Originals or Remakes?

Tools    





You preferred the remake of The Manchurian Candidate??? Ah, WSSlover, say it isn't so!!!!

I agree with rufnek, the original is the better of the two, although I did like the remake. Maybe it's because I saw the original first and I knew the storyline and what to expect going into the remake. I read somewhere it was also JFK's favourite movie, isn't that ironic.

Oh and I preferred the original Solaris to the remake, it seemed to suit Tarkovsky more than Soderbergh, but again, I saw the original first, so you know...
__________________
"Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."



John Carpenter's The Thing is the only remake that jumps to mind that I really thought was better than the original.

I condemn remakes. There are very, very rarely some that come across that are better.
Aja's Hills Have Eyes is so on-par with Craven's though. Loved it.
__________________
A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.
http://s0undw4ve.dvdaf.com/owned - My Collection



martian leader's Avatar
RightUpTheLittleTramps@ss !
house on haunted hill - original

Invasion of the body snatchers - original

__________________
Arnie Cunningham - All of this because some drunk ran over that sh*tter Welch?


Arnie Cunningham- Right up the little tramps @ss!



martian leader's Avatar
RightUpTheLittleTramps@ss !
Nice call on the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers martian leader.
Thank you for that call Martian. That IS the best version without question.

Why thank you. It was one I always loved to see. Also was a Christmas gift. LOL



martian leader's Avatar
RightUpTheLittleTramps@ss !
The Amityville Horror remake is way better than the original imo. I never understood the whole pig ghost thing in the original.

I liked the original.

" GET OOOUUUUTTT!!!"





The 1946 original version of The Killers, like the very short short-story by Ernest Hemingway on which it was based, focused primarily on the victim, with an intrepid insurance investigator then back-tracking to find out why the victim didn't flee when warned that two killers were coming after him. In addition to its imaginative plot and taut suspense, the original made Burt Lancaster a star and greatly advanced Ava Gardner's career. Yet the 1964 remake of the same title was nearly as good as the original because it takes a slightly different approach. This time it's the veteran hitman Lee Marvin, one of the two killers, who is puzzled because this victim didn't try to escape as had all of the other people he has killed. It is just enough of a change to make the remake nearly as interesting as the original. In the 1946 film investigator Edmund O'Brien has to use his wits to track down the person who paid for the hit. In the remake, the two killers use their wits and a lot of muscle to twist the truth out of everyone involved. Marvin as a tough guy is always interesting to watch, especially when he hangs Angie Dickinson out of a very high window in a multi-story hotel to force her to talk. The final scene with Marvin, Dickinson, and Ronald Reagan in a rare role as a bad guy is a delight. That was the last movie in which Reagan appeared.



What did you think of the Frank Langella and Gary Oldman Dracula films?
I've not seen the Frank Langella version, but I've heard good things about it. I like the Coppola version, it's enjoyable, but I find it really OTT, which isn't a huge suprise with both Oldman and Hopkins in the film. Both performances are in keeping with the tone of the film, but I prefer my Dracula films a little more serious.

The Coppola version does have one big advantage over all other versions though...




I agree with rufnek, the original is the better of the two, although I did like the remake. Maybe it's because I saw the original first and I knew the storyline and what to expect going into the remake. I read somewhere it was also JFK's favourite movie, isn't that ironic.

Oh and I preferred the original Solaris to the remake, it seemed to suit Tarkovsky more than Soderbergh, but again, I saw the original first, so you know...
I suspect Jack Kennedy's favorite film was the biographical PT-109.



I prefer the 1994 version of Little Women to the '49 version with Elizabeth Taylor, but I haven't seen the '33 version which, as the earliest 'talkie' version, I'd consider the 'original'. Does that count?

The 1958 version of Dracula is also, far superior, to the 1931 version.

However, as these are literary remakes, I don't know if that's what we're looking for.
No one brought as much class to the role of Dracula as did Bela Lugosi. You gotta like an actor who identified so closely with a character that he was buried in the cape he wore in that film! However, the most believeable version of Dracula I've ever seen was a TV program in which Jack Palance played the Undead. Palance projected a sort of repulsive-attractiveness that I could understand why his young female victims were attracted to him even though he apparently reeked of the grave. Palance had a gift for playing heavies in a way where you almost admired them.



No one brought as much class to the role of Dracula as did Bela Lugosi. You gotta like an actor who identified so closely with a character that he was buried in the cape he wore in that film!
You say identified with, I say trapped by.

However, the most believeable version of Dracula I've ever seen was a TV program in which Jack Palance played the Undead. Palance projected a sort of repulsive-attractiveness that I could understand why his young female victims were attracted to him even though he apparently reeked of the grave. Palance had a gift for playing heavies in a way where you almost admired them.
I'm afraid that I have to disagree again. Although it's a long time since I saw it, I thought that the Palance Dracula was one of the worst I've seen. Though, when you say he had a gift for playing heavies, I think that's a good way of summing up his portrayal of Dracula, like an undead heavy.



I think I may get burned for saying this, but I prefer Snyder's Dawn Of The Dead to the original Dawn Of The Dead. I do feel a little weird saying that though, because it's just been so long since I've ever even seen the original. And even though I haven't seen the orginal yet, I really loved John Carpenter's The Thing.



The Thing made in 1982 by John Carpenter is one of the first movies that comes to mind when I think of great remakes. The original by Howard Hawks was good too of course, but it didn't have the dark and somber atmosphere of Carpenter's version.
This is the truth. John Carpenter really tapped into something. The Rob Bottin FX were solid too. I just watched this thing the other night, and seriously...sometimes it is better to work with latex than CGI.



You say identified with, I say trapped by.



I'm afraid that I have to disagree again. Although it's a long time since I saw it, I thought that the Palance Dracula was one of the worst I've seen. Though, when you say he had a gift for playing heavies, I think that's a good way of summing up his portrayal of Dracula, like an undead heavy.
I don't see Lugosi being trapped, since he gloried in that role and took so much pride in it. He was good in some other roles, particularly as the loyal man-dog who defends his master in one version of The Island of Dr. Moreau(sp?)

Guess we'll just have to disagree on that and Jack Palance in that role. As you said, that's been a long time ago and I doubt if that TV film is even available. But to me, all of the other vampire films from Dracula to Conversations with a Vampire, the vampire is a person of strong will. What I remember about Palance's performance, is that he too came across as a victim, as someone who was once a man and now is under an eternal curse. He played the character as someone who belonged in a grave and was a seen by most people as a horror, and yet somehow he also was sexually attractive to young women. I've read that vampire stories are very popular with young women. Palance's performance was the only one I've ever seen that made that seem true.

Still, either way you cut it--Dracula as a heavy is an interesting concept--I thought it was a great performance. But perhaps not to everyone's tastes. I really don't care about more recent films that use makeup and special effects to generate gruesom vampires. I think vampires, as with the similar character of Mr. Hyde as conceived by Spencer Tracy, are more interesting when they look more like the humans they once were; but there should be traces of the grave and deterioration to mark them as the undead.



Choose movies that have remakes and say if the original or the remake is BETTER!!!!

Dawn of the Dead- The remake!
War of the Worlds- The remake!
I enjoyed all of the Japanese originals of Shutter, The Eye etc, but then the American verions came out and ruined all the movies for me. I'm sure lots of you agree.