Sort of like the 'Cover Songs' thread. Basically just say which version of a movie you prefer: the original or the remake. 

I'll start with





IMO, the original is *far* superior to the remake.

The original gives you a real sense of Willard as a beat down loser in life. He's totally pathetic at the start of the film and gradually becomes crazy. Nonetheless you connect with him. You see how his overbearing old mother and a-hole boss have kept him stifled and you feel for him, despite his pitifulness. You can understand just how Davidson's Willard would be driven to madness. Glover's Willard just seemed weird. Unlike Davidson's Willard, you don't really connect with or feel for him because he's starts off so eccentric. Consequently, when Glover's Willard starts acting more loony it's just par for the course and it isn't as compelling to watch him become more empowered via the rats as it is with Davidson. 

The original has a painfully slow ascend, but the climax is worth it. The remake has a more lively tone throughout the movie, but the climax was weak. Very weak. The death scene of Willard's boss in the original was just bananas. The death scene of Willard's boss in the remake was dry - plus because he was such an OTT a-hole you knew within the first ten minutes that his killing was coming.

The ending of the original Willard was shocking and left you feeling unnerved. The ending of the remake was lame and a bit of a copout. The original has a sort of "you reap what you sow" final message. The remake has no real message.

The remake furthermore relies too much of the mere creepy visual of the rats and overuse of CGI to compensate for water down horror action.

The original film, although a bit slow moving and old fashion by today's standards, is much more rewarding. The remake was shallow.

This?


or this?





I have to say original because the one with Carol Kane actually IS scary. Its first 15 minutes have actually gone down as being the scariest first 15 minutes in any movie, you're not going to get a scary 15 minutes altogether from the crap of the second movie.

Original When a Stranger Calls is scary because it works, it's believable, AND it gives us a girl that we actually CARE if she lives or gets brutally murdered.

Here is a story that could happen, regular teenaged girl gets a job at a regular house in town, some nut gets in upstairs, kills the kids, calls the babysitter on the extension. That is FAR more believeable than 'you need to learn responsibility so you're going to get to watch TV and raid the fridge all night at the house at the far end of town that's miles from civilization while there's a babysitter killer running around'.

And for the original, the terror is not just in that the kids are killed and she might've been next....no no no, a few years later, SHE'S married and has two kids, and the guy breaks out, and he's harrassing her again, and he's in her home, where he could kill HER kids, and her husband AND her.

By comparison, the remake spoils the plot within the trailer because there is no '7 years later' stuff, it never goes past this night where the kids survive, she survives, everybody survives except for her stupid bimbo friend and the deaf housekeeper, and she goes waka-waka in the hospital at the end, not satisfactory at all. And us waiting around an hour before she finds out the killer's in the house isn't satisfactory either, oh yeah this is soooooo scary and suspenseful, her walking around, checking lights and eating a popsicle, woo woo.

I think it all depends. Some of the movies that we think are great originals are actually remake themselves. the Magnificent 7, The Man Who Knew Too Much, A Fistful of Dollars. Remakes. Some work. Some don't.

I almost always favor the original rather than remake. I think originals shouldn't have remades done of them, it takes something away from it somehow.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/galleries/hollywoods_best__and_worst__remakes/hollywoods_best__and_worst__remakes.html

I think it depends for me - there are times I prefer the remake and times I prefer the original. I dont' watch horror movies, so I've been spared by those remakes, which often seem to fail to captur ethe original film, but other remakes are in improvement because technology has changed in a way to allow other things to happen. I think two of the few cases where I"ve loved both versions have been "Parent Trap" and "Annie" - oh - and "Freaky Friday". I love both the original and the remake.

Much as I can appreciate the concept of a soulful rendition of The Wizard of Oz, I don't think I have ever been able to make it all the way through to the end of The Wiz. The movie is cluttered, convoluted and just plain gaudy.

I enjoyed the Wolfman re-make but agree the Lon Chaney version was definetly much scarier and a classic! I like the version of Romeo and Juliet with Leonard Whiting and Oliva Hussey, it was the first one I ever saw and it stuck with me.

Keep hearing rumors of a Wizard of Oz remake, some movies they really should not touch and that is one of them.

House on Haunted Hill, 1959




Or House on Haunted hill, 1999?




Definitely the first is better, although seeing the travesty of a sequel to the remake and seeing what kind of crap it is has given me a whole new respect for the '99 version.

No comparison the original one is definetly the best, the 1999 one practically had no relationship to the original one.

The Karate Kid remake wasn't as bad as everybody wanted it to be.

Dark Oblivion wrote:The Karate Kid remake wasn't as bad as everybody wanted it to be.

You mean "The Kung Fu Kid"

It was OK, but the original The Karate Kid was a much more entertaining movie. They shoulda waited til Jaeden Smith was a teen so they could have kept the love interest stuff of the original movie.

Not to mention they were both two beautiful people and Leonard Whiting showed his butt!

Chris wrote:

Much as I can appreciate the concept of a soulful rendition of The Wizard of Oz, I don't think I have ever been able to make it all the way through to the end of The Wiz. The movie is cluttered, convoluted and just plain gaudy.

But the music in The Wiz was much much better!

The "Duke" versus "the Dude"


40 years later the Coen Bros will release (next Wednesday) their own version of "True Grit". It has already received very favorable reviews. Mr. Bridges has also receive several Best Actor nominations, including one from the Screen Actors Guild. And the Coen Brothers have established themselves as impressive directors, with several Oscar wins. They also wrote the screenplay, from the Portis novel. Since the story is positioned around a young girl that part is vital, too. Haillee Steinfeld as Mattie has already been recognized in the award arena, too


IMO, the original was likable enough, even if it was not near as good as the book, and more or less a bit too contrived and stiff. This was far from Mr. Wayne's best performance, although he won an Oscar. Would your opinion of the original change if John Ford or Sam Peckinpah had directed the original?



My question is this: Can we be non-partial while viewing a classic remake, from a classic icon. In other words, can we separate one from the other.


Jack

JWF wrote:
My question is this: Can we be non-partial while viewing a classic remake, from a classic icon. In other words, can we separate one from the other.

Well, I never saw the original When a Stranger Calls before seeing the remake 4 years back, and I knew from watching it and it alone that it sucked.


Mr. Deeds...remake of Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, it took me years to track down the original and see it in full after seeing the Adam Sandler redoing, I wasn't impressed with the remake when I saw it and it was my first exposure to Mr. Deeds, but I loved the original when I finally saw it.

I think we can be impartial or non-partial, it just doesn't happen often.

I saw bits and pieces of the original Imitation of Life from 1934. From what I saw, the 1959 version was better. Much more modern anyway.

The 1998 remake of Psycho with Ann Heche is on tonight, may watch to see if it's as good as the original.

It isn't, believe me.

I never saw the Psycho remake, but honestly, it doesn't look like it is all that great.

Nope the original is the best!!!!

Indeeeeeed.