With the remake of “The Taking Of Pelham 1-2-3” coming out on Friday, film fans will wonder if the Denzel Washington-John Travolta “retaking” can match the gritty ‘70s original with Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw. (We say no.)
1978 remake of 'The Invasion of the Body Snatchers', starring Donald Sutherland
Here’s a look at 10 other remakes:
1. INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS
The original: 1956, starring Kevin McCarthy.
The remake: 1978, starring Donald Sutherland.
Which is better: The 1978 version. It’s creepier. The original is a sci-fi classic, but also very much of the drive-in ‘50s movie variety, with bland characterizations and setups. Philip Kaufman’s remake is very ‘70s San Francisco, but the takeover of the pods into human form is more unsettling. And who can forget the final scene of Sutherland’s face frozen in a scream?
Loading ...2. PSYCHO
The original: 1960, starring Anthony Perkins and Janet Leigh
The remake: 1998, starring Vince Vaughan and Anne Heche
Which is better: Please. Alfred Hitchcock lets all his creepy ids out of the closet in this tale of a psychotic innkeeper who kills a woman on the lam after a robbery. Anthony Perkins is so unnerving that he altered the course of his career, for the worst. And the shower scene with Janet Leigh: One of the indelible sequences in cinema history. And Bernard Herrmann’s slashing score. What did Gus Van Sant do with his pointless remake? He copied it shot for shot, with duller actors. Proving that there’s only one Hitchcock, and his name is not Gus Van Sant.
Loading ...3. THE THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR
The original: 1968, starring Steve McQueen and Faye Dunaway
The remake: 1999, starring Pierce Brosnan and Rene Russo
Which is better: Tough call. Both are stylish entertainments about a rich man who steals for the lark of it and the sexy insurance investigator who’s determined to take him down. The remake might be the better picture overall, but McQueen and Dunaway are definitely the sexier star pairing. Who can forget the famous erotic chess game?
Loading ...4. SHAFT
The original: 1971, starring Richard Roundtree
The remake: 2000, starring Samuel L. Jackson
Which is better: Like fine wine, vintage is best. Nothing beats Roundtree’s iconic interpretation of John Shaft, with his badass threads, smooth moves and the way he glides through funky New York to the propulsive groove of Isaac Hayes’ great score. Granted, Gordon Parks’ direction is a little clunky, and Samuel Jackson may be a better thespian than Roundtree, but there is only one Shaft. Accept no imitations.
Loading ...5. THE SHOP AROUND THE CORNER/YOU’VE GOT MAIL
The original: 1940, starring James Stewart and Margaret Sullavan
The remake: 1998, starring Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan
Which is better: The original is considered a cult classic of battling turn-of-the-century shopkeepers who unknowingly send each other love letters, directed with delectable charm by Ernst Lubitsch. But the modern, e-mail version by Nora Ephron is winning in its own way, and the Hanks-Ryan romantic chemistry is palpable. Whenever TNT is showing You’ve Got Mail, we can’t help but watch.
Loading ...6. HOUSE OF WAX
The original: 1953, starring Vincent Price.
The remake: 2005, starring Paris Hilton.
Which is better: Oh, Paris’ version, definitely. Kidding!
Loading ...7. KING KONG
The original: 1933, starring Fay Wray
The remakes: 1976, starring Jeff Bridges and Jessica Lange and 2005, starring Jack Black and Naomi Watts.
Which is better: Again, why remake something that is perfect? That’s the original Kong, the stop-motion model who was smarter and sexier than his later CGI counterparts. The 1933 Kong had a soul, which is why you were torn apart when he fell off the Empire State Building in pursuit of true love. True, there are some parts of the movie that don’t scan in modern times, but even with the old-fashioned modeling and backdrops (which were state-of-the-art then), the story still captivates. As does the big ape. (Though we have to admit, as distressed and barely dressed damsels go, Jessica Lange in the overly derided ‘76 version made one heck of a debut.)
Loading ...8. SCARFACE
The original: 1932, starring Paul Muni
The remake: 1983, starring Al Pacino
Which is better: A dead tie. Both are iconic in their own right. Howard Hawks’ early version is one of the most interestingly filmed of early sound movies, it moves fluidly and Muni and George Raft give great performances. Then, of course, say hello to my little friend. Brian De Palma’s version is garish, over-the-top, mock-operatic, a gangsta’s paradise and a hell of a lot of fun. If you don’t like it, you’re a cock-a-roach….
Loading ...9. OCEAN’S ELEVEN
The original: 1960, with Frank, Dean, Sammy and the Pack
The remake: 2001, with George, Brad, Matt and the Pack
Which is better: The remake. Definitely. The Rat Pack flick is just a bunch of pallies goofing on a paper-thin plot about a Vegas heist. Steven Soderbergh’s remake is more stylish and intricate and the star power burns brighter.
Loading ...10. THE THING
The original: 1951, starring James Arness
The remake: 1982, starring Kurt Russell
Which is better: Film fans differ widely on this sci-fi classic. At first, the early version about aliens invading an Arctic outpost was seen as superior. But in recent years, John Carpenter’s remake is being seen as a classic in its own right. Try both.
Loading ...QUICK TAKES ON REMAKES
Hulk vs. The Incredible Hulk: We prefer Ang Lee’s brainer version of brawn.
Planet of the Apes: You damn, dirty stinkin’ Tim Burton reimagining!
The Longest Yard: Burt Reynolds vs. Adam Sandler. No contest. Burt!
The Poseidon Adventure vs. Poseidon: Any movie with Shelley Winters floating upside down has to be better.
Infernal Affairs vs. The Departed: Both are smart, stylish in their own way. A perfect double feature.
Father of The Bride: Again, both are good, and the original has Spencer Tracy and Elizabeth Taylor! But we lean more to Steve Martin’s underrated performance as a slow-burn dad facing the loss of his little girl to marriage.
3:10 To Yuma: The original Western, with Glenn Ford and Van Heflin, is superior in every way: Acting, directing, tension, pace. Seek it out on DVD.
Which remakes did we leave out? Which ones do you agree or disagree with? Take our polls above, and sound off in our comments below.
Godzilla.
The Matthew Broderick version was awful. They could have called it “The Dinosaur that Ate New York.” Terrible screenplay, no soul; nothing redeeming about it. Seek out the original Japanese release on DVD sans Raymond Burr. Even the one with Burr is much better.
The Day The Earth Stood Still. The remake was not too bad, but not as great as the original.
It’s not really a remake, but the “Lost in Space” movie was very dissapointing to say the least.
As good as The Departed was, Infernal Affairs was 100 percent Hong Kong brilliance. If you haven’t seen it yet, and you have seen The Departed, do not pass go — see Infernal Affairs RIGHT NOW.
It’s INfernal Affairs, FYI. Or Moo Gaun Dou, if you’re feeling frisky. I’m not feeling a Richard Gere flick right now, thank you kindly.
And boo hiss on the William Monahan, screenwriter of The Departed, for not “thanking” the source when he accepted his Oscar.
Have a great night, good call on Bodysnatchers!
The original the haunting and the original house on haunted hill were much better than the horrible remakes…
I have to go with the original on most of the ones. I voted for.
Psycho/house of wax,Invasion of the body snatchers,Oceans 11-Sinatra
As far as the best goes, you left out one of the better remakes ever, Cape Fear, DeNiro was chilling as the protagonist, and the best part of the original they reused in this version the haunting soundtrack. Also Casino Royale was great to finally see as a true action packed gritty Bond flick unlike its comedic predecessor. As for the worst you left out of your number one the most recent remake of this, Invasion with Nicole Kidman, again a pointless remake. Godzilla was pretty bad, the babies looked like raptors from another movie, and it was just down right pointless. Physco though takes the case for worst remake ever. Please do not try to remake classic movies. PLEASE!!!!!!! Save the celluloid!!!!
Cape Fear was an idiotic remake for two reasons:
- There’s no way that a person would be able to hold onto a sulfur flare as it melted down onto his hand, no matter how “tough” or psychotic he is. And anyway, such flares don’t melt down like candles in the first place.
- The family traps DeNiro on the boat to die as it sinks by slapping a pair of handcuffs to bind his ankle to a railing.
No normal handcuffs will fit around a grown man’s ankle. It simply can’t happen. (Gee, maybe, do you think that’s why they actually make “LEG CUFFS”?)
When the moviemakers have to misrepresent what’s real, in scenarios where we’re not talking about science fiction or fantasy (where anyone could make a claim to representing what’s “real” no matter how fanciful) they blow it. Since we know that handcuffs won’t fit around a man’s ankle, why not use a different plot device to trap him on the boat? Why not have the handcuffs put on his… duh… HAND?
June 12,
I have avoided the remake of The In-Laws..Why anyone bothered to remake a perfect movie I don’t know. Thanks for these comparisions it has saved me a lot of time..The reason they are “remakingn” them is that they are devoid of there own ideas of plot so they have to try to borrow from ones that were successful.
The recent awful remake of THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL and turning it into one of those stupid enviromental message films WE NEED TO SET KLAATU and GORT loose in hollywood
Top of my list of movies to see are Transformers and public enemies and despite myself I would quite like to see Harry Potter, lol.. Doesn’t it just make you want to be a wizard!
I liked all of the King Kong movies. Each one was a little different. I just saw the latest remake recently again and was surprised how much more the girl was drawn to Kong. It was a little kreepy in a funny way.
How about ‘The Wizard of Oz’ (1939), originally made in 1925?
Or ‘The Maltese Falcon’ (1941), which is actually the second remake after ‘The Maltese Falcon’ (1931) and ‘Satan Met a Lady’ (1936)?
“How about ‘The Wizard of Oz’ (1939), originally made in 1925?”
The 1925 version was loosely based on the book and is actually just a ‘remake’ for the screen of various stage performances based on “Oz” literature around the turn of the 20th century. As the 1939 version is more true to the story(1925 version included a love triangle with the Tin Man), and was successfully released (1925 version was bankrupted before full distribution), it should be considered the original ‘movie’ adaptation.