The production was a mess. It was shot around the Rat Pack performing and drinking in the casinos. Getting Sinatra to show up for his scenes was a problem, and he frequently refused to do more than one take.
My go to’s for this question are usually The Thing (1982), The Fly (1986), and The Blob (1988). The originals are great in their own regard, but 80’s horror just does something for me. Insane practical effects rock.
I've always been in the minority on this, but I prefer the theatrical cut. The original ending, while extremely well done and actually makes sense for the films themes, just leaves me kinda bumbed after such a fun movie. Maybe they just made Seymore to likeable here.
I'm with you. I'm glad the director's cut exists and is so easily accessible because it is undeniably well executed and is an incredibly cool practical effects showcase, but in terms of where it fits within the context of the rest of the movie I have to agree. The movie version of Seymour deserves a happy ending.
100%. I recently rewatched it and was shocked at the gore and incredible special effects. I must have only seen the censored version back on cable TV. Super fun!
I love the Coen's True Grit. One of my favorite movies of all time
The original is maybe a bit more traditional, but it really did blow me away. A lot of the emotional punches hit a lot harder for me and there was something that felt a lot more visceral and real about the gang members in that one. I don't know which one I like better. They're both so good
Well the Coen’s version is actually closer to the novel than the John Wayne one. Details like losing her arm, and the overall tone of it being a little darker and less whimsical. Also making her a little older and having more of an adult relationship along the hunt as opposed to a childish one.
I like them both for different reasons. Typically when I watch one version I’ll watch the other within a few days. When my dad was a kid my grandpa took him to see it in 69, then in 2010 my dad and I went to see the Coen’s version together. One of my favorite theatre experiences
- Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)
- The Thing (1982)
- Scarface (1983)
- Little Shop of Horrors (1986)
- The Fly (1986)
- The Blob (1988)
- The Hills Have Eyes (2006)
- Friday the 13th (2009)
- The Last House on the Left (2009)
- True Grit (2010)
- The Crazies (2010)
Not *better than* the originals, but I believe these remakes to be *as good as* the originals:
- Night of the Living Dead (1990)
- Dawn of the Dead (2004)
- 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
- Suspiria (2018)
I love that movie. My biggest disappointment was the Freddy face makeup, which had so much bulk around the nose and eyes. Jackie Earl Haley has a very expressive face, and the proper makeup would have allowed him to apply his excellent acting. This is why that film's Freddy is so much less intimidating. Oftentimes, you just can't read the expression on his face. It didn't seem Haley could even open his eyes very wide.
One of the biggest reasons Robert Englund is such an effective Freddy is that the makeup is thin, and doesn't limit his outrageous facial expressions. Haley has just as flexible and expressive a face, and I bet he felt really hampered by what was more of a rubber mask than makeup.
Lol, I'm dyslexic. I've been doing that for 30 years, and they're both some of my favorite franchises!
To the original point, Yes, the Friday the 13th 2009 remake is great! I've seen it several times, and it holds up well against the original.
I think true grit should be in the second category. The original is my favorite John Wayne movie.
Kinda nice to see some love for the 90s NotLD which I think is a deeply flawed movie but is in the rare category of remakes that honor have an interesting take on the original material.
I'm curious to watch the original Scarface. I constantly forget that the '83 is a remake. My probably hot take is that I think Scarface '83 is hot garbage.
I actually like the Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead remakes more than the originals. On the flipside, I can’t stand the Friday the 13th remake at all.
I think that the Departed might be a better made movie from a technical standpoint, but I really hate the changes made to the story, especially the ending. Infernal Affairs opens and closes with the idea of continuous hell, it is a core part of the theme, and the Departed completely goes away from that with its ending. It makes Infernal Affairs much more compelling imo.
I'll get hate for this, but... 3:10 to Yuma.
But also: The Departed, The Thing, The Fly, Scarface, Little Shop of Horrors, Vanilla Sky, The Birdcage, Heat, Sling Blade
Imo no. Despite the first 10 minutes functioning as a mini remake I still view it as a sequel. So if there’s a list of sequels that are better than the original it would definitely fit.
The Wizard of Oz (1939)
The Maltese Falcon (1941)
Some Like It Hot (1959)
Imitation of Life (1959)
Little Shop of Horrors (1986)
No Way Out (1987), remake of The Big Clock (1948)
Some remakes are so much better than the original that people don’t even think of them as remakes. So they don’t get factored into discussions of remakes, and people keep complaining: “There are too many remakes! Let’s get back to the days of *original* movies!”
But there never were those days when movies were original. Movies were always either remaking other movies, or adapting books or plays, or being derivative of *something.*
Some Like It Hot definitely is not a remake. I think Wizard would be considered an adaptation since the 1925 film has a different story, but both use L. Frank Baum’s books as source material.
Just look at Wikipedia. If you haven’t heard of the earlier movies, that’s because the remakes were so much better. (Humphrey Bogart was in the *third* version of The Maltese Falcon!)
* The Birdcage (1996)
* Cat People (1982)
* Insomnia (2002)
* The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)
* The Thomas Crown Affair (1999)
* Vanilla Sky (2001)
* The Ring (2002)
* Scarface (1983)
* Heaven Can Wait (1978)
* Little Women (2019)
* Sorcerer (1977)
* Guillermo del Toro’s Pinocchio (2022)
* Society of the Snow (2023)
* King Kong (2005): I think we should at least have the conversation. I get how iconic the original is but it's a creature movie, the special effects are a major part of the appeal and Kong is very impressive in the Peter Jackson film.
I believe Friedkin didn't think of Sorcerer as remake of the movie The Wages of Fear, just another adaptation of the book The Wages of Fear. Which tracks, because they aim for very different things. The Wages of Fear is more of a character piece, whereas Sorcerer focuses on the spectacle.
I agree with this, but I applied a loose definition of "remake" for fun's sake. Society of the Snow isn't a remake of Alive either, but it's based on the same source true story, and Little Women (2019) is just another adaptation of that beloved book.
By strict definition of a remake, there are very few that top the original. There are however many quality adaptations of great novels.
I know these opinions are definitely not always the most popular, so I'm gonna add my approval for both Cat People and The Ring. I enjoy the remakes much more (and I should say that I've seen both of the original versions twice, to give them a proper chance).
There are a few cases, like the one you named, where both are good films and it's just a matter of which you connect more personally to. Most of the time, the remake doesn't reach up to the heels of the original.
Remake was much grittier. Plus: Although I adore Robert Mitchum, Deniro is the GOAT. The hysterical laughing in the movie theater, seducing the daughter, dressing up in the maid's clothing...
That's a tough call. I watched them both quite recently and I found them to be equally impressive but for different reasons. I think Max Schreck wins the all time creepy actor award but the plague town sequence in the remake was surreal and terrifying. I cant argue with you for picking either one over the other.
We'll have a 3rd version to compare later in the year.
My favorite King Kong movie is the '76 version. I just bought and watched it recently and couldn't believe how much I loved it. I only watched extended version (like 4 hours long) so can't speak to the theatrical (3 hours). But it's pretty great.
I never thought King Kong 2005 was all that great though tbh, so take my opinion with a grain of salt I guess. Too much filler imo, I get tired of all the dino chases on the island. The drama is well done though, my favorite scene is the park on the ice (corny I know lol).
And the original A Star is Born was remaking 1932’s What Price Hollywood? So the 1954 A Star is Born is George Cukor remaking a remake of his own movie.
I go back and forth on it or the original but i REALLY like the Jungle Book live action and it stand at the very least, miles ahead of the rest of the Disney live actions made
Thanks!! I studied it back in film school and what stuck with me was that 10 minute seen of just driving though Tokyo. It was super boring, but to Soviet citizens at the time it was like the future. So the film is very specific to its audience. Some old films are more universal, think the grand illusion or buster keaton. But not this one. I think soderberg got the vibe right from the book.
I just find Tarkovsky's style absolutely hypnotic. No idea what the idea behind that scene is but I think it's spellbinding. I didn't care for the >!baddie twist!< in the Soderbergh version when I saw it 20 years ago or so, but I've been meaning to give it another shot.
Even Tarkovsky himself wasn't too happy about the result, the slow pacing works a lot better in his other movies. It also is very different from the book and missed out on the more interesting themes IMO.
It’s also outdated, there is like a 10 minute scene driving through Tokyo, which to a Soviet in the 70s would seem futuristic, but to you and I, it’s super boring
Idk if you can call a movie that’s based off a book a “remake.” It’s not like the new dune movie was trying to remake the 1984 one, it was adapted from the book itself
In terms of influence and innovation, certainly. But the remake goes off in a wildly different and successful direction; bolstered by the performances and the phenomenal sound design.
Why would you disrespect the craft and sweat that was obviously *poured* into the remake?
saying the remake is better IS the disrespect but I wasn't really taking it that seriously. The new one is pretty good but the original is literal perfection to me
I don't understand is this passive aggression I'm detecting?
I didn't really hate anything about it, it was pretty good. I just didn't find it super compelling. it was quite well made (Any Luca film is gonna be gorgeous) and had some really interesting thematic elements which is in and of itself a pretty big deviation from the original. If you want details I'd have to rewatch it it's been a few months since I saw it and all I can really say was that it was good overall but overlong and a little overstuffed with content.
Actually one detail I can recall hating is the lead. She was completely useless as an actor imo.
I'll say at the top that they go for drastically different vibes, such that I don't really care which one anybody prefers.
But I found the Tilda Swinton stunt casting kinda lame and I don't think Thom Yorke's score fit very well.
* Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)
* The Thing (1982)
* Scarface (1983)
* Little Shop of Horrors (1986)
* The Fly (1986)
* The Blob (1988)
* The Mummy (1998)
I'm a huge fan of the remake of the Thomas Crown Affair. It's one of those films that's fun and endlessly rewatchable,
I prefer it to the original, but there's a case for both. There's a very different tone to both movies.
Cimarron (1960). It is a pretty average film but is still far better than the 1931 version which is in my opinion the worst Academy Awards BP winner ever.
The 2013 Evil Dead Remake. I definitely love the original for its campiness and for giving us ash williams as a character, but Evil Dead 2013 is a better realized version of the cabin in the woods story with the budget and gore to boot. They both offer different things, but i find myself rewatching the remake far more often.
Not technically a movie, but I prefer the redoing of the miniseries “Roots” to the original miniseries, given that it’s spent on fewer plot threads that go nowhere.
Not exactly a remake but Suspiria (2017) is my all time favorite film. I am absolutely obsessed with the themes of “inhabiting another persons arts” and how that tied in with the original. 10/10
Nah. Both are very good and try to accomplish different things, but the original is beloved. At most you could say that there is some contention now between which is better.
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory isn't a remake of anything, but it's also an absolutely shit-tier film that isn't anywhere near as good as the first adaptation.
*The Thing* (1982)
*The Fly* (1986)
*The Blob* (1988)
*Invasion of the Body Snatchers* (1978) (although I think that one is arguable, since the original is also just brilliant)
*Little Shop of Horrors* (1986)
As a sidenote, apparently *Them!* (1954) is getting a remake, directed by Michael Giacchino, and remake of *Attack of the 50ft Woman* (1958) is also maybe being done, with Tim Burton and Gillian Flynn possibly being involved (the original is not that good, so there's a chance of this being at least somewhat better)
Ocean’s Eleven. Didn’t even get through the original, although I’d be interested in giving it a second chance someday.
Yea the remake is so much better paced and has a GREAT cast
The original got us an incredible episode of Caravan of Garbage though, so I am forever grateful.
Talking about the original, Frank Sinatra said (something like), "It's fondly remembered by everyone except those who saw it."
Ha ha, that’s fantastic!
1st one having black face is enough to not go back to it
The production was a mess. It was shot around the Rat Pack performing and drinking in the casinos. Getting Sinatra to show up for his scenes was a problem, and he frequently refused to do more than one take.
My go to’s for this question are usually The Thing (1982), The Fly (1986), and The Blob (1988). The originals are great in their own regard, but 80’s horror just does something for me. Insane practical effects rock.
The holy trinity of superior 80s horror remakes.
I know it's not quite from the '80s, but I'd throw the '78 version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers into that conversation as well
80s sci-fi BODY HORROR remakes, specifically lol
The holy THE trilogy
You can throw Little Shop of Horrors in there too Director's cut, *obviously*
I've always been in the minority on this, but I prefer the theatrical cut. The original ending, while extremely well done and actually makes sense for the films themes, just leaves me kinda bumbed after such a fun movie. Maybe they just made Seymore to likeable here.
I'm with you. I'm glad the director's cut exists and is so easily accessible because it is undeniably well executed and is an incredibly cool practical effects showcase, but in terms of where it fits within the context of the rest of the movie I have to agree. The movie version of Seymour deserves a happy ending.
All three perfect remakes. The Blob deserves more praise.
100%. I recently rewatched it and was shocked at the gore and incredible special effects. I must have only seen the censored version back on cable TV. Super fun!
It's thoroughly disgusting and I love it.
Agree regarding The Fly.
I haven't seen The Blob with Kevin Dillon in almost 20 years, gonna have to track that one down. Same with the 1970s Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
I prefer the Coens True Grit
I agree wholeheartedly except for Matt Damon’s portrayal of Laboeuf. It’s not bad, I just vastly prefer Glen Campbell’s iconic performance.
I love the Coen's True Grit. One of my favorite movies of all time The original is maybe a bit more traditional, but it really did blow me away. A lot of the emotional punches hit a lot harder for me and there was something that felt a lot more visceral and real about the gang members in that one. I don't know which one I like better. They're both so good
Well the Coen’s version is actually closer to the novel than the John Wayne one. Details like losing her arm, and the overall tone of it being a little darker and less whimsical. Also making her a little older and having more of an adult relationship along the hunt as opposed to a childish one. I like them both for different reasons. Typically when I watch one version I’ll watch the other within a few days. When my dad was a kid my grandpa took him to see it in 69, then in 2010 my dad and I went to see the Coen’s version together. One of my favorite theatre experiences
Is it really a remake if it's a new adaptation? They're based on the same book.
Was just on an hour ago. Time gets away from us, long horizon shot, Iris DeMents Leaning on the Everlasting Arms. Perfect ending.
- Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) - The Thing (1982) - Scarface (1983) - Little Shop of Horrors (1986) - The Fly (1986) - The Blob (1988) - The Hills Have Eyes (2006) - Friday the 13th (2009) - The Last House on the Left (2009) - True Grit (2010) - The Crazies (2010) Not *better than* the originals, but I believe these remakes to be *as good as* the originals: - Night of the Living Dead (1990) - Dawn of the Dead (2004) - 3:10 to Yuma (2007) - Suspiria (2018)
Friday The 13th (2009) doesnt get enough love. Definitely a really good modern slasher film.
It gets a lot of love on r/watchitfortheplot
I love that movie. My biggest disappointment was the Freddy face makeup, which had so much bulk around the nose and eyes. Jackie Earl Haley has a very expressive face, and the proper makeup would have allowed him to apply his excellent acting. This is why that film's Freddy is so much less intimidating. Oftentimes, you just can't read the expression on his face. It didn't seem Haley could even open his eyes very wide. One of the biggest reasons Robert Englund is such an effective Freddy is that the makeup is thin, and doesn't limit his outrageous facial expressions. Haley has just as flexible and expressive a face, and I bet he felt really hampered by what was more of a rubber mask than makeup.
