J.M. Vargas wrote:Cronenberg's remake of "The Fly" is, IMO, heads and shoulders above its 50's original. The original can stand on its own as a glossy sci-fi spectacle though, so a remake doesn't necessarily have to be better to be good or memorable. It just has to be good and have an identity/reason of being (besides cashing on the name of the original) and a remake can rock.
Tom B wrote:I'm sure that when the subject of remakes comes up, most people think of more contemporary abominations, like Sharon Stone's Gloria or Van Sant's Psycho misfire. There are acctually a lot of older and smaller films that are remakes, and that often overshadowed the originals.
Douglas Sirk remade at least two films into glossy '50s melodramas: Both Imitation of Life and Magnificent Obsession had versions in the '30s. Likewise, Waterloo Bridge (1940) had a '31 version that's supposed to be grittier; nonetheless, the 1940 version is hardly an embarrassment.
Robert Altman's Thieves Like Us is a remake of a great little noir from the '40s, They Live by Night. Theodore Dreiser's book An American Tragedy was filmed twice: Once under that name in the '30s, and as A Place in the Sun in the '50s. His Girl Friday was based on the play The Front Page, which was filmed under that name in the '30s.
And, of course, there's Ben-Hur. And Hitchcock's own reworking of The Man Who Knew Too Much, one from the '30s, one from the '50s.
Maybe not exactly what you're looking for, but something to think about.
mkiker2089 wrote:I'm going to say the remake of The Crazies is better. Not for political reasons but because Romero has never been good at action flicks. His action movies often feel like vignettes pieced together. He does better when he gets political because then he has something to tie it all together, hence why Dawn, Day, and Land are his best works even though Night gets all the glory.
Romero also does better with people looking over his shoulder, but that's for another thread.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest