Remakes That Were Better Than the Original

[V.C. Brunswick]

Yeah, I've ranted at length about the endless stream of remakes that Hollywood keeps churning out so I won't go into that here.

It seems that whenever the suggestion is made that some classic film such as Gone With the Wind or Casablanca, for example, should be remade it's often greeted by an indignant retort from its fans that the original is perfection and nothing will ever match it and to attempt to do so borders on sacrilege. So here's my question since I'm at a loss to come up with any examples: In your opinion has there ever been a remake that was infinitely better than the original?

 

[AtomicEraTom]

I can't say that there has been. There's been some that I enjoyed, such as the True Grit remake, but it's still nowhere as good. I just didn't find it to be terrible.

 

[The Wolf]

The 1941 "Maltese Falcon" is a bit better than the 1931 version.
The Edward Norton "Painted Veil" might be better than the Garbo version.

Sincerely,
The Wolf

 

[Atomic Age]

The 1954 A Star Is Born is arguably better than the 1937 version.

I personally think that Kenneth Branagh's Henry V (1989) is better than Laurence Olivier's 1944 version.

The Magnificent Seven (1960) is at least as good as Seven Samurai (1954)

The Thing (1982) is very different and as good as The Thing From Another World (1951)

Hitchcock remade his own film with The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934) (1956) with very good results.

A Fistfull of Dollars (1964) is an excellent adaption of Yojimbo (1961)

3:10 to Yuma (2007) (1957)

Heaven Can Wait (1978) Here Comes Mr. Jordon (1941)

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) (1956)

Ocean's 11 (2001) (1960)

Cape Fear (1991) (1962)

Just a few off the top of my head.

Doug

 

[Edward]

I look forward the the day someone remakes "Breakfast at Tiffany's" and "Little Shop of Horrors" (musical) and gets the endings right.

 

[Undertow]

...
The Magnificent Seven (1960) is at least as good as Seven Samurai (1954)
A Fistfull of Dollars (1964) is an excellent adaption of Yojimbo (1961)
Cape Fear (1991) (1962)

Ahhh, no! lol
I won't argue against opinion, and I love these remakes, but I can't say they're better than their originals. Now I'm stopping myself from being one of those crazy zealots as mentioned in the OP.

 

[mummyjohn]

This is a tough one...better than the original, eh?

I haven't yet seen the original Taking of Pelham 1-2-3, so I can't officially weigh in on that one, but the new one I found fantastic, and some of Travolta's best acting since Pulp Fiction.

In as much as The Rat Pack are straight up the coolest cats...just about ever, I think that the new Ocean's is a better movie. It's got much more wit than the original, but it still plays the characters against each other to great ends, and it has the quintessentially 60's feel that defines Vegas. Plus, as funny as the original's ending was, I love to see the good guys win (the money, that is!).


The thing is, great stories can be remade very well (King Kong comes to mind, both the 1933 and 2005 are among my all-time favorites). But many of the great films are great because of more than the story, but their supreme composition, because of what they are. 2001 could never be remade, Apocalypse Now could never be remade, etc... because it is defined by, simply, what it is - there's nothing to remake.
That having been said, a thread about sequels better than the original would be a lot easier to answer (The Godfatherand Spider-Man come to mind).

 

[Undertow]

...The thing is, great stories can be remade very well... But many of the great films are great because of more than the story, but their supreme composition, because of what they are... 2001 could never be remade, Apocalypse Now could never be remade, etc... because it is defined by, simply, what it is - there's nothing to remake...

I would have to agree with this. You can attempt to emulate, or you can make something entirely different, but you cannot remake.

Many great films have nuances that cannot be repeated. Certainly, a remake can retell the story and be entertaining, but not better.

Now if the original wasn't so hot, a more nuanced and better organized version may do well. For example, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas was leaps and bounds better than Where the Buffalo Roam. Although essentially the same story, the modern "remake" was better directed, better acted, better organized, etc. and stuck to a plot (well...the plot of a book anyway, lol). However, I wouldn't call F&L a remake of WtBR.

 

[Atomic Age]

Ahhh, no! lol
I won't argue against opinion, and I love these remakes, but I can't say they're better than their originals. Now I'm stopping myself from being one of those crazy zealots as mentioned in the OP.

Well I'm not sure I would say that those 3 films are BETTER than the originals, but they are surely very good, and worthy adaptions.

Doug

 

[Undertow]

Well I'm not sure I would say that those 3 films are BETTER than the originals, but they are surely very good, and worthy adaptions.

Doug

Yes, definitely worthy. In fact, before I was introduced to the originals, I thought these were spectacular.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I like the talking version of Lon Chaney's "The Unholy Three" better than the silent version made five years earlier -- mainly because I've always been fascinated by the sound of Harry Earles' voice.

 

[frussell]

I liked the Tom Hanks version of "The Ladykillers" as much as the Alec Guinness original. And I liked "Avatar" all three times I've seen it, when it was "A Man Called Horse," or "Dances With Wolves." Comparing "Seven Samurai" to "Magnificent Seven" is too much for me, as is "Fistful of Dollars/Last Man Standing" v.s. "Yojimbo". I always had trouble buying good old Yul as a cowboy, as entertaining as he was in "Westworld." I could never figure out how he kept his cowboy hat on. Wax? Glue? Plus, Toshiro Mifune is the man. Frank

 

[John in Covina]

Lest we forget the Jeff Bridges remake of King Kong makes the Peter Jackson version seem stellar.

 

[Salty O'Rourke]

And I liked "Avatar" all three times I've seen it, when it was "A Man Called Horse," or "Dances With Wolves."

You mean you didn't see the other version, "Ferngully"?

 

[Stanley Doble]

I think High Society is a much better picture than Philadelphia Story.

There are a lot of lost opportunities. I have seen both versions of The Ladykillers and the original Alec Guinness version is much better. The Tom Hanks version is a waste of film, they cut the heart out of the story.

If they really want to do a remake why not choose a picture that had a great script but did not do that well in its first release and try to do it better? Why try to remake something that is already perfect?

Reminds me of the story of the notoriously egotistical European director who was hired by a major Hollywood studio. The head of the studio asked what he would like to do. He said, for his first effort in Hollywood, he would like to do a remake.

The studio head said " I think that is very wise of you , and very modest. Do you have a particular picture in mind?"

"Gone With The Wind" was the reply.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

One movie I would love to see them remake is Greed (Frank Norris' McTeague) either as a regular movie or as a silent which could be feasible given the critical acclaim of The Artist. Either way a film that could recapture Erich Von Stroheim's original vision the way he would have wanted it.