Movie remakes. Can anyone suggest a remake that was better than the original?

Question

Personally I thought 'Pyscho' and 'Posieden' not What say you? up to the standard of the originals?

Answer 1

John Carpenter's version of "The Thing (From Another World)" is far better - and more faithful to the original written story - than the Howard Hawks version of 40 years earlier.

The Sci-Fi channel's made-for-TV version of "Dune" was better and for the most part more faithful to the written story than the DeLaurentiis group's version.

The newer version of "The Time Machine" was flashier and had higher production values than the George Pal version - but not as faithful to the written story. So that one's a coin-flip.

Then there are those movies where a remake shouldn't have been made in the first place. For instance "Never Say Never Again" was a remake of "Thunderball" - but the Cubby Broccoli version with Sean Connery was dead-on and true to the written story. Definitely a case of "Why bother?"

There was "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" - again, why bother?

I agree that the remake of "King Kong" was better in many ways than the original. The technology was better, the sets and CGI made the monsters so much more credible. The acting was about as good. But if you take a perspective view, the 1938 KK was more of a splash because it was so unexpected. It pushed the special effects envelope of the time whereas the newer KK was less of a push. So in RELATIVE terms one can make an argument either way.

Answer 2

Amityville - original Texas Chainsaw - original Halloween - remakes Some more: Nightmare on Elm Street - original Friday the 13th - original

Answer 3

Hi there.
The Richard Attenborough "Miracle on 34th Street" is much superior to the original.
Generally, it is just a case of preferring our modern special effects - the remake of "The Thing" with Kurt Russell makes the 1950's original look pretty lame, even though it was a good movie.
I would also suggest the "The Magnificant Seven" just shades Kurosawa's "Seven Samurai", brilliant though the original undoubtedly is.
Cheers, Steve.

Answer 4

You might not know this--and it's an interesting fact--but the remake of 'Psycho' was actually geared towards analyzing the means in which even exact replication of a highly-regarded motion picture can't account for certain intangible elements that makes a film great. If you ever get a chance read this: http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/00/10/psycho.html

As for your question, my immediate answers were all practically 'revisionings.' In other words, remakes with close proximity to the originals failed because of those 'intangible elements.' Although, a lot of foreign-->American remakes are admirable like "Vanilla Sky", "Departed", etc.

(I also can't believe somebody said 'Dawn of the Dead' above me)

Anyway, the more obvious answers are films that have been aided by increased special effects, but that's really sort of a cop-out and the 'King Kong' remake was more of a revisioning.

Answer 5

I think Cathy's right about the second version of 'The Man Who Knew Too Much' - good call. The only other remake I liked better was the mini-series of 'The Shining'. I hated Stanley Kubrick's version - it really trashed Stephen King's story.

Answer 6

I though the King Kong remake with Jessica Lange was equal to or better than the original. The remake with Naomi Watts was adequate.

Answer 7

King Kong, The Razor's Edge, Casino Royale, Greystoke (on the Tarzan theme), are all I can think of right now.
I disagree with the person who said "The Producers" because I think the original is far better.

Answer 8

The remade version of The Fly was better than the original

Answer 9

Psycho no way!
But the only one I can think of is Hitchcock. The Man Who Knew Too Much. The remake he did of his own film is way better.

Answer 10

Postman Rings Twice. Jack Nicholson made that film a classic.