I stirred up some dust when I made my remarks about film remakes in my post about
"Dark Water". Let me make it clear that I wasn't saying the three examples I named were better than the originals, I was just saying they were good. So let me name a few remakes that I consider to be clearly better than the originals.
1. "The Ring" (2002). This is the only one of my three examples that I consider better. I know this is a controversial opinion, so if you disagree, post a comment.
2. "The postman always rings twice" (1981). The remake is superior due to Jack Nicholson. The 1946 original is dull in comparison.
3. "The Razor's Edge". Both versions (1946 and 1984) suffer from simplifying the Somerset Maugham novel too much, but the remake is improved by the bigger budget and better sets.
4. "The Bourne Identity" (2002). Does anyone even remember the original 1988 version starring Richard Chamberlain as Jason Bourne? Just as well. It deserves to be forgotten.
5. "Cape Fear" (1991). The 1962 original starring Robert Mitchum and Gregory Peck is a classic in its own right, but Martin Scorcese succeeded in making a great film even better.
6. "The Fly". This is another example of an already magnificent film being improved. The 1958 version was superb, but David Cronenberg's directing, Jeff Goldblum's acting and the improved special effects made the 1986 remake breathtaking.
7. "The Mummy". I'm going out on a limb here. I know a lot of people prefer the 1932 original, claiming that the 1999 remake is too comical. I like the comedy. This was a good platform for Brendan Fraser to present himself as a not-so-serious version of Indiana Jones.
8. "King Kong". The 1933 original was a classic. The 1976 remake was an embarrassing failure, but Peter Jackson's 2005 re-remake is astounding. His choice to reject the previous remake's changes and keep the story as close as possible to the original film, even setting it in the 1930's, is one of the main reasons for its success.
9. "Red Dragon". This 2002 film is a remake of "Manhunter" (1986). "Silence of the Lambs" (1991) was the sequel of "Manhunter", but it was a good decision to go back and refilm the first book later. The main problem with "Manhunter" is that Hannibal Lecter wasn't played by Anthony Hopkins.
10. "Nosferatu". I hope I don't offend purists by saying that Werner Herzog's 1979 remake is better than Friedrich Murnau's groundbreaking 1922 film. The remake keeps very close to the original, the main difference being the use of sound, but Klaus Kinski's performance as the vampire is stunning. This film is the peak of his acting career.
That's all I can think of at the moment. I'm hoping my readers will leave comments naming other better-than-the-original remakes.
Just a few comments with some possible SPOILERS (as a warning, tho probably anyone reading this will have seen the films):
ReplyDeleteThe Ring - I saw the American version and read the book in translation, so not a real comment here on the better film. Rather a comment that the most horrifying moment for me of the entire American version was that Naomi Watts taught her son that it was ok to kill someone - by having him copy the tape, a tape that would ultimately kill someone if that person didn't know the loophole. The book is ever so much better, the plot much less sensational but more eerie, in my opinion. I recommend it as a read.
Cape Fear - I disagree, but then I find DeNiro to be a 50/50 actor for me - sometimes I like him, sometimes I dislike him. I disliked him in Cape Fear. I also thought the direction of the daughter was entirely stupid, though Juliette Lewis acted it quite well. The Gregory Peck version all the way for me (Nolte cannot hold a candle to Peck).
The Fly - The remake was actually disturbing for me, where the original was not. Perhaps had I been of the generation to see the original when it was released I would have found it to be so - I think though that on some level, the 50 b movies intentionally had a skewed/exaggerated element to them to somehow lighten the audiences mood at times (I could be wrong, haven't studied this, just my opinion). The remake definitely not a B movie.
The Ring: I've never read the book, but I watched and enjoyed the Japanese original when it came out. I just think that the American remake flowed better. A steady pace from beginning to end, not the start-stop-start-stop of the Japanese film. Apart from that, it wasn't clear to me from the Japanese film why it was called "The Ring". The remake made it obvious.
ReplyDeleteCape Fear: I agree that Gregory Peck is a much better actor than Nick Nolte. I also think that Robert Mitchum was better as the killer than Robert De Niro. The strength of the remake is in Scorsese's directing and the new subplots. In the original there are hints that the lawyer might have cut corners, but in the remake we see that he has more faults. In the original the killer is just a monster, but in the remake we see traces of humanity, so that we can sympathise with him despite our disgust at some of his deeds. The real coup of the remake was to make the daughter older. Juliette Lewis's relationship with De Niro was what made the remake better, in my opinion.
The Fly: That's what I think as well. The remake lifted it from a B film to an A film without ruining it. I like the way Jeff Goldblum comes across as mad in the remake. That's missing from the original.
The Postman Always Rings Twice: I don't know... I kind of prefer Ju Dou. It's basically the Zhang Yimou/Gong Li version. (Not really, but you'll see what i mean when you watch it.)
ReplyDeleteI'd love to see "Ju Dou".
DeleteSorry about the tease. I thought it was readily available - as it should be. I'd recommend you keep an eye out for The Story Of Qiu Ju, too. It's one i think you'd appreciate because of the glimpse into other cultures it provides. Qiu Ju (Gong Li) is a woman from a poor village who gets caught up in the Chinese court system. You get to view a side of things we don't often see. At first it seems like an older period piece, but when she gets to town there are Schwartzenegger movie posters bringing it into more modern times. (At least, more modern back when it came out)
DeleteI assume you've seen the 1946 film. I watched it out of curiosity a few years ago. "Few" is relative, because it was before my blog started in 2010. It was recognisable as the same story as the 1981 film, but I found it so dull in comparison.
DeleteI saw it many years ago. The only thing that stood out to me was Lana Turner. The film itself has faded almost completely. As you noted, it didn't excite the memory.
ReplyDeleteThe main problem with the 1946 film is that there's no Jack Nicholson.
Delete