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

Remakes that outshine the original


TopBilled
 Share

Recommended Posts

1ranchipur.png

At first, I was going to call this thread THE RAINS CAME versus THE RAINS OF RANCHIPUR, but then I figured we could open it up to a somewhat broader discussion about classic films and classic remakes. 

 

Last night I came across a disc I had called 'Natural Disasters.' The first film is THE RAINS CAME, the second film is THE HURRICANE, and the third film is THE RAINS OF RANCHIPUR. I fell asleep fourteen minutes into the first film (which might explain how interesting it seemed to me). I woke up during the part in THE HURRICANE where C. Aubrey Smith tells the congregation to sing their last hymn as the church is about to be flooded out. After this, I was wide awake to watch THE RAINS OF RANCHIPUR, which I enjoyed a great deal. I was alert and well-rested at this time, and I gave it my full concentration.

 

This morning I went back and picked up THE RAINS CAME where I had left off and finished watching it. As I did this, I read user reviews on the IMDb and various message board comments about both the original, starring Tyrone Power, Myrna Loy and George Brent, plus the remake with Richard Burton, Lana Turner and Fred MacMurray. The Power version currently has an overall user rating of 7.0, whereas the Burton version has a 5.9. I disagree with those scores. I personally rated the Power showcase a 6, and the Burton effort a 9. In the following paragraphs, I will explain my reasons.

 

First, it is more than the casting, though the casting and quality of acting does matter quite a bit. I have never been a fan of Tyrone Power's acting, and while I don't entirely dislike his work in the earlier picture, it certainly pales by comparison with the level of excellence Richard Burton brings to the screen in any role. Probably a real Indian actor should have been cast, and in my view, this property is ripe for another remake so they can get that part right. In the 1955 offering, which is in Technicolor, we see that Burton is more like a Welshman with a tan-- almost implying the character is a half-breed, not a full-blooded Indian. If Fox was going to 'go there' with the interracial storyline more than in the first production, they couldn't make him too dark, I suppose. 

 

Continuing with the acting, I think Lana Turner is much better (though slightly miscast) as Lady Edwina. Why do I say this? Well, Myrna Loy definitely comes across as a lady, and Lana does seem by comparison to have the morals of gutter trash in this story-- but Lana oozes a lot more passion. We get the feeling she really is desperate for real and lasting love, believing Dr. Safti can give it to her. Myrna just seems too put together emotionally and a little too brittle to be affected this way. Also, when the conflicts come to the surface between Edwina and the Maharani, we can see the Indian woman's points more clearly in the remake that maybe Edwina is poison for Dr. Softi. 

 

Also, I tend to like the secondary love story performers better in the remake. Fred MacMurray does a convincing job as a self-loathing drunk, and when he reaches redemption later in the story, his tenderness towards Joan Caulfield seems a lot more realistic. Like they are equals despite the age difference. I felt like MacMurray was probably tapping into his own redeeming relationship with his younger wife June Haver when he played those scenes. In the other picture, George Brent just comes across smarmy and he still treats Brenda Joyce like a kid at the end, who can't get over her schoolgirl crush on him-- not at all signifying any type of equality or character growth.

 

As for the Maharani, I love Madame Ouspenskaya in the original despite her obvious Russian ethnicity. She seems very authoritative during the flood sequence. But Eugenie Leontovich is better I think in the remake. Leontovich is not afraid to tap into the more shrewish aspects of the character and fight Edwina no matter how ruthlessly. Ironically, I think Leontovich seems to be channeling Ouspenskaya's shrew in DODSWORTH.

 

Okay, I've addressed casting and performances. I want to talk about dialogue and special effects next. The dialogue in the original is a little too stiff. A lot of it seems interchangeable, like it doesn't matter who is speaking it, because it is all coming from a third-person screenwriting point of view. But in the remake the dialogue is much more personalized. The lines the characters utter seem more idiosyncratic and less archetypical.

 

Meanwhile, the use of Cinemascope helps aid the special effects extravaganza in the remake in ways that make the action in the first one seem cropped or chopped off. I do agree that the splitting of the earth and the bursting of the dam in the first film were done very well and deserved at least an Oscar nomination (not a win over GONE WITH THE WIND's burning of Atlanta sequence). But the collapse of the bridge is better in the remake, because even though they may be using models in some shots, we see people losing their lives and the danger is much more apparent. 

 

There are many other things I could cite as examples regarding why I feel the second film is better than the original. But I will end for now with a comment about the overall sweeping nature of the film. The remake seems more epic to me, and much more ambiguous. When Lana rides off with Michael Rennie at the end, we know that this is not a real happy ending. She will wind up like Vivien Leigh in THE ROMAN SPRING OF MRS. STONE. There will be other men behind her husband's back, young gigolos and hangers on that she will spoil to keep her company. She will always love Dr. Softi but continue to be punished for her immoral ways by being stuck in a loveless marriage with Rennie and forever denied her true Indian soul mate.

 

As they drive off, and the words 'The End' flash over the screen, you know that it truly is the end of her happiness. MacMurray and Caulfield have the happy ending here, but not any of the other main characters. And back inside the palace, the Maharani, who is a twisted psychological mess of feminine success, takes comfort in having driven the so-called lady back to the gutter. It's a drama, a tragedy of epic proportions-- a wholly unnatural disaster.

4029a.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1ranchipur.png

At first, I was going to call this thread THE RAINS CAME versus THE RAINS OF RANCHIPUR, but then I figured we could open it up to a somewhat broader discussion about classic films and classic remakes. 

 

Last night I came across a disc I had called 'Natural Disasters.' The first film is THE RAINS CAME, the second film is THE HURRICANE, and the third film is THE RAINS OF RANCHIPUR. I fell asleep fourteen minutes into the first film (which might explain how interesting it seemed to me). I woke up during the part in THE HURRICANE where C. Aubrey Smith tells the congregation to sing their last hymn as the church is about to be flooded out. After this, I was wide awake to watch THE RAINS OF RANCHIPUR, which I enjoyed a great deal. I was alert and well-rested at this time, and I gave it my full concentration.

 

This morning I went back and picked up THE RAINS CAME where I had left off and finished watching it. As I did this, I read user reviews on the IMDb and various message board comments about both the original, starring Tyrone Power, Myrna Loy and George Brent, plus the remake with Richard Burton, Lana Turner and Fred MacMurray. The Power version currently has an overall user rating of 7.0, whereas the Burton version has a 5.9. I disagree with those scores. I personally rated the Power showcase a 6, and the Burton effort a 9. In the following paragraphs, I will explain my reasons.

 

First, it is more than the casting, though the casting and quality of acting does matter quite a bit. I have never been a fan of Tyrone Power's acting, and while I don't entirely dislike his work in the earlier picture, it certainly pales by comparison with the level of excellence Richard Burton brings to the screen in any role. Probably a real Indian actor should have been cast, and in my view, this property is ripe for another remake so they can get that part right. In the 1955 offering, which is in Technicolor, we see that Burton is more like a Welshman with a tan-- almost implying the character is a half-breed, not a full-blooded Indian. If Fox was going to 'go there' with the interracial storyline more than in the first production, they couldn't make him too dark, I suppose. 

 

Continuing with the acting, I think Lana Turner is much better (though slightly miscast) as Lady Edwina. Why do I say this? Well, Myrna Loy definitely comes across as a lady, and Lana does seem by comparison to have the morals of gutter trash in this story-- but Lana oozes a lot more passion. We get the feeling she really is desperate for real and lasting love, believing Dr. Safti can give it to her. Myrna just seems too put together emotionally and a little too brittle to be affected this way. Also, when the conflicts come to the surface between Edwina and the Maharani, we can see the Indian woman's points more clearly in the remake that maybe Edwina is poison for Dr. Softi. 

 

Also, I tend to like the secondary love story performers better in the remake. Fred MacMurray does a convincing job as a self-loathing drunk, and when he reaches redemption later in the story, his tenderness towards Joan Caulfield seems a lot more realistic. Like they are equals despite the age difference. I felt like MacMurray was probably tapping into his own redeeming relationship with his younger wife June Haver when he played those scenes. In the other picture, George Brent just comes across smarmy and he still treats Brenda Joyce like a kid at the end, who can't get over her schoolgirl crush on him-- not at all signifying any type of equality or character growth.

 

As for the Maharani, I love Madame Ouspenskaya in the original despite her obvious Russian ethnicity. She seems very authoritative during the flood sequence. But Eugenie Leontovich is better I think in the remake. Leontovich is not afraid to tap into the more shrewish aspects of the character and fight Edwina no matter how ruthlessly. Ironically, I think Leontovich seems to be channeling Ouspenskaya's shrew in DODSWORTH.

 

Okay, I've addressed casting and performances. I want to talk about dialogue and special effects next. The dialogue in the original is a little too stiff. A lot of it seems interchangeable, like it doesn't matter who is speaking it, because it is all coming from a third-person screenwriting point of view. But in the remake the dialogue is much more personalized. The lines the characters utter seem more idiosyncratic and less archetypical.

 

Meanwhile, the use of Cinemascope helps aid the special effects extravaganza in the remake in ways that make the action in the first one seem cropped or chopped off. I do agree that the splitting of the earth and the bursting of the dam in the first film were done very well and deserved at least an Oscar nomination (not a win over GONE WITH THE WIND's burning of Atlanta sequence). But the collapse of the bridge is better in the remake, because even though they may be using models in some shots, we see people losing their lives and the danger is much more apparent. 

 

There are many other things I could cite as examples regarding why I feel the second film is better than the original. But I will end for now with a comment about the overall sweeping nature of the film. The remake seems more epic to me, and much more ambiguous. When Lana rides off with Michael Rennie at the end, we know that this is not a real happy ending. She will wind up like Vivien Leigh in THE ROMAN SPRING OF MRS. STONE. There will be other men behind her husband's back, young gigolos and hangers on that she will spoil to keep her company. She will always love Dr. Softi but continue to be punished for her immoral ways by being stuck in a loveless marriage with Rennie and forever denied her true Indian soul mate.

 

As they drive off, and the words 'The End' flash over the screen, you know that it truly is the end of her happiness. MacMurray and Caulfield have the happy ending here, but not any of the other main characters. And back inside the palace, the Maharani, who is a twisted psychological mess of feminine success, takes comfort in having driven the so-called lady back to the gutter. It's a drama, a tragedy of epic proportions-- a wholly unnatural disaster.

4029a.jpg

The most obvious choice is THE MALTESE FALCON

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most obvious example of the remake being an improvement would be A Star Is Born---the Garland version trumps both the two earlier versions and the Streisand remake.  Not that the Gaynor/March 1937 movie was chopped liver, but the Garland / Mason remake was sublime in every respect, maybe the greatest "musical" ever if you want to put it into that category.

 

I'd also take the Pacino version of Scarface over Muni's, though again the original was very good.

 

And though The 1931 version of The Front Page was terrific, it can't compare to Roz and Cary in  His Girl Friday.

 

Then these two pairings I'd call a tie: 

 

First, The Racket starring Louis Wolheim as Nick Scarsi in the 1928 silent version, and with Robert Ryan in the Nick Scanlon role in the 1951 sound remake. (Same character, different names.)  Both of them are masterpieces of the gangster genre.

 

And I'd rate the 1925 silent and 1930 sound versions of The Unholy Three as equals, with Lon Chaney in both leading roles.

 

Waterloo Bridge is also terrific in both the 1931 and 1940 versions, but they're so different in their plot developments that it's hard to make any direct comparison.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most obvious example of the remake being an improvement would be A Star Is Born---the Garland version trumps both the two earlier versions and the Streisand remake.  Not that the Gaynor/March 1937 movie was chopped liver, but the Garland / Mason remake was sublime in every respect, maybe the greatest "musical" ever if you want to put it into that category.

 

I'd also take the Pacino version of Scarface over Muni's, though again the original was very good.

 

And though The 1931 version of The Front Page was terrific, it can't compare to Roz and Cary in  His Girl Friday.

 

Then these two pairings I'd call a tie: 

 

First, The Racket starring Louis Wolheim as Nick Scarsi in the 1928 silent version, and with Robert Ryan in the Nick Scanlon role in the 1951 sound remake. (Same character, different names.)  Both of them are masterpieces of the gangster genre.

 

And I'd rate the 1925 silent and 1930 sound versions of The Unholy Three as equals, with Lon Chaney in both leading roles.

 

Waterloo Bridge is also terrific in both the 1931 and 1940 versions, but they're so different in their plot developments that it's hard to make any direct comparison.

And though The 1931 version of The Front Page was terrific, it can't compare to Roz and Cary in  His Girl Friday.

 

You said it. Especially since I loathe Pat O'Brien.

 

OK, neither outshone the original, buuuuuuuut  ----------- I actually liked the remake of Here Comes Mr. Jordan, and I'm not a fan of Warren Beatty and I love Robert Montgomery and I adore James Gleason - but I liked the remake Heaven Can Wait.

 

Another remake I liked was Invasion of the Body Snatchers. As much as I loved Kevin McCarthy and King Donovan in the 1956 version, I very much enjoyed Brooke Adams' scream in the 1978 version. And who didn't like Kevin's cameo at the beginning of the 1978 version?

 

Good topic, TB, hope you don't mind my diversion into like rather than outshone. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for Sinatra and the "pack" in "OCEAN'S ELEVEN", I find the remake in 2001 with Clooney and HIS gang to be a better movie. 

 

Interesting idea for a thread, though.  I'll have to give others some considerable thought.  Can't think of any more at the moment.

 

Sepiatone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for Sinatra and the "pack" in "OCEAN'S ELEVEN", I find the remake in 2001 with Clooney and HIS gang to be a better movie. 

 

Interesting idea for a thread, though.  I'll have to give others some considerable thought.  Can't think of any more at the moment.

 

Sepiatone

 

Oh SUUUURE, Sepia! Go ahead a MENTION here that you think a remake made in the last 10 years is better than the original!!!

 

'Cause I HOPE you know where THAT sort'a thing is now gonna lead poor TB's thread here, DONCHA???!!!  LOL

 

Btw, and for the record, and in this same vein, I'M gonna say TRUE GRIT is my answer to TB's question.

 

(...OH, and no NipkowDisc if you're now reading what I just said here, PLEASE do NOT now run the name of John Wayne up a freakin' flagpole and start saluting him here JUST 'cause I dared say this!!!!)  LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Waterloo Bridge is also terrific in both the 1931 and 1940 versions, but they're so different in their plot developments that it's hard to make any direct comparison.

I agree that the Vivien Leigh-Robert Taylor version is spectacularly done. Though I am not too fond of the Technicolor version. MGM redid it in 1956 with Leslie Caron and renamed it GABY (something about it doesn't work, maybe the casting of John Kerr).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to some of the ones already mentioned--The Maltese Falcon, A Star Is Born (Garland), The Man Who Knew Too Much (Stewart)--I'll add:

 

The Age of Innocence

The Letter (Wyler/Bette Davis)

An Affair To Remember--though many prefer Love Affair, the better production values and the greater emphasis on comedy put the Cary Grant/Deborah Kerr version ahead for me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1ranchipur.png

At first, I was going to call this thread THE RAINS CAME versus THE RAINS OF RANCHIPUR, but then I figured we could open it up to a somewhat broader discussion about classic films and classic remakes. 

 

Last night I came across a disc I had called 'Natural Disasters.' The first film is THE RAINS CAME, the second film is THE HURRICANE, and the third film is THE RAINS OF RANCHIPUR. I fell asleep fourteen minutes into the first film (which might explain how interesting it seemed to me). I woke up during the part in THE HURRICANE where C. Aubrey Smith tells the congregation to sing their last hymn as the church is about to be flooded out. After this, I was wide awake to watch THE RAINS OF RANCHIPUR, which I enjoyed a great deal. I was alert and well-rested at this time, and I gave it my full concentration.

 

This morning I went back and picked up THE RAINS CAME where I had left off and finished watching it. As I did this, I read user reviews on the IMDb and various message board comments about both the original, starring Tyrone Power, Myrna Loy and George Brent, plus the remake with Richard Burton, Lana Turner and Fred MacMurray. The Power version currently has an overall user rating of 7.0, whereas the Burton version has a 5.9. I disagree with those scores. I personally rated the Power showcase a 6, and the Burton effort a 9. In the following paragraphs, I will explain my reasons.

 

First, it is more than the casting, though the casting and quality of acting does matter quite a bit. I have never been a fan of Tyrone Power's acting, and while I don't entirely dislike his work in the earlier picture, it certainly pales by comparison with the level of excellence Richard Burton brings to the screen in any role. Probably a real Indian actor should have been cast, and in my view, this property is ripe for another remake so they can get that part right. In the 1955 offering, which is in Technicolor, we see that Burton is more like a Welshman with a tan-- almost implying the character is a half-breed, not a full-blooded Indian. If Fox was going to 'go there' with the interracial storyline more than in the first production, they couldn't make him too dark, I suppose. 

 

Continuing with the acting, I think Lana Turner is much better (though slightly miscast) as Lady Edwina. Why do I say this? Well, Myrna Loy definitely comes across as a lady, and Lana does seem by comparison to have the morals of gutter trash in this story-- but Lana oozes a lot more passion. We get the feeling she really is desperate for real and lasting love, believing Dr. Safti can give it to her. Myrna just seems too put together emotionally and a little too brittle to be affected this way. Also, when the conflicts come to the surface between Edwina and the Maharani, we can see the Indian woman's points more clearly in the remake that maybe Edwina is poison for Dr. Softi. 

 

Also, I tend to like the secondary love story performers better in the remake. Fred MacMurray does a convincing job as a self-loathing drunk, and when he reaches redemption later in the story, his tenderness towards Joan Caulfield seems a lot more realistic. Like they are equals despite the age difference. I felt like MacMurray was probably tapping into his own redeeming relationship with his younger wife June Haver when he played those scenes. In the other picture, George Brent just comes across smarmy and he still treats Brenda Joyce like a kid at the end, who can't get over her schoolgirl crush on him-- not at all signifying any type of equality or character growth.

 

As for the Maharani, I love Madame Ouspenskaya in the original despite her obvious Russian ethnicity. She seems very authoritative during the flood sequence. But Eugenie Leontovich is better I think in the remake. Leontovich is not afraid to tap into the more shrewish aspects of the character and fight Edwina no matter how ruthlessly. Ironically, I think Leontovich seems to be channeling Ouspenskaya's shrew in DODSWORTH.

 

Okay, I've addressed casting and performances. I want to talk about dialogue and special effects next. The dialogue in the original is a little too stiff. A lot of it seems interchangeable, like it doesn't matter who is speaking it, because it is all coming from a third-person screenwriting point of view. But in the remake the dialogue is much more personalized. The lines the characters utter seem more idiosyncratic and less archetypical.

 

Meanwhile, the use of Cinemascope helps aid the special effects extravaganza in the remake in ways that make the action in the first one seem cropped or chopped off. I do agree that the splitting of the earth and the bursting of the dam in the first film were done very well and deserved at least an Oscar nomination (not a win over GONE WITH THE WIND's burning of Atlanta sequence). But the collapse of the bridge is better in the remake, because even though they may be using models in some shots, we see people losing their lives and the danger is much more apparent. 

 

There are many other things I could cite as examples regarding why I feel the second film is better than the original. But I will end for now with a comment about the overall sweeping nature of the film. The remake seems more epic to me, and much more ambiguous. When Lana rides off with Michael Rennie at the end, we know that this is not a real happy ending. She will wind up like Vivien Leigh in THE ROMAN SPRING OF MRS. STONE. There will be other men behind her husband's back, young gigolos and hangers on that she will spoil to keep her company. She will always love Dr. Softi but continue to be punished for her immoral ways by being stuck in a loveless marriage with Rennie and forever denied her true Indian soul mate.

 

As they drive off, and the words 'The End' flash over the screen, you know that it truly is the end of her happiness. MacMurray and Caulfield have the happy ending here, but not any of the other main characters. And back inside the palace, the Maharani, who is a twisted psychological mess of feminine success, takes comfort in having driven the so-called lady back to the gutter. It's a drama, a tragedy of epic proportions-- a wholly unnatural disaster.

4029a.jpg

 

While I have always enjoyed THE RAINS OF RANCHIPUR, I think the original is much better done.  You make some valid points re. casting and motivation.  Here are a couple of observations:  Myrna Loy doesn't seem at first to be the wanton that Lana so well conveys, but I think that may be because we see her from her perfect wife persona she was usually post-THIN MAN; prior to that, she played many exotics and women of questionable morals.  I love they way she asks, "Who's the pale copper Apollo?".  The reason Loy was cast had to do with the director, Clarence Brown, borrowed from MGM, who brought Myrna along.  I think there was also some exchange with this, I think Ty Power having gone to that studio for MARIE ANTOINETTE.  Of course, Turner is so much more obviously sexy and beautiful, as your still demonstrates (but Loy is also, just not in a so obvious manner). 

 

Power is more physically approximate to someone for which a woman would want to throw everything away, despite Burton's intensity and better acting in this role.  Of course, in both instances, they were under contract to Fox.

 

I DO prefer the cuckhold as played by Michael Rennie in the remake; Nigel Bruce in the original has that lingering touch of buffoon about him; Rennie makes a much sadder and pathetic husband. 

 

Fred MacMurray doesn't quite have the believability as the older alcoholic; George Brent works better for me there.  An even better choice than Brent, and looking suitably dissipated by then, was 20th's own Warner Baxter.  And Brenda Joyce is the better Fern, and was much closer in age to the character, in her late teens/early 20s; Joan Cauldfield must've been in her mid-30s at this time; she was cast due to marriage.  A better option might've been one of the young hopefuls at 20th then, such as Hope Lange (although I'm not sure she was under contract there in mid-1955).  Interestingly, when the first version was starting production, the studio considered borrowing a 19 year old Lana Turner to play Fern.

 

I find the character of the Maharani quite tiresome, no matter who played her.

 

Of course, the opulence associated with a Cinemascope (Techni-?)/(Deluxe-?) color production may seem to trump good old black and white, but I think the cinematography in THE RAINS CAME is quite spectacular in its own right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Darg, when you onsider the OCEAN'S ELEVEN remake was made THIRTEEN YEARS AGO, Your rant seems odd at best.

 

PLUS it was made FORTY ONE years after he original, and I don't recall a time constraint on any entries.

 

Sepiatone

 

Wait a sec here, Sepia ol' buddy! Did you just  say "MY rant" here??? LOL

 

Dude, while I'll readily admit that I ever so often, though very rarely, go a "rant", and of course USUALLY by means of "coded humor", what I was referring to there of course was the idea that bringing the thought of a REMAKE made after Louis B. Mayer bit the dust and saying that it could possibly be "better than the original" is almost ASSUREDLY going to bring out those around THIS place and have THEM begin to "go on a rant".