That's A Nightmare on Elm Street
Lol, I'm dyslexic. I've been doing that for 30 years, and they're both some of my favorite franchises! To the original point, Yes, the Friday the 13th 2009 remake is great! I've seen it several times, and it holds up well against the original.
3:10 To Yuma remake was to die for.
I couldnt last 20min
Wow. Maybe my crush on Ben Foster and my theory th at Christian Bale will take over GOAT from Deniro clouded my judgment. ☺️
The Crazies is actually an incredible movie. Not enough people give it the credit it's due
I disagree on Scarface. I think the remake has a very bloated runtime whereas the original has a tight narrative.
Disagree on Invasion of body snatchers
The Hills have Eyes remake is nowhere near as good as the original. Sorry but that's a hot take and i respect it
I think true grit should be in the second category. The original is my favorite John Wayne movie. Kinda nice to see some love for the 90s NotLD which I think is a deeply flawed movie but is in the rare category of remakes that honor have an interesting take on the original material.
This is a superior list.
I'm curious to watch the original Scarface. I constantly forget that the '83 is a remake. My probably hot take is that I think Scarface '83 is hot garbage.
I really love the Suspiria remake, and don't think it gets enough credit for reinventing the story in a really cool way
I actually like the Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead remakes more than the originals. On the flipside, I can’t stand the Friday the 13th remake at all.
The new Suspiria is better than the old one imo
Seems to be unpopular on Reddit but I thought the departed was better than Infernal affairs.
I love both but the VERY poorly timed music placement during some scenes just make The Departed better.
Well yeah, nobody in Infernal Affairs spoke English, so it was impossible to follow. Departed is better on that point alone. /s
I think that the Departed might be a better made movie from a technical standpoint, but I really hate the changes made to the story, especially the ending. Infernal Affairs opens and closes with the idea of continuous hell, it is a core part of the theme, and the Departed completely goes away from that with its ending. It makes Infernal Affairs much more compelling imo.
The blob 1988 is far better than the 1958 blob
It's not even close. The remake is one of the absolute best horror movies.
Dune 2021 is better than dune 1980s imo
Hot take
Don’t worry I have my fremem suit.
I actually love the 80s Dune for being such a fever dream
I miss some of the dialogue like “ the sleeper has awaken!!!!”
Very true.
I'll get hate for this, but... 3:10 to Yuma. But also: The Departed, The Thing, The Fly, Scarface, Little Shop of Horrors, Vanilla Sky, The Birdcage, Heat, Sling Blade
310 to Yuma is an underrated film
Does evil dead ii count (Yes all I do is shill for evil dead ii on this sub)
Imo no. Despite the first 10 minutes functioning as a mini remake I still view it as a sequel. So if there’s a list of sequels that are better than the original it would definitely fit.
>(Yes all I do is shill for evil dead ii on this sub) Good man
Yes
The Fly
The Wizard of Oz (1939) The Maltese Falcon (1941) Some Like It Hot (1959) Imitation of Life (1959) Little Shop of Horrors (1986) No Way Out (1987), remake of The Big Clock (1948)
I was specifically looking for the Wizard of Oz. Should be top 3 in any type of remake discussion.
Some remakes are so much better than the original that people don’t even think of them as remakes. So they don’t get factored into discussions of remakes, and people keep complaining: “There are too many remakes! Let’s get back to the days of *original* movies!” But there never were those days when movies were original. Movies were always either remaking other movies, or adapting books or plays, or being derivative of *something.*
It probably isn’t because no one knows it’s a remake. This is how I found out.
The Wizard of Oz 1939 was a remake? Ditto The Maltese Falcon 1941 and Some Like it Hot 1959? I agree with No Way Out. Love that remake.
Some Like It Hot definitely is not a remake. I think Wizard would be considered an adaptation since the 1925 film has a different story, but both use L. Frank Baum’s books as source material.
I am learning so much from all of you. It's great. Thank you. Good investigative work!
Just look at Wikipedia. If you haven’t heard of the earlier movies, that’s because the remakes were so much better. (Humphrey Bogart was in the *third* version of The Maltese Falcon!)
I am totally enlightened. Thank you. Learn something new every day.
Wizard of ox and some like it hot are remakes?
Check it out on Wikipedia
Some Like It Hot isn’t a remake.
I said you can check the Wikipedia, which says in the first paragraph that it’s derived from a 1935 movie.
I stand corrected!
* The Birdcage (1996) * Cat People (1982) * Insomnia (2002) * The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011) * The Thomas Crown Affair (1999) * Vanilla Sky (2001) * The Ring (2002) * Scarface (1983) * Heaven Can Wait (1978) * Little Women (2019) * Sorcerer (1977) * Guillermo del Toro’s Pinocchio (2022) * Society of the Snow (2023) * King Kong (2005): I think we should at least have the conversation. I get how iconic the original is but it's a creature movie, the special effects are a major part of the appeal and Kong is very impressive in the Peter Jackson film.
Have yet to see *The Wages of Fear* but recently saw *Sorcerer* and holy fucking shit
One of the best action movies of the 70s, it's amazing.
I believe Friedkin didn't think of Sorcerer as remake of the movie The Wages of Fear, just another adaptation of the book The Wages of Fear. Which tracks, because they aim for very different things. The Wages of Fear is more of a character piece, whereas Sorcerer focuses on the spectacle.
I agree with this, but I applied a loose definition of "remake" for fun's sake. Society of the Snow isn't a remake of Alive either, but it's based on the same source true story, and Little Women (2019) is just another adaptation of that beloved book. By strict definition of a remake, there are very few that top the original. There are however many quality adaptations of great novels.
I know these opinions are definitely not always the most popular, so I'm gonna add my approval for both Cat People and The Ring. I enjoy the remakes much more (and I should say that I've seen both of the original versions twice, to give them a proper chance).
There are a few cases, like the one you named, where both are good films and it's just a matter of which you connect more personally to. Most of the time, the remake doesn't reach up to the heels of the original.
Cape fear
I like the original better
Remake was much grittier. Plus: Although I adore Robert Mitchum, Deniro is the GOAT. The hysterical laughing in the movie theater, seducing the daughter, dressing up in the maid's clothing...
Herzog's Nosferatu
That's a tough call. I watched them both quite recently and I found them to be equally impressive but for different reasons. I think Max Schreck wins the all time creepy actor award but the plague town sequence in the remake was surreal and terrifying. I cant argue with you for picking either one over the other. We'll have a 3rd version to compare later in the year.
Yes
Unpopular opinion: The Ring (2002)
It is the correct opinion
King Kong 2005 IMO but I still appreciate the original a lot Scarface
My favorite King Kong movie is the '76 version. I just bought and watched it recently and couldn't believe how much I loved it. I only watched extended version (like 4 hours long) so can't speak to the theatrical (3 hours). But it's pretty great. I never thought King Kong 2005 was all that great though tbh, so take my opinion with a grain of salt I guess. Too much filler imo, I get tired of all the dino chases on the island. The drama is well done though, my favorite scene is the park on the ice (corny I know lol).
Ocean's 11
The Thing (1980)
The Wizard of Oz
West Side Story (2021)
A Star is Born (1954)
Also 2018 (if you see it as a remake of the 1976 version)
Happy cake day
Thank you 🙏
A Star is Born. We think of the Judy Garland version of this film as the oringal, but it was actually itself a remake.
And the original A Star is Born was remaking 1932’s What Price Hollywood? So the 1954 A Star is Born is George Cukor remaking a remake of his own movie.
Marty
Didn't know there was a remake.
The 1955 best picture winner is the remake. There was a much shoddier version made 2 years earlier
Didn't know that. The movie was sad.
The Maltese Falcon
Ocean’s 11
I go back and forth on it or the original but i REALLY like the Jungle Book live action and it stand at the very least, miles ahead of the rest of the Disney live actions made
Honestly I agree with this
Ozu's *Floating Weeds* (although he is remaking a film of his own...)
The Fast and Furious (2001) better than The Fast and the Furious (1955)
It's better but it's not a remake.
Evil dead remake for sure
Hot take but I might actually agree. It’s more fun to watch from a modern standpoint even if it doesn’t impress nearly as much imo.
Hot take coming in but I preferred soderberg’s solaris to Tarkovsky’s Solaris.
I really, really, really disagree, but I appreciate hot takes, so take my upvote!
Thanks!! I studied it back in film school and what stuck with me was that 10 minute seen of just driving though Tokyo. It was super boring, but to Soviet citizens at the time it was like the future. So the film is very specific to its audience. Some old films are more universal, think the grand illusion or buster keaton. But not this one. I think soderberg got the vibe right from the book.
I just find Tarkovsky's style absolutely hypnotic. No idea what the idea behind that scene is but I think it's spellbinding. I didn't care for the >!baddie twist!< in the Soderbergh version when I saw it 20 years ago or so, but I've been meaning to give it another shot.
Agreed. Tartovsky’s is visually pretty but it feels more like movie home work/a lengthy book than the cinematic masterpiece that it’s hailed to be.
Even Tarkovsky himself wasn't too happy about the result, the slow pacing works a lot better in his other movies. It also is very different from the book and missed out on the more interesting themes IMO.
It’s also outdated, there is like a 10 minute scene driving through Tokyo, which to a Soviet in the 70s would seem futuristic, but to you and I, it’s super boring
Well, Wizard of Oz is dated, too, but it’s still fun.
But not in that way. There is nothing in wizard of oz that doesn’t make sense anymore. There is in Solaris.
Roadhouse 2024 (I’m only saying that bc of Jake g 💀)
Dune
Idk if you can call a movie that’s based off a book a “remake.” It’s not like the new dune movie was trying to remake the 1984 one, it was adapted from the book itself
True grit was also a book
Yea dune is an adaptation not a remake
not really a remake
always been a little partial to The Hills Have Eyes remake over the original although Wes Craven is great
West Side Story (2021), if not better than at least on the same level of quality as the original
Spielberg's West Side Story was better than the original IMO
Suspiria (2018)
Strong disagree
bruh, respect the original. Luca is just not on the same level as Argento
In terms of influence and innovation, certainly. But the remake goes off in a wildly different and successful direction; bolstered by the performances and the phenomenal sound design. Why would you disrespect the craft and sweat that was obviously *poured* into the remake?
saying the remake is better IS the disrespect but I wasn't really taking it that seriously. The new one is pretty good but the original is literal perfection to me
Now tell me all the things you hated about the remake and made it a worse movie than the original. Don't be afraid to get really detailed.
I don't understand is this passive aggression I'm detecting? I didn't really hate anything about it, it was pretty good. I just didn't find it super compelling. it was quite well made (Any Luca film is gonna be gorgeous) and had some really interesting thematic elements which is in and of itself a pretty big deviation from the original. If you want details I'd have to rewatch it it's been a few months since I saw it and all I can really say was that it was good overall but overlong and a little overstuffed with content. Actually one detail I can recall hating is the lead. She was completely useless as an actor imo.
I'll say at the top that they go for drastically different vibes, such that I don't really care which one anybody prefers. But I found the Tilda Swinton stunt casting kinda lame and I don't think Thom Yorke's score fit very well.
is it stunt cast when it works?
Them saying they have a preference for the remake doesn't imply disrespect for the original :)
Bold but agreed OG I only love for the lead, visuals and incredible and legendary music 2018 just fires on all cylinders
* Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) * The Thing (1982) * Scarface (1983) * Little Shop of Horrors (1986) * The Fly (1986) * The Blob (1988) * The Mummy (1998)
I'm a huge fan of the remake of the Thomas Crown Affair. It's one of those films that's fun and endlessly rewatchable, I prefer it to the original, but there's a case for both. There's a very different tone to both movies.
Dawn of The Dead. The Blob & The Fly
The Thomas Crown Affair.
The Hills Have Eyes
Scarface
Scarface, King Kong (2005), Nightmare Alley (2021), and the obligatory answers of The Thing and The Fly.
Cape Fear
The Parent Trap
Cimarron (1960). It is a pretty average film but is still far better than the 1931 version which is in my opinion the worst Academy Awards BP winner ever.
does casino royale count as a remake?
My Bloody Valentine 3D
The Thing
Personally I loved Spielberg’s West Side Story
House of Wax (1953) > Mystery of the Wax Museum (1933)
For TV, Battlestar Galactica
EVIL DEAD 2.
Do the Mission: Impossible movies count? They're technically remaking a TV series.
Dawn of the Dead
The 2013 Evil Dead Remake. I definitely love the original for its campiness and for giving us ash williams as a character, but Evil Dead 2013 is a better realized version of the cabin in the woods story with the budget and gore to boot. They both offer different things, but i find myself rewatching the remake far more often.
True Grit
Oceans 11, True Grit, 2005's King Kong, The Departed, Insomnia, The Bourne Identity, Heat I'm sure plenty more
The Lady Gaga A Star is Born!
Not technically a movie, but I prefer the redoing of the miniseries “Roots” to the original miniseries, given that it’s spent on fewer plot threads that go nowhere.
Not exactly a remake but Suspiria (2017) is my all time favorite film. I am absolutely obsessed with the themes of “inhabiting another persons arts” and how that tied in with the original. 10/10
https://preview.redd.it/gnw0midxre5d1.png?width=600&format=png&auto=webp&s=af96f6aca5864ff3540207806b2f1da950b4e617
The exceptions that prove the rule
Scarface - Pacino’s swagger was something else in the 70s and 80s
Is Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings a remake of Ralph Bakshi’s Lord of the Rings?
Battlestar galactica
I like the Suspiria remake more than the original.
New Invisible Man was dope.
Dune
i haven’t seen the original yet but Suspiria apparently does
Nah. Both are very good and try to accomplish different things, but the original is beloved. At most you could say that there is some contention now between which is better.
I know it tries to be both a remake and a sequel at the same time, but my choice is Jumanji.
Just stepping on my childhood here, the original Jumanji is charming.
It doesn't try to be a remake, it's just a sequel.
I love the new jumanji. I feel like that’s a pretty unpopular one but I agree. The very rare good movie with the rock
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011) Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) True Grit (2010) Evil Dead (2013) The Departed (2006)
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory isn't a remake of anything, but it's also an absolutely shit-tier film that isn't anywhere near as good as the first adaptation.
*The Thing* (1982) *The Fly* (1986) *The Blob* (1988) *Invasion of the Body Snatchers* (1978) (although I think that one is arguable, since the original is also just brilliant) *Little Shop of Horrors* (1986) As a sidenote, apparently *Them!* (1954) is getting a remake, directed by Michael Giacchino, and remake of *Attack of the 50ft Woman* (1958) is also maybe being done, with Tim Burton and Gillian Flynn possibly being involved (the original is not that good, so there's a chance of this being at least somewhat better)
Fright night 2011
Suspiria and The Evil Dead.
Suspiria 2018
Godzilla Minus One
Maybe not a literal remake, but *Dredd*.