Original vs. Remake: Which one actually holds up?

I was thinking about Invasion from '78... totally blanked on the fact that it was actually the third remake 😁 there are still plenty of solid remakes out there—names are slipping my mind... say, King Kong is a good one, both that version from the seventies and this recent one

velvetcrane57 said:If you found those birds to be a poor cinematic experience, then I wouldn't suggest looking at the old cult classics at all; stick strictly to the remakes. Personally, I won't even touch a remake, because if someone is merely rehashing or pilfering from Hitchcock, I have absolutely no desire to watch their work. The last thing I sat through was that absolute garbage, Disturb. It felt like nothing more than a blatant rip-off of the brilliant Rear Window. And I’ve heard that even Eagle Eye is a total plagiarism—it practically steals from Kubrick and Hitchcock combined! Some people truly possess no sense of shame. Honestly, I'd love to see them held accountable.
But I digress....

It just occurred to me that there is also a remake of Hitchcock's Dial M for Murder... it's called A Perfect Murder, and it isn't actually bad. I see someone on IMDb claiming it’s significantly better than the original... which is nonsense, it doesn't come close, but it isn't complete trash either....

I actually thought the movie was great—terrifying, really, one of Hitchcock's absolute best—but I've got mixed feelings about the remake, even if the director is pretty solid. It’s true for most other films, though; every single one is just some kind of adaptation, and they almost always end up being worse versions that just happen to be more profitable... so the movie gets a better rating based purely on the money. The new The Hitcher flopped at the box office, which led to all those bad reviews, which honestly just shows how quality is judged these days...

briskhound2 said:Ah, John Carpenter... looks like the guy finally lost it once half his filmography had already been remade (we've got Fog in the mix too) and then there was Attack... which was a decent enough refresh, though I still lean toward the old version. A quick buck here and there, nothing fancy, just a bunch of unknown actors, but hey, the movie still hits the spot. They announced a remake of Escape from New York a couple of years back, so who knows... maybe he'll live long enough to see every single one of his movies get ripped off.

I’ve watched the old version of "Attack" three times now. It’s dark, terrifying, and all that... but this new remake is actually worth a look. It deserves to be called an excellent reconstruction, though it's the only one I can think of that stays close to the original.🤷

The new " fog" doesn't hold a candle to the classic, but then again, that’s the rule with most remakes.

Take Snyder’s work, for instance—"day of the dead." Cold, sharp, and incredibly dark. Just another remake that actually hits the mark.

Jason Clark4 said:I’ve watched the old version of "Attack" three times now. It’s dark, terrifying, and all that... but this new remake is actually worth a look. It deserves to be called an excellent reconstruction, though it's the only one I can think of that stays close to the original.🤷

The new " fog" doesn't hold a candle to the classic, but then again, that’s the rule with most remakes.

Take Snyder’s work, for instance—"day of the dead." Cold, sharp, and incredibly dark. Just another remake that actually hits the mark.

Unlike day of the dead. I watched that one once and nearly lost it laughing when the zombies started crawling up the walls like some kind of vampires...

Mann actually tackled "heat" twice. Honestly, both versions are top-tier.

Chloe Nguyen said:It seems to me that remakes are, for the most part, significantly inferior to the original films.
I suppose there is a certain argument to be made that Tui tends to execute things with much more finesse, though I suspect we might occasionally encounter a remake so vastly superior to its predecessor that the general public remains entirely oblivious to the fact that a remake even exists—one might think of instances like The Thing, The Fly, Cape Fear, or Scarface.

Cape Fear is a better remake? Are we even talking about the same movie? You mean the Martin Scorsese one from the 90s that's a rework of the '62 original starring Robert Mitchum and Gregory Peck?😲😲😲
It's such a bad remake that I honestly think Scorsese was possessed by some demon while filming it. There's no other way to explain the sheer stupidity radiating from every single part of that film, from the acting and the script to the direction and the editing.
Robert Mulligan's original is Citizen Kane to him.

Laura Palmer25 said:Cape Fear is a better remake? Are we even talking about the same movie? You mean the Martin Scorsese one from the 90s that's a rework of the '62 original starring Robert Mitchum and Gregory Peck?😲😲😲
It's such a bad remake that I honestly think Scorsese was possessed by some demon while filming it. There's no other way to explain the sheer stupidity radiating from every single part of that film, from the acting and the script to the direction and the editing.
Robert Mulligan's original is Citizen Kane to him.

Look, Scorsese only agreed to do that remake because the studio he was working for promised to fund some other project of his (can't remember which one...) so it was basically a package deal. It didn't totally ruin him (in my opinion), but he didn't really pour his signature directorial soul into it either—he just clocked in, did the job, and collected the paycheck. J. Lee Thompson directed the original.

briskhound2 said:Look, Scorsese only agreed to do that remake because the studio he was working for promised to fund some other project of his (can't remember which one...) so it was basically a package deal. It didn't totally ruin him (in my opinion), but he didn't really pour his signature directorial soul into it either—he just clocked in, did the job, and collected the paycheck. J. Lee Thompson directed the original.

Scorsese took on that remake because Universal Pictures would fund Christ's Last Temptation, and in exchange, he had to direct a commercial flick. Otherwise, the movie is fine.
I'm against the announced remakes of Carpenter's The Thing or Hill's Warriors.

Lisa Ross65 said:Scorsese took on that remake because Universal Pictures would fund Christ's Last Temptation, and in exchange, he had to direct a commercial flick. Otherwise, the movie is fine.
I'm against the announced remakes of Carpenter's The Thing or Hill's Warriors.

I'm with you on the Carpenter stuff—gave me the chills just reading about it, since they already managed to turn Night of the Witch into a total disaster... ''attack'' is slightly more specific and ''fog'' is somewhere in there, but nothing lives up to the originals. See, I haven't heard anything about them remaking Hill... so I won't say anything, since even the original is just okay for me...

Why even bother remaking a movie that’s actually good?🤷 From what I can tell, they seem way more obsessed with remaking hits than fixing flops—when honestly, it should be the exact opposite...
Sometimes a remake actually lands—maybe it updates the theme for today's audience and I'm fine with that—but most of the time? It just can't touch the original.

Most remakes either lean too hard into flashy special effects or try way too hard to tell a "good story"—though if you've got a solid crew behind you, a decent plot usually follows—but honestly, most of the time it just turns out terrible. Personally, I actually dug the remake of >—well, except for that one awkward bit where the lead actor is frantically searching for his soulmate... but since they fixed up the visual effects and actually gave us some meaningful context regarding what happened with that ghost ship, it worked for me. To me, a movie just falls apart if it doesn't bring something new to the table, and even when they *do* try to change things up, it can end up being a total disaster, kind of like >... so, yeah, I’m all for remaking a classic, provided it actually finds its own voice and doesn't just mimic the original.

I wouldn't say the new " fog" was a total disaster, but it definitely lost that specific vibe from the original. Honestly, look at John Boorman's take on the Wizard of Oz—and he's actually a solid director—but how could that ever work? It just can't turn out right because they ditch the core elements of the original, and I have no clue what they're even trying to bring to the table differently...

The Thing is easily my favorite horror flick—it's Carpenter at his absolute peak. I haven't even checked out the original version yet, but honestly, nothing beats this one. I've also really enjoyed some of the remakes, like the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Dawn of the Dead, and The Hills Have Eyes (which I actually prefer over Craven's original), plus the American version of The Ring and The Hitcher.

Keith Kelly3 said:I wouldn't say the new " fog" was a total disaster, but it definitely lost that specific vibe from the original. Honestly, look at John Boorman's take on the Wizard of Oz—and he's actually a solid director—but how could that ever work? It just can't turn out right because they ditch the core elements of the original, and I have no clue what they're even trying to bring to the table differently...

For me, that whole feeling just died the second they messed with the role of that blonde woman—you know, the one who ends up being a ghost (whatever)—but everything else stays pretty close to the original. I haven't actually heard anything about that Wizard of Oz remake before. Maybe it offers some slightly better acting, but I'm not holding my breath thinking it'll ever touch the level of the original...

briskhound2 said:For me, that whole feeling just died the second they messed with the role of that blonde woman—you know, the one who ends up being a ghost (whatever)—but everything else stays pretty close to the original. I haven't actually heard anything about that Wizard of Oz remake before. Maybe it offers some slightly better acting, but I'm not holding my breath thinking it'll ever touch the level of the original...

Wait, so you aren't exactly a fan of the acting in the original then? 😲
Yeah, it's a remake, but I heard a rumor it might be animated.

Keith Kelly3 said:Wait, so you aren't exactly a fan of the acting in the original then? 😲
Yeah, it's a remake, but I heard a rumor it might be animated.

Well, not exactly... It feels a bit too plastic, but I guess that’s just the way it goes with most older films—it isn't necessarily a dealbreaker, but there's definitely room for improvement. Then again, if they go the animated route, I suppose none of that even matters...

The temptation to revisit old ground has always been there, and even the master himself, Alfred Hitchcock, once decided to rework his own material.
With the rise of postmodernism in the seventies, the remake evolved into a legitimate directorial tool. You might recall the sharp execution of Siegel’s Body Snatchers under the direction of the then-prominent Phil Kaufman (though Abel Ferrara later tackled the same story, and frankly, it was much worse).
De Palma breathed new life into the classic gangster tale Scarface, which proved to be a massive hit and stands as one of the premier American films of the eighties. Friedkin attempted to capture the essence of Fear in a rather lackluster remake of the Clouzot classic. However, Friedkin would eventually find much greater success when he revisited Lumet’s 12 Angry Men. Bob Rafelson offered a somewhat mediocre reimagining of The Postman Always Rings Twice. McBride took a stab at Breathless, a move that the critics of the era tore apart, yet looking back, it feels like a thoughtful and successful tribute to the Godard masterpiece.
Among the more successful reinterpretations, one should certainly note Carpenter’s The Thing, Oz’s Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, Soderbergh’s Ocean's Eleven, Scorsese’s Fear, and Haneke’s own take on Funny Games.
On the other hand, the lackluster efforts include Badham’s version of Nikita, Crowe’s Vanilla Sky (though the original wasn't exactly a sensation either), and the completely misplaced Psycho by Van Sant.

Rafelson's The Postman is actually quite solid. Personally, I don't think it falls short of Garnett's. Haven't gotten around to watching Visconti's Obsession yet.

briskhound2 said:Well, not exactly... It feels a bit too plastic, but I guess that’s just the way it goes with most older films—it isn't necessarily a dealbreaker, but there's definitely room for improvement. Then again, if they go the animated route, I suppose none of that even matters...

ok, I'm just gonna 😲

but seriously, I read that they're filming two Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde remakes soon—and 50 Cent is starring in one of them! That is absolutely terrifying... stuff like that is exactly what gets under my skin.

I honestly think the '78 Body Snatchers remake hits harder than the '56 original, even though I still have respect for the first one. I know most people will swear by the original being superior, but for me, the remake takes the win—especially that ending. Just thinking about those final moments gives me chills. Even the 2007 version isn't half bad.