 

(...and so, yeah, even though that Clooney remake of the Sinatra flick was made three years earlier than that "ten year window" in mentioned, I think you REALLY knew what I was implyin' here, now didn't ya) ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, "rant" WAS too strong a word, but with half an ear on the WINGS/SENATORS game, I couldn't come up with a more fitting word. 

 

Plus, I thought it had no relavent bearing.

 

Sepiatone

 

Well, ONLY in regard that by bringing THAT up as I did, I was HOPING that "some people" who might have read what I said would recognize this trait within them, think TWICE about going in THAT much often expressed mode around here, and that FOR ONCE this could be a thread that DOESN'T segue yet AGAIN into THAT bit of tedium.

 

(...but other than that, your point was well taken)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll have to concur with Sepiatone's assessment of The Rat Pack Ocean's 11 vs the Clooney/Pitt one.  While I love The Rat Pack, I thought that the more recent incarnation of Ocean's 11 was more interesting and fun. 

 

I also liked the Pierce Brosnan/Rene Russo version of The Thomas Crown Affair much better than the Steve McQueen/Faye Dunaway original.  While I like McQueen and Dunaway better than Brosnan and Russo, I just found the original boring.  The modern one was sexier and more interesting. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll have to concur with Sepiatone's assessment of The Rat Pack Ocean's 11 vs the Clooney/Pitt one.  While I love The Rat Pack, I thought that the more recent incarnation of Ocean's 11 was more interesting and fun. 

 

I also liked the Pierce Brosnan/Rene Russo version of The Thomas Crown Affair much better than the Steve McQueen/Faye Dunaway original.  While I like McQueen and Dunaway better than Brosnan and Russo, I just found the original boring.  The modern one was sexier and more interesting.

For some reason my liking of posts has been cut off. But I would just like to comment now that I can't like your post: TOTALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For some reason my liking of posts has been cut off. But I would just like to comment now that I can't like your post: TOTALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gladys, the auto censor doesn't like words that a third grader knows, and doesn't like people liking too many posts worthy of liking.

 

What does that tell you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll have to concur with Sepiatone's assessment of The Rat Pack Ocean's 11 vs the Clooney/Pitt one.  While I love The Rat Pack, I thought that the more recent incarnation of Ocean's 11 was more interesting and fun. 

 

I also liked the Pierce Brosnan/Rene Russo version of The Thomas Crown Affair much better than the Steve McQueen/Faye Dunaway original.  While I like McQueen and Dunaway better than Brosnan and Russo, I just found the original boring.  The modern one was sexier and more interesting. 

I think sometimes it depends on which version you see first. I also like the Brosnan-Russo edition of THOMAS CROWN, but I had watched it before seeing McQueen and Dunaway do those roles. Like you, I found the original comparatively tedious and not as sexy as the remake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gladys, the auto censor doesn't like words that a third grader knows, and doesn't like people liking too many posts worthy of liking.

 

What does that tell you?

 

Well, that tells ME that "some folks" should maybe be a little more "judicious" when they "like" so many posts that their "close friends" posts around here in any given 24 hour period!

 

(...but I WILL say that you're certainly spot-on about this whole ******* auto censor thing around here, lady!!!) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to some of the ones already mentioned--The Maltese Falcon, A Star Is Born (Garland), The Man Who Knew Too Much (Stewart)--I'll add:

 

The Age of Innocence

The Letter (Wyler/Bette Davis)

An Affair To Remember--though many prefer Love Affair, the better production values and the greater emphasis on comedy put the Cary Grant/Deborah Kerr version ahead for me

 

Good list (but I do perfer Love Affair just a tad more than AATR).    I would add the Strawberry Blonde.   The Cagney \ DeHavilland version is a lot better than the previous Cary Cooper version of One Sunday Afternoon,  as well as the later version with Dennis Morgan  (both the Cagney and Morgan versions were WB pictures produced by Raoul Walsh). 

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...