So here's a question that's maybe a matter of semantics: Do you consider different book adaptations to be remakes of each other?
For example. there are several film adaptations of things like Jane Eyre or Far from the Madding Crowd. But I don't consider these to be remakes of the earlier versions. I consider them to be separate adaptations.
With The Maltese Falcon, I don't feel like the reference point is the earlier film--I feel like the reference point is the novel.
Where do you guys land on this (admittedly possibly petty point)?
It's a difficult line to draw sometimes. The Thing is based on a book, yet is mentioned quite a bit here. John Carpenter was a fan of the original movie I believe, but his version is often credited as being a more faithful re-adaption than a remake.
I'll give Herzog's Nosferatu a mention. It has that unique, picturesque yet sober realistic 'uncinematic' feel that early Herzog movies had. I think that pairs well with supernatural horror.
I recently loved Takeshi Kitano's offbeat Zatoichi as well.
If we're counting re-adaptions as well, the 1959 version of Hound of the Baskervilles might be my favorite Hammer product.
And though it's been a while since I've seen The Wages of Fear, I love the more vibrant setting and nasty characters in Sorcerer.