There have been many remakes of the years and while some recently have been pretty bad there are still several that are better or just as good as the originals.
1. The Thing
John Carpenter's version of The Thing is better in every way than the original. I understand the cold war fear aspect of the original, but that film is horribly dated. John Carpenter created and unrivaled sense of fear, and isolation.
2. Invasion of the body snatchers 1978
The original is a classic, but it is let down but a crappy ending that was thrown in because the studios didn't want a sad one. The remake is just as good if not better because of the acting, atmosphere, and the amazing ending.
3. David Cronenberg's The Fly
This is one of the saddest and best horror films ever made. Jeff Goldblum is fantastic and his character's slow, tragic degeneration is horrific to watch.
4. 12 Monkeys
The original french film is still fantastic and unique though.
5. A Fistful of dollars
6. The Magnificent Seven
7. The Maltese falcon 1941
8. The Departed
Not as good as the Asian original, but still a pretty good film.
9. Cape Fear
10. The Man who knew too much
11. Ransom
12. Dirty rotten scoundrels
13. Little shop of horrors
14. Ocean's 11
15. The Blob 1988
The sink scene is awesome.
16. Dawn of the dead 2004
Not as good as the original but still a decent film
17. The Champ
18. The Ring
Not as good as the original but still good in it's own way.
19. The Count of monte cristo
20. House of wax 1953
21. Nosferatu 1979
22. Victor/ Victoria
23. Dangerous Liasons
24. 3:10 to Yuma
25. Father of the bride
Best movie remakes?
Funny Games. Although it is the same film, shot for shot, by the same director, only with English speaking actors.
" I thought the new King Kong was decent at least. "Yeah it wasn't bad. Better than I thought it would be. Jack Black was a bit miss cast but he wasnt terrible.
" @thedj93 said:Not to mention Peter Jackson doesn't know hoe to direct good films." I thought the new King Kong was decent at least. "Yeah it wasn't bad. Better than I thought it would be. Jack Black was a bit miss cast but he wasnt terrible. "
" @FeatheredRainbows said:What is wrong with how he directs? I dont love his films, but he has made some very good films like Heavenly Creatures, Forgotten Silver, and The Frighteners. The Lord of the rings films are good to many, but I am not a fan of them personally though I appreciate them. His earlier campy horror films are fun too like Braindead, and Meet the feebles." @thedj93 said:Not to mention Peter Jackson doesn't know hoe to direct good films. "" I thought the new King Kong was decent at least. "Yeah it wasn't bad. Better than I thought it would be. Jack Black was a bit miss cast but he wasnt terrible. "
" Does Sherlock Holmes count? "How is Sherlock Holmes even a good movie?
Anyhow, The Thing is an amazing remake, gotta love John Carpenter. Other than that, I either don't especially love any movie in that list or never heard of it.
I would make a list of my own, but I rarely see the original version of a movie and a remake, so any judgement from my part would be rather unfair. Remakes are usually pretty bad, I usually get bummed when I hear a remake to a great movie is being made, like for instance when I heard they are going to remake Yellow Submarine in 3D and that there will be a remake of Soylent Green.
i dunno, some of em are more like localizations than remakes. like the departed and the magnificent seven. well ok, like the departed. infernal affairs isn't really old.
lord of the rings should definitely be there, if you think of it as a remake of those old cartoon ones. :p
and does star trek count?
I forgot about Rat Race. I quite liked that one too. It is not as good as the original but it still fun.
" @LiquidPrince said:It's a great movie. Classic Sherlock in everything except the new swashbuckling portrayal of said hero. Classic story, classic mystery and classic answer. The only thing different is how Robert Downey portrayed Homes. For the better I think." Does Sherlock Holmes count? "How is Sherlock Holmes even a good movie? Anyhow, The Thing is an amazing remake, gotta love John Carpenter. Other than that, I either don't especially love any movie in that list or never heard of it. I would make a list of my own, but I rarely see the original version of a movie and a remake, so any judgement from my part would be rather unfair. Remakes are usually pretty bad, I usually get bummed when I hear a remake to a great movie is being made, like for instance when I heard they are going to remake Yellow Submarine in 3D and that there will be a remake of Soylent Green. "
By reading your post I began to wonder if you have ever read any of the Arthur Conan Doyle literary works. Nothing in the movie has anything to do with his works. Not the story, not the characters, not anything. The movie is, if anything, the least accurate adaptation of a novel (or in this case, a series of novels) to the big screen. Sherlock Holmes is supposed to be a dark, mysterious man, not Tony Stark, not the goddamn Iron Man. If you want a faithful representation of what SIr Arthur's stories were all about you should watch the TV series from the 80's starring Jeremy Brett. That was, indeed, one of the best shows ever broadcast.
Anyway, my IMDB feed the other day mentioned Ferris Bueller's Day Off has been okayed for a remake. That could be terribly good or terribly bad... dont think that movies gonna get a middle ground. I will however wait to see the movie before I decide though, sometimes it pays to have a little faith.
