Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

CONTEMPORARY RE-MAKES YOU LIKED BETTER THAN ITS CLASSIC ORIGINAL COUNTERPART


cineman
 Share

Recommended Posts

As a new member to this site ( been watching TCM from the beginning and only just realized this site existed) I am sure this question/topic has been asked many a time. BUT, I was wondering.

So often, I cringe at the clumsy remakes of great classic films. I bemoan the lack of new creative ideas that induces a rehash. I lament that framing, lighting and stage presence is so often supplanted by rapid eye movement and CGI.  I lament the disparity in quality.  I lament that a face changes to a  new face but the script does not. This is 99% of the time.

However, once in a great while a film is remade that IMHO far eclipses its classic predecessor.

So my question to the classic film fans out there is: What newer version is that 1% for you? For me, It was The Count of Monte Cristo. Thanks for reading and replying :) 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like ONLY THE LONELY (1991) better than MARTY (1955). Maureen O'Hara is kickass as the domineering mother, and I think John Candy gives us more comedy and pathos than Ernest Borgnine did. There's an added subplot that reunites Maureen O'Hara with her old costar Anthony Quinn which I find lovely and I appreciate all the on-location filming that John Hughes and Chris Columbus have done in the Chicago area.

956ECB99-97D2-4EC6-AED4-DAD93D3BC024_1_201_a

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TopBilled said:

I like TEN LITTLE INDIANS (1965) much better than the original, AND THEN THERE WERE NONE (1965).

73B1CFCD-D71A-48A7-A5D6-07A675CD08C3_1_201_a

I Get The Distinct Feeling You've Already Answered this over in another thread by way of response, but how do You Think the Oliver Reed Version Stacks Up to the Indians of '65 ?,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At this point, SOMEONE should be ritually mentioning the effectively Donald Sutherland-gloomy 1978 Invasion of the Body Snatchers as gold standard, so let's get that out of the way...

0*xzXMVPt5k7fLuDJ2

And while Mel Brooks, and his sanitized version of To Be or Not to Be (1983) will never be Jack Benny, he does manage to take a few of the gags out of wartime-news-grudge context in the climax and translate them into traditional easier-to-understand Brooksian for modern audiences.  

MV5BMTI4ZTQ2YzItZTRmNy00NjE4LWE0NTgtZWIz

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Aritosthenes said:

I Get The Distinct Feeling You've Already Answered this over in another thread by way of response, but how do You Think the Oliver Reed Version Stacks Up to the Indians of '65 ?,

I haven't seen the Oliver Reed version. Have you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I prefer Warren Beatty's Heaven Can Wait to Here Comes Mr. Jordan. Robert Osborne was always one to prefer the original (probably partly why he's so loved around here), but he disappointed me when the Will & Grace guy (Eric someobdy, the last name escapes me) was guest programmer, and Osborne told him he preferred the original. I like both, but Beatty gives his story a little more room to breathe and populates it with absolutely fantastic supporting actors. Jack Warden gets both more laughs and more sentiment out of me than James Gleason, who seems to be trying too hard for both. Claude Rain's Mr. Jordan is curiously one of his performances I'm not crazy about. He seems a little too much like a corporate functionary, while James Mason is more beatific and angel-like (Beatty wanted Cary Grant, who let him know he was definitely retired). And special props to the casting of comic geniuses Charles Grodin and Dyan Cannon in the villainous roles, as opposed to the very generic performers who got the roles in the original. I'm not terribly crazy about Julie Christie - an actress I usually like very much, but who seems to have not much of a role here, though her performance in the final scene gives me goosebumps.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Aritosthenes said:

Yes. Take This As a Grain of Salt. (Honestly Especially From Me..😂); But i distinctly did Not Enjoy that retelling (ANYWHERE) NEAR As Much As Eaton + O'Brian.

Okay, I'll keep that in mind if/when I get a chance to view it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love this question.  I had to ploddingly go back and do a little research though, before answering.   Some of you have great recall of films and can summon them and their remakes almost immediately to mind.

Am going to say, I prefer the Judy Garland/James Mason "A Star is Born",   to the earlier Janet Gaynor/Fredric March, even though I like both Gaynor and March.   (None of the later, more recent remake(s) appealed to me enough to watch.)

Judy and James Mason's version was so soulful, and just tore at your heart.  Not to mention the immense talent involved.  That' improv-ey' scene where Judy's singing in an after-hours club,  "The Man That Got Away",  and Mason's watching her from the shadows and seeing her perform for the first time--  wow.

