aren't "remakes" per se, just different versions of the same story. I hesitated when I brought up A Christmas Carol, but I was really trying to come up with a good remake.

Let's face it, there really is an extremely small handfull of them.

In most cases I agree. But two of the ones I brought up earlier - the 1950s versions of The 39 Steps and The Prisoner Of Zenda would have to be exceptions since they ignored the book and went back to the original movie - Zenda was virtually a shot-for-shot remake of the Colman version, made for no other reason than that the public were thought to want it in colour. Conversely, the Robert Powell 39 Steps was emphatically not a remake of the Hitchfrog version. (Tell me when that gets irritating.)

I have to say I didn't hate the recent Manchurian Candidate as much as I expected to.

In most cases I agree. But two of the ones I brought up earlier - the 1950s versions of The 39 Steps and The Prisoner Of Zenda would have to be exceptions since they ignored the book and went back to the original movie - Zenda was virtually a shot-for-shot remake of the Colman version, made for no other reason than that the public were thought to want it in colour. Conversely, the Robert Powell 39 Steps was emphatically not a remake of the Hitchfrog version. (Tell me when that gets irritating.)

I have to say I didn't hate the recent Manchurian Candidate as much as I expected to.Hitchfrog :rolleyes: it's ok, say c0ck.

Yeah that was bad, The Manchurian Candidate. I know we have a bad remake thread someplace. Like I said, we could go on until Doomsday listing the sh!tty remakes.

Hitchfrog :rolleyes: it's ok, say c0ck.

I'd rather hear you say it, Oz. You know what it does to me when you talk dirty.

I don't really see CGI technology as a good reason to remake moves. In my mind CGI is only one aspect of film that has improved in the last half century. For example one might argue that you could remake an older film, because currently acting is better than it was in the 20s. That is a rather contentious point however, but then so is the quality of CGI. Take The War of the Worlds , The Last Man on Earth or The Time Machine as Charlie mentioned, all better in their original forms. I just don't really think "we could do this better now" is ever a good reason to remake a movie.

I don't really see CGI technology as a good reason to remake moves. In my mind CGI is only one aspect of film that has improved in the last half century. For example one might argue that you could remake an older film, because currently acting is better than it was in the 20s. That is a rather contentious point however, but then so is the quality of CGI. Take The War of the Worlds , The Last Man on Earth or The Time Machine as Charlie mentioned, all better in their original forms. I just don't really think "we could do this better now" is ever a good reason to remake a movie.


Good points Cicero. I'd only like to see it done to improve on really bad SF..as I say..like the ants in THEM! 'Giant creature' movies would most likely benefit the most but how popular are 'giant creature' movies these days? Godzilla didn't exactly break box office records and Jackson's King Kong had it's critics..

Agreed. The only films that could be improved from CGI technology would in my opinion still be bad with CGI technology. Giant monster movies often look so bad, because they are bad ideas and bad plots.

Agreed. The only films that could be improved from CGI technology would in my opinion still be bad with CGI technology. Giant monster movies often look so bad, because they are bad ideas and bad plots.

In fact many of them would be worse with CGI. The charm of a lot of monster movies lies in their very shoddiness. I much prefer the old Doctor Who of the sixties to the slick new product, not in spite of the woobly sets, but to a large extent because of them.

I also stay away from most remakes, but think a few have been done right.

That brings me to John Carpenter's The Thing. I saw this one before I caught the original, which probably influenced my (slight) preference for it. Things I enjoyed about this: the atmosphere of tension Carpenter created, the effects, the score and of course Kurt Russell's Macready.

I've been listing the main reasons people remake films, and pretty feeble set of excuses they mostly are:

(1) Because the original was in black and white and everyone knows the public only wants colour;

(2) Because the special effects are "primitive" and everyone know the public will only take state-of-the-art fx;

(3) Because the original is made in some place you never heard of with weird foreign actors, and everyone knows movies should only be made in America with local talent;

(4) Because the original was made in some ****amamy foreign language, and everyone knows the public won't put up with subtitles (Actually there's the vaguest hint of sense in that one, but how often does it ever work? Spaghetti Western versions of Kurosawa apart, that is?)

The Thing has another justification going for it: that it got closer to the original story than the first film did. Maybe that qualifies as the most respectable reason for a remake anybody's come upwith yet.