Snyders remake of Dawn of the Dead was totally pimp imo, and the hoards of zombie movies shortly after should show it had a pretty significant effect on the industry. I thought the original was ok, but dated. A lot of people hated on Zach for making this, though all of them shut up once they saw it. I believe it to be better and more significant than the original.
While I didnt love Sherlock Holmes, I think it is a lot more accurate to the books than people think. Holmes may be more of an action movie, but people forget that in the books Holmes was not a nice perfect gentleman. He was a drug addict, did experiments on his dog, and did many of the things that people dont like about the new Sherlock Holmes film." @Snail: Actually I have read his books, and I found the story to be very much in the same arena as in the movie. Impossible mysteries, piled one on top of another, to a final climactic resolution where everything is answered and every piece of evidence considered. The only thing different, is that Holmes character is more swashbuckling in this version. I though that was fine. Every one just seemed a bit younger. "
The TV series from the 80's, which ran for a total of 41 episodes I believe, starring Jeremy Brett portrayed Holmes exactly like that. He was not a hero, he was an anti-hero, he did not seek to feed his ego through the approval and credit of others. He was a mysterious man, a drug addict, a genius, a compelling character indeed.
What I don't like about the new movie is not what you falsely accuse me of disliking. Not at all. That is the part that I like about the movie. In fact, I shouldn't say "like", more like "forgivable" or "the most bearable" part of the movie.
What I don't like is how they portray him as an action hero. That is the opposite of what Sherlock Holmes is and symbolizes. He is not a hero, and that is exactly how he is portrayed in the movie. As a guy that goes fist-fighting at all times, a man who likes to walk around with his bear chest showing, and whose adventures involve explosions and collapsing structures. It is the opposite of the character imagined by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, and while we're at it, quite the opposite of the character portrayed by Jeremy Brett.
" @FeatheredRainbows: I don't intend to be offensive in any way, but your post surpasses ignorance. The TV series from the 80's, which ran for a total of 41 episodes I believe, starring Jeremy Brett portrayed Holmes exactly like that. He was not a hero, he was an anti-hero, he did not seek to feed his ego through the approval and credit of others. He was a mysterious man, a drug addict, a genius, a compelling character indeed. What I don't like about the new movie is not what you falsely accuse me of disliking. Not at all. That is the part that I like about the movie. In fact, I shouldn't say "like", more like "forgivable" or "the most bearable" part of the movie. What I don't like is how they portray him as an action hero. That is the opposite of what Sherlock Holmes is and symbolizes. He is not a hero, and that is exactly how he is portrayed in the movie. As a guy that goes fist-fighting at all times, a man who likes to walk around with his bear chest showing, and whose adventures involve explosions and collapsing structures. It is the opposite of the character imagined by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, and while we're at it, quite the opposite of the character portrayed by Jeremy Brett. "Wow get your head out of your ass, while in the books Holmes wasn't quite the action hero, Doyle wrote that he was a prestigious Boxer and occasionally went down to fight rings in the city. Also the reason he didn't pose at a drug addict (I don't think you brought this up) was Downey's past history for drugs he probably didn't want to be near the stuff which more power to him I say we have had quite enough opium and heroin addicted Holmes. Quite honestly Sherlock Holmes movies and serials were getting old and they needed to mix up the formula. While the movie may have been action heavy they did a good job of setting up the characters and bringing in their original quirks and motivations. In fact the movie takes place when Dr. Watson decides to move out of 211 Baker Street a pinnacle moment in the books. Also Downey did a good job as Holmes and Jude Law was surprisingly likable as Dr. Watson. Was the movie perfect, no but it was probably my 3rd favorite one the Basil Rathbone movies being my favorite and The Great Mouse Detective following up (Really underatted Disney Movie you need to see it.)
So don't be such an elitist you sound way to bitchy over a movie portrayal that was fine.
Also The Thing was awesome.
Again, Robert Downey Jr. makes Sherlock Holmes and Tony Stark seem like the same character. That is my issue with the movie and the way characters are portrayed. It seems as if Downey Jr. had to make no effort whatsoever to differentiate these two characters, because they are ridiculously identical (psychologically that is). You did not counter this argument at all. Agreed, a mix to the formula isn't such a bad idea, but this is a bad mix. It is a cheap change to the formula to please the masses, the younger audiences who are fascinated with Summer blockbusters, such as Iron Man. This is a cheap mix to be done to such an iconic franchise. Nearly blasphemy if you ask me.
Yes, I've seen that Disney movie, and I don't see how it can be underrated. It's a standard animation movie, care to explain what makes it different from so many other films to you? I'm intrigued, really. I don't remember anything about the movie being particularly enthralling.
On a side note, aren't we kind of highjacking the thread here?
" @Gabriel: What? You're telling me that Robert Downey Jr. didn't want to do a character that consumes drugs because he has a history with drugs? I had heard of his history and his downfall as an actor due to those issues, but that is just highly unprofessional. No, I would not want to be in his shoes, and I understand how it could affect his stability regarding drugs, but when an actor's personal affair affects his role it is considered unprofessional. Again, Robert Downey Jr. makes Sherlock Holmes and Tony Stark seem like the same character. That is my issue with the movie and the way characters are portrayed. It seems as if Downey Jr. had to make no effort whatsoever to differentiate these two characters, because they are ridiculously identical (psychologically that is). You did not counter this argument at all. Agreed, a mix to the formula isn't such a bad idea, but this is a bad mix. It is a cheap change to the formula to please the masses, the younger audiences who are fascinated with Summer blockbusters, such as Iron Man. This is a cheap mix to be done to such an iconic franchise. Nearly blasphemy if you ask me. Yes, I've seen that Disney movie, and I don't see how it can be underrated. It's a standard animation movie, care to explain what makes it different from so many other films to you? I'm intrigued, really. I don't remember anything about the movie being particularly enthralling. On a side note, aren't we kind of highjacking the thread here? "Mainly it brought Sherlock Holmes and his mythos to kids in a way that they could understand while at the same time being entertaing for adults, I just really liked it a lot. As for Downey and the drugs he did want to be Sherlock Holmes he probably just didn't want to have drugs come into the picture, and it's not unprofessional he's just removing himself for the situation and drugs do not define the Sherlock Holmes character to an extent that his character suffers. Downey's performance was over the top because the character when you think of it is like Batman, sure it's whithen the realm of possibility someone like that may exist but very very highly unlikely. And yes we are hijacking this thread but as long as it's kept civil I see no problem with it.
I think this discussion is pretty much done, each of us has a different view on the movie, and that's that.
@HandsomeDead said:
" Not to mention Peter Jackson doesn't know hoe to direct good films. "Uhhh, say what? What about Braindead, The Frighteners and Heavenly... oh, wait. This has been covered. Thanks, FeatheredRainbows.
I agree with your top four,
though I prefer the original Dawn of the Dead, even though I hate the green skin on all the ghouls/zombies. I just turn down the colour saturation on my lcd and it looks a lot better, I usually turn down the levels in my greens and yellows, then I turn the reds up a bit (for darker blood/skin tones), then finally I turn down the overall saturation.
It might seem a tad obsessive compulsive, but I'd recommend giving it a shot.
Here are a few more notables:
- His Girl Friday (1940) ~ remake of The Front Page (1931)
- Freaky Friday (2003) ~ remake of Freaky Friday (1976) which is itself a remake of Turnabout (1940)
- Little Miss Marker (1980) ~ remake of Little Miss Marker (1934)
- I am Legend (2007) ~ remake of The Omega Man (1971) which was a remake of The Last Man on Earth (1964)
- The Parent Trap (1998) ~ remake of The Parent Trap (1961)
- The Italian Job (2003) ~ remake of The Italian Job (1969)
- The Birdcage (1996) ~ remake of La Cage aux Folles (1978)
- You've Got Mail (1998) ~ remake of The Shop Around the Corner (1940)
- The Mummy (1999) ~ remake of The Mummy (1932)
- The Quiet American (2002) ~ remake of The Quiet American (1958)
16. Dawn of the dead 2004As a massive fan of the original I might just consider this the best re-make ever.
Not as good as the original but still a decent film
" Funny Games. Although it is the same film, shot for shot, by the same director, only with English speaking actors. "The same terrible, didactic, condescending film.
Admittedly, though, Michael Haenecke's other two movies I've seen, Cache and The White Ribbon, are brilliant.
" @FeatheredRainbows: I don't intend to be offensive in any way, but your post surpasses ignorance. The TV series from the 80's, which ran for a total of 41 episodes I believe, starring Jeremy Brett portrayed Holmes exactly like that. He was not a hero, he was an anti-hero, he did not seek to feed his ego through the approval and credit of others. He was a mysterious man, a drug addict, a genius, a compelling character indeed. What I don't like about the new movie is not what you falsely accuse me of disliking. Not at all. That is the part that I like about the movie. In fact, I shouldn't say "like", more like "forgivable" or "the most bearable" part of the movie. What I don't like is how they portray him as an action hero. That is the opposite of what Sherlock Holmes is and symbolizes. He is not a hero, and that is exactly how he is portrayed in the movie. As a guy that goes fist-fighting at all times, a man who likes to walk around with his bear chest showing, and whose adventures involve explosions and collapsing structures. It is the opposite of the character imagined by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, and while we're at it, quite the opposite of the character portrayed by Jeremy Brett. "When did I accuse you of disliking it? I never saw the TV series from the 80's so I wouldn't know how Holmes was portrayed there. I wasn't a bit fan of the new Sherlock Holmes movie, but like you I kinda liked how he was portrayed as an anti hero.
" @MonetaryDread said:You should see his film The Time of the wolf." Funny Games. Although it is the same film, shot for shot, by the same director, only with English speaking actors. "The same terrible, didactic, condescending film. Admittedly, though, Michael Haenecke's other two movies I've seen, Cache and The White Ribbon, are brilliant. "
You said:
I assumed that you included my in the "people" you were referring to. That's why I assumed you were saying I didn't like these things about the movie."... it is a lot more accurate to the books than people think (...) people forget that in the books Holmes was not a nice perfect gentleman. He was a drug addict, did experiments on his dog, and did many of the things that people dont like about the new Sherlock Holmes film.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment