Best remakes

[inisideguy]

This is sort of a follow up to superfans post on remakes reboots etc. What do you guys think are some remakes of movies that have worked. Two that jump out to me are true grit and cape fear. Anyone have any others?

[MasterOfMagnetism]

John Carpenter's The Thing is the best remake I can think of.

[numberthirty]

John Carpenter's The Thing is the best remake I can think of.

That's a tough one. It's right on the verge of not really being a remake.

[numberthirty]

Guess it also depends on what actually constitutes a reboot/remake.

Does Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation count?

[Cyke]

That's a tough one. It's right on the verge of not really being a remake.

Yeah, I can see the merits of both sides of the argument. Still a very fine movie, though.

On the same token, I'm not sure if various superhero films, i.e. Burton vs. Nolan Batman, or comparing Captain America films, counts as remakes per se, since they follow different beats and often times different stories almost altogether, only sharing an origin story. Reboot vs. remake (vs. retelling or restaging or whatever label you want).

As for the topic, this might be a bit of a dark horse, but I thought the Denzel Washington remake of the Manchurian Candidate was better. Not only was it suitably updated like a good remake should be anyway, but Meryl Streep really knocked it out of the park. Most remakes fail to answer the "Why redo it?" question properly, but this one was great.

Father of the Bride might count, at least in my book.

Peter Jackson's King Kong isn't as good as the original, but it's leagues better than the 1976 version.

[simbob4000]

Yeah, I can see the merits of both sides of the argument. Still a very fine movie, though.

On the same token, I'm not sure if various superhero films, i.e. Burton vs. Nolan Batman, or comparing Captain America films, counts as remakes per se, since they follow different beats and often times different stories almost altogether, only sharing an origin story. Reboot vs. remake (vs. retelling or restaging or whatever label you want).

As for the topic, this might be a bit of a dark horse, but I thought the Denzel Washington remake of the Manchurian Candidate was better. Not only was it suitably updated like a good remake should be anyway, but Meryl Streep really knocked it out of the park. Most remakes fail to answer the "Why redo it?" question properly, but this one was great.

Father of the Bride might count, at least in my book.

Peter Jackson's King Kong isn't as good as the original, but it's leagues better than the 1976 version.

The Manchurian Candidate is garbage next to the original film, on its own it's a slight above average but ultimately forgettable film. Not only does that remake not answer the question of "why remake this?" but it also raises the question of: Why are some of these people wasting their time with this?

It's hard to say if Jackson's King Kong is better than even the '70s remake. At least the '70s version doesn't try to put you to sleep.

The Dark Knight is very much a remake of Burton's Batman.

[numberthirty]

The Dark Knight is very much a remake of Burton's Batman.

How did you come to this conclusion?

[numberthirty]

Yeah, I can see the merits of both sides of the argument. Still a very fine movie, though.

Agreed.

That film is just very close to the "Different Version Of The Source Material" as opposed to "Remake".

Feel the same way about the Cronenberg version of "The Fly" vs. the '58 original.

[Vinsanity]

3:10 to Yuma
Mission Impossible
Ocean's Eleven
Casino Royale I guess.
Cleopatra

[MasterOfMagnetism]

I can see how different movies based on the same source material might not be considered "real remakes". Like how there's four different film versions of Invasion of the Body Snatchers but the later three might not be considered remakes of the preceding film but rather different adaptations of the same source material.

[numberthirty]

I can see how different movies based on the same source material might not be considered "real remakes". Like how there's four different film versions of Invasion of the Body Snatchers but the later three might not be considered remakes of the preceding film but rather different adaptations of the same source material.

If I'm thinking "Remake", my brain usually goes to Let Me In feeling very much like a remake of Let The Right One In. A sub-par remake, at that.

Doesn't feel anything like The Thing and The Thing From Another World.

[MasterOfMagnetism]

If I'm thinking "Remake", my brain usually goes to Let Me In feeling very much like a remake of Let The Right One In. A sub-par remake, at that.

Doesn't feel anything like The Thing and The Thing From Another World.

I know that people say Let Me In is a sub-par remake of Let The Right One In but I watched Let Me In first and then tried to watch Let The Right One and just got bored and didn't finish it.

Carpenter's The Thing and Cronenberg's The Fly are both based on silly old '50s sci-fi flicks and most people seem to have no problem praising them as being better than the original. Personally I consider both The Thing and The Fly to be remakes, I think they were both intended to be updated versions of the '50s films, more so than updated versions of the source material.

[numberthirty]

Personally I consider both The Thing and The Fly to be remakes, I think they were both intended to be updated versions of the '50s films, more so than updated versions of the source material.

From the man himself...

[numberthirty]

An even more "In Depth" breakdown on his take...

[MasterOfMagnetism]

From the man himself...

Ok, I stand corrected.