They have run out of ideas so they are borrowing from the past.

They have run out of ideas so they are borrowing from the past.

I wish that was the worst of it. In far too many recent remakes, the only thing they've borrowed is the title.

A lot of them are remakes in name only. What has the 2001 Ocean's 11 got to do with the 1960 version? They're two films about gangs robbing casinos in Las Vegas. So why not call the new one The Came To Rob Las Vegas or even come up with an original title to go with what is to all intents a new story?

That's why I champion The Manchurian Candidate. At least it kept more or less strictly to the plot of Richard Condon's novel. The big change was altering the bad guys from Nasty Commies to Nasty Big Business, which can be justified because it's more relevant to today's audiences.

But the likes of The Thomas Crown Affair, The Italian Job and The Ladykillers - maybe someone should invoke the Trades Descriptions Act.

Zack Snyder's remake of Dawn of the Dead kept pretty much to GAR's original story and still managed to add a new twist so that it wasn't a straight 'copy' (like the Vince Vaughan 'Psycho'..which I think was just pointless)...

Tim Burton's Planet Of The Apes had so much potential...and, even though it's hard for me to admit it of Burton...he blew it big time. Also..remaking a film where there is a big 'OH MY GOD!' type revelation at the end of the original..(that everyone knows about)..means you have the problem of either trying to match the level of 'OMG-ness' of the original with a new shock ending (which Burton tried and failed, miserably) or you simply ignore it and everyone moans that it didn't have the impact of the original..either way the director is onto a loser. Better to leave well alone...

The remake of 'The House On Haunted Hill' I think is an improvement on the rather cheap 'n' cheesy William Castle original...despite Vincent Price.

The remake of 'The House On Haunted Hill' I think is an improvement on the rather cheap 'n' cheesy William Castle original...despite Vincent Price.

Not with you there, old son. I hated the over-elaborate explanation of why every who died had been descended from someone who deserved to. Similar to the explanation in The Haunting, which was a far worse travesty.

Still, Geoffrey Rush managed to make me feel dear old Vince was still with us . . .

Not with you there, old son. I hated the over-elaborate explanation of why every who died had been descended from someone who deserved to. Similar to the explanation in The Haunting, which was a far worse travesty.

Still, Geoffrey Rush managed to make me feel dear old Vince was still with us . . .

Oh yeah..Jan de Bont's remake of The Haunting was just awful.

Oh goodie!

I've just seen a couple of reviews of Kenneth Branagh's remake of Sleuth.

"peels away the playfulness [of the original] to reveal a nasty, sour-tasting tale of revenge, wounded egos and humiliation that has also shed a good deal of its entertainment value." (The Daily Express)

"This is a shuffling, Frankenstein's monster of a film. Whose idea was it to zap this raddled corpse with electrodes and make it jolt and reel and stagger around for 88 impossibly painful minutes?" The Observer]

"Rarely can Harold Pinter have written such a dismal script." The Guardian]

Why am I un-sad?

To cite a recent example, I think the recent remake of 3:10 to Yuma is pretty much on par with the original. William Wyler's 1959 remake of Ben-Hur is superior to the 1907 and 1925 versions. David Cronenberg's The Fly is better than the 1958 original. Howard Hawks' His Girl Friday is better than The Front Page. John Huston's Maltese Falcon is better than Roy Del Ruth's. Philip Noyce's The Quiet American is better done than Joe Mankiewicz's.

I agree with 3:10 to Yuma being just as good as the original. I don't think it's necessarily better or necessarily worse. I pretty much feel the same about Cape Fear, neither one jumps out at me as better than the other.

And I know I am going to catch hell, but I actually quite enjoyed Rob Zombie's version of Halloween. I think it's tough to say which is a better film because they are quite different, but the newer version entertained me much more.

Go ahead...throw things at me.

There are a lot of movies, like The Departed, that are actually remakes of foreign films. Some of which very few people know about and most of which I've never seen....does that kinda stuff count...like Seven Samurai vs The Magnificent Seven? Both of those were good, but I'd still say SS was a bit better.

P.S. Oliver Stone/Brian DePalma's version of Scarface was better than Howard Hawks' version...however, the original was also great.

Here's an interesting one that just occurred to me. Leo McCarey made a very good film, Love Affair, in 1939, and later remade it himself in 1957 as An Affair to Remember, which to me is an outright classic.