Gosh, I'm the only one who prefers the original "The Invasion of the Body Snatchers".     Love the evocation of the uneasy Fifties, the menace looming, Kevin McCarthy's performance and that allegorical ending of him running from car to car with the warning that "they're here!"    What I remember of the Donald Sutherland version was that, for my taste, anyway, it seemed too cute and "in-crowd" and knowing.  But I'm incurably fuddy duddy.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Dawn Patrol (1938) with Errol Flynn, Basil Rathbone,  David Niven, Donald Crisp, etc. was far superior to the earlier version.  I don't think you can go wrong with that cast.  I also like the Coen Brothers' version of True Grit better than the John Wayne version - it's much truer to the source, and all the actors are superior to those in the Wayne version.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I prefer the original The Invasion of The Body Snatchers.  Also the 1975 Farewell My Lovely and the original Cape Fear.

Won't say I prefer Narrow Margin (1990) with Gene Hackman and Anne Archer over The Narrow Margin (1952) with Charles McGraw, Marie Windsor and Jacquelin White or vice-versa.   Both are very good movies but I think it shows how the same story (more or less) can be updated into a more entertaining movie.  Have both on DVD and watch The Narrow Margin more often.

One aspect of Narrow Margin that is an improvement is that it is more realistic in the train scenes.  Being a train buff, that probably influences me.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/7/2021 at 9:46 AM, TopBilled said:

I like ONLY THE LONELY (1991) better than MARTY (1955). Maureen O'Hara is kickass as the domineering mother, and I think John Candy gives us more comedy and pathos than Ernest Borgnine did. There's an added subplot that reunites Maureen O'Hara with her old costar Anthony Quinn which I find lovely and I appreciate all the on-location filming that John Hughes and Chris Columbus have done in the Chicago area.

956ECB99-97D2-4EC6-AED4-DAD93D3BC024_1_201_a

Holy cow, you're right! That is Marty! All the times I've watched them both and the similarities never occurred to me.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I prefer the 1949 version of Little Women to the 1933 version. The 1949 version with Margaret O'Brien and June Allyson, always makes me laugh and cry.

Althought The American Tragedy and a Place in the Sun were equally good, I prefer A Place in the Sun.

I prefer the original Invasio of the Bodysnatchers, I really was surprised how much I enjoyed Tom Cruise's version of War of the Worlds.

I prefer the original Dr. Doolittle with Rex Harrison and the original Hercules with Steve Reeves.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/7/2021 at 9:46 AM, TopBilled said:

I like ONLY THE LONELY (1991) better than MARTY (1955). Maureen O'Hara is kickass as the domineering mother, and I think John Candy gives us more comedy and pathos than Ernest Borgnine did. There's an added subplot that reunites Maureen O'Hara with her old costar Anthony Quinn which I find lovely and I appreciate all the on-location filming that John Hughes and Chris Columbus have done in the Chicago area.

956ECB99-97D2-4EC6-AED4-DAD93D3BC024_1_201_a

I Like them both, but too, never saw ONLY THE LONELY as a bona fide remake of MARTY.  And as Marty wan't a comedy is probably why Borgnine didn't pack the same comedy and pathos that Candy did.  :rolleyes:  And of course we know(and should) that in MARTY the mother wasn't domineering at all.  Just seems a silly comparison to me.  But on another track---

Liking both  I do like the 2001 remake of OCEAN'S ELEVEN somewhat better than the '60 original.  And STILL wondering what "E-O Eleven"  is supposed to mean.  ;) 

Sepiatone

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Sepiatone said:

I Like them both, but too, never saw ONLY THE LONELY as a bona fide remake of MARTY.  And as Marty wan't a comedy is probably why Borgnine didn't pack the same comedy and pathos that Candy did.  :rolleyes:  And of course we know(and should) that in MARTY the mother wasn't domineering at all.  Just seems a silly comparison to me.  But on another track---

I knew someone might come along and argue. But on another track... LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sepiatone said:

I Like them both, but too, never saw ONLY THE LONELY as a bona fide remake of MARTY.  And as Marty wan't a comedy is probably why Borgnine didn't pack the same comedy and pathos that Candy did.  :rolleyes:  And of course we know(and should) that in MARTY the mother wasn't domineering at all.  Just seems a silly comparison to me.  But on another track---

Liking both  I do like the 2001 remake of OCEAN'S ELEVEN somewhat better than the '60 original.  And STILL wondering what "E-O Eleven"  is supposed to mean.  ;) 

Sepiatone

The pronunciation in the song is a corruption/elongation of the gambling term Yo.  A Yo bet in craps is a bet that the shooter will roll an 11.  When a shooter rolls an 11, the dealer/croupier will often call out Yo, or Yo 11 or Yo-leven when this happens.

Using Yo instead of or as a prefix to the word eleven helps to distinguish it from the word seven in a noisy casino.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

© 2023 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...