Remakes vs. Originals: An Epic Battle

[MadMan]

In this thread, I will cover the original and the remake, comparing and contrasting the two. Furthermore, this thread will never end since I'm always watching movies. Plus there will be spoilers, but I will cover them up in spoiler tags so you can still skip skim through my random bullshit write ups.

First up is The Departed v. Infernal Affairs. My opinion on this will probably piss some people off, but I think I'm right, damnit :P

Current Battles:

*The Departed v. Infernal Affairs
*The Manchurian Candidate v. The Manchurian Candiate
*The Thing From Another World v. The Thing
*Yojimbo v. Fistful of Dollars
*House on Haunted Hill v. House on Haunted Hill
*Halloween v. Halloween
*12 Angry Men v. 12 Angry Men
*The Sons of Katie Elder v. Four Brothers

Upcoming:

*The Seven Samurai v. The Magnificent Seven
*True Grit v. True Grit
*A Nightmare On Elm Street v. A Nightmare On Elm Street
*Friday the 13th v. Friday the 13th
*My Bloody Valentine v. My Bloody Valentine
*Fright Night v. Fright Night
*A discussion of Walter Hill's Last Man Standing and where it fits in with the other two previous adaptions of Red Harvest
*House of Wax v. House of Wax (maybe)

[MadMan]

The Departed (2006, Scorsese)

http://thepalmettopatriot.files.wordp ress.com/2008/04/departed2.jpg

I posted that because its really freakin' cool. Anyways, despite the last act dragging, the ending is fantastic and the last shot, although not at all subtitle, still rocks. I've seen this movie way too many times because of friends, so I'm utterly sick of it and I won't be ever watching it again. Probably. Maybe. Scorsese is the master of crime movies, and his characters here although perhaps not completely well rounded out are still captivating because of the actors who play them. I loved the scene with Wahlberg, Sheen, and Nicholson since it was three talented (yes I know those might disagree with Wahlberg, but they are wrong) men just simply talking. And yet, its more captivating and engaging than some of the thrillers and action movies I've seen over the past decade.
When it really comes down to it, this movie is actually one of the few that's better than the original. I'll explain further later, and I will admit I saw this before I viewed Infernal Affairs, but I'm not sure this was a completely shot for shot redo job. Since everyone involved carried about Scorsese's complex and fascinating themes of Catholic guilt and his opinions about Irish culture in general. Cops v. criminals is old hat, but its a tribute to Scorsese's brilliance that he was able to craft something interesting and fresh out of something already done.

Infernal Affairs (2002, Lau, Mak)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_OCwKhyxai2s/TBTAYFVuGNI/AAAAAAAABZU/3JrkoE_9WuE/s1600/infernalaffairs.jpg

Honestly this is a really good movie, one that I rather enjoyed. I love that the original has a vastly different ending, one that is just as depressing as the The Departed's. The difference clearly being that the rat gets away, which to me is more realistic. That said, aside from Andy Lau and Tony Leung, who is really better than most of the cast of The Departed (no joke, really) the rest of the movie's actors didn't impress me all that much. I came away feeling that the movie's themes were not properly dived into, and that there wasn't enough subsistence, although granted one could levy that criticism at The Departed as well.
Still a movie that features two talented actors as the main stars is entertaining anyways, and the Hong Kong action/thriller style is very distinctive. Which is a huge plus, actually. Too bad that I didn't like this as much as I thought I was going to-maybe it fell victim (unfairly, I might add) to high expectations.

Unless you guys really want to see the ratings for each, they're silly and pointless. I just like the 100 scale because you can slap down a number for a movie.

Winner by Knockout: The Departed

[Dukefrukem]

Departed was a remake?

[Kurosawa Fan]

One battle in and you've already picked a wrong winner. Not a good start, Madman. ;)

[Skitch]

So far so good!

[number8]

Departed was a remake?

Are you serious?

[number8]

One battle in and you've already picked a wrong winner. Not a good start, Madman. ;)

What he said.

[Ezee E]

I'll back Madman up on this one.

[Russ]

Let the Right One In vs. Let Me In should be a good match.

[Ezee E]

Manchurian Candidate!

[D_Davis]

The Departed was absolutely terrible.

[endingcredits]

12 Monkeys vs. La Jetee ?

[Qrazy]

I'll pack Madman up on this one.

Ditto. The crappy synth score and editing kills Infernal Affairs. Don't like the ending for The Departed though.

[MadMan]

Let the Right One In vs. Let Me In should be a good match.When I finally get around to Let Me In. Probably will be a rental, as I'm low on funds.

The Manchurian Candidate can be addressed next, as I own both movies and have seen both numerous times. And to those who agree with me that The Departed>Infernal Affairs: thank you. To those who don't, well, your wrong and stuff :P

The Manchurian Candidate(1962, Frankenheimer)

http://celluloidheroreviews.com/images/manchurian-candidate.jpg

This movie is flat out brilliant. Very few thrillers I've seen can actually match up to this movie-the last time I did a Top 20, it made the list. The cast is completely top notch, the movie near flawless (although I'll give that some elements are a tad silly or dated). One of the best things about this movie is its infamous brainwashing scene, a disturbing and expertly created sequence of events that plays out as a nightmare, only it is not a dream. Sinatra's character is haunted by that eerie feeling, and Sinatra expertly plays out such notions. This is still the only Sinatra movie I've seen, and I should view more because he was actually gifted at acting as well as singing.
Not to mention Angela Landsberry being absolutely electrifying, and beyond creepy as an overbearing mother obsessed with her son and possibly in love with him as well. The picture I choose well illustrates that she's willing to sacrifice her own son for power, but that she also will destroy those who deemed it necessary to use her son as a weapon. I'm not even forgetting Lawrence Harvey, who of course displays wonderful range as a man not in control of his own mind. The final shot is rather haunting, mediating on how things could have been different and Sinatra being comforted by the lovely and talented Janet Leigh, still unsure if he has ownership over his own mind.


The Manchurian Candidate (2004, Demme)

http://ultra-complexity.air-nifty.com/mboo/images/the_manchurian_candidate_1.jpg

Man was I surprised at how good this remake actually was. Demme smartly brings a 60s movie into the 21st century, adapting and updating Cold War paranoia and turning it into technology age paranoia. Instead of commies being the enemy, its gigantic sinister corporations, and they aren't above using war vets to enact a banana republic coup on the eve of the elections. Meryl Streep's performance is more fire and brimstone than Landsberry's and its highly effective-she owns this movie much like Landsberry towered over the original. I have not seen much of her work, so I had no idea she had this kind of frightening, fanatical performance in her. Not to knock Denzel Washington or Liv Schreber, both who live up to the original actors' performances-in fact I'd say that Washington is better than Sinatra was, actually.
Even though the brainwashing scenes in this one are too damn silly, it doesn't matter. The remake is almost as good as the original, falling short but still being memorable and one of the best of 2004. Demme is as talented a director as Frankenheimer was, and this movie is a great example of how one can properly remake a movie but make it their own film. Which reminds me of another remake that's in my Top 20 Horror Movies List.

Winner By Close Decision: 1962 version

[megladon8]

I have to agree with MadMan that The Departed was better than Infernal Affairs.

Though neither has aged very well at all.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Close decision? The 1962 wins by close decision? That's two fails out of two.

[Raiders]

Yeah, that is a fail. Demme's reboot is superior.

[Ezee E]

Yeah, that is a fail. Demme's reboot is superior.
Yep. Love the Demme version.

[[ETM]]

I thought the Manchurian Remake was ridiculous.

[Dukefrukem]

Will everyone shut the fuck up about what you think ManMan should think... fuck that's annoying.

Sorry, I'm testy after the Patriots game... shit that game sucked ass.

[[ETM]]

Sorry, I'm testy after the Patriots game... shit that game sucked ass.

The original game was way better.

[Dukefrukem]

;295457']The original game was way better.

http://www.notebookforums.com/images/smilies/hahano.gif

[[ETM]]

http://www.notebookforums.com/images/smilies/hahano.gif

:lol:

[Skitch]

:lol:

ETM for the win!

But yeah, I agree with Duke. Especially at this point, its been hardly controversial. Its not like he's out here waving a banner claiming The Shining miniseries is a 10 and the film a 2.

[Ezee E]

:lol:

ETM for the win!

But yeah, I agree with Duke. Especially at this point, its been hardly controversial. Its not like he's out here waving a banner claiming The Shining miniseries is a 10 and the film a 2.
Yet.....

[MadMan]

Duke, its okay man. I can handle 'em all. They don't scare me. Boo yah folks. Bring it on :cool:

The Manchurian Candidate (1962) gets a 100. The remake gets a 90. That's only a 10 point difference. So yes, its a close decision.

I have not seen The Shining mini-series. There's no way in hell that it can be better than Kubrick's version. I need to read the book, though.

[MadMan]

I'm having tons of fun with this thread, btw. And yes I will eventually finish my Top Westerns thread. That requires far more effort and writing ability than this one.

The Thing From Another World (1951, Hawks and some other guys)

http://www.slantmagazine.com/images/house/film/thingfromanotherworld.jpg

I'm going to be honest: its been years since I last saw this movie. In fact my last (and only) viewing was when it aired on TCM back when I was in high school. My freshman year, I think. Or was it 8th grade in elementary school? I'm not sure. Anyways, this is a well made sci-fi movie with elements of horror thrown in for good measure. Despite the silly creature FX, Hawks' only instance of him working in this particular genre is entertaining and well made.
From the awe-inspiring shot of the gigantic crater, to the attempts to defeat the strange and violent alien, The Thing From Another World works as an exercise in Cold War paranoia and an example of one of the best of the 1950s sci-fi movies. The decade resulted in some awful ones (This Island Earth is an easy example, as is The Killer Shrews) but also some truly fantastic efforts such as this one, Invasion of the Body Snatchers (although that one is more horror than sci-fi), and The Day the Earth Stood Still.


The Thing (1982, Carpenter)

http://www.feoamante.com/Movies/T/TheThing/TheThing82_02.jpg

From what I've seen on the extras to this movie (the SE DVD copy is great) Carpenter decided to try and remain more true to the short story both movies were based off, "Who's There?" and in the process created an truly horrifying and scary masterpiece. I don't like to use that word lightly, but it applies here, as the FX, the acting, the direction, and the many frightening moments result in something truly unique. Its easily one of the best horror movies of all time, because it doesn't pull punches and perfectly captures the feelings of paranoia, fear, and hysteria that the characters experience at facing an enemy beyond the imagination. With the ability to change into anyone and everyone, it leads to people asking if anyone can be trusted.
Just don't watch this movie if your a dog lover. Trust me. Another example of how a remake is better than the original, and as good as the original is this version is superior, hands down. Yes I'm aware of the movie's criticisms, but I just ignore them and keep on trucking. Those who post on the old Axis website know that I wrote a review of this for my Top 20 Horror movies list. It was long winded, and I don't even remember what I wrote.

The Thing (1982) by a knockout in 20 seconds. In the first round.

[MadMan]

This one is rather controversial. Good thing we don't have negative rep anymore, right? RIGHT? Oh boy...:lol:


Yojimbo (1961, Kurosawa)

http://billsmovieemporium.files.wordp ress.com/2009/04/yojimbo1.jpg

Okay, so this is a really good movie, and one of the mere handful of Kurosawa films I've actually seen. Knowing how much he loved John Ford, it makes sense that the Japanese master would give the world a samurai western, but he also threw in gangster elements and apparently comedic ones as well. Even though I didn't pick up on the comedy that is supposed to be included in this movie. Maybe I missed it, or I'll pick it up on a second viewing. No idea, really, and I don't think its too important. Toshirô Mifune was a strong, imposing method actor who worked often with Kurosawa, and he's magnificent in this movie. Using humorous facial and body tics (love how he often shrugs his shoulders throughout), he doesn't need to say much to get across what his thoughts are, even as he plans out how he will destroy two nasty and brutal gangs that are tearing apart a small town.
Now I'm not entirely convinced that this movie is anything more than merely very good-I just didn't get the feeling that it was a great film, or something incredibly special. Compared against the two other Kurosawas I've viewed (The Seven Samurai and The Hidden Fortress), its unfair to compare all three because each of them are quite different, in terms of quality and subject matter. Also, I'm sure there are those who are going to want to throw things at me for what I'm about to suggest next.

Fistful of Dollars (1964, Leone)

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_E7slTvxJYd4/S7c03NGoxKI/AAAAAAAAAEI/vab64pjks1o/s1600/fistful.jpg

Is this a shot for shot remake? Well, mostly. I mean Kurosawa actually sued Leone in court over this movie, and I can't say I blame him. Yet there's something quite different about Leone's film, if only in terms of theme and how he tackles Kurosawa's work. Even though Clint Eastwood is no Toshirô Mifune, he suits the movie perfectly, hardly ever saying a word, letting his actions and six-shooter do most of the talking. The final battle in this movie is drawn out in Leone's typical fashion, where as Kurosawa doesn't even bother to have his epic last battle between his hero and the villains last long. Its short, quick, and if you blink you'll miss Mifune killing most of the gangsters. Leone's movie is more concerned with macho behavior, ignoring whatever Kurosawa was trying to say in his movie.
Even though Leone was truly an amazing director, I must say that he often disregarded theme, or viewed it in a secondary manner unlike many other directors. His movies were usually separated moments in time that, combined together, resulted in western epics (and a gangster movie as well, one that I shall have to finally get around to seeing) that helped to alter and change the genre.

So really, its a draw in this battle. I think each one is fairly similar in terms of quality, and both bring something really interesting to the table. To me, its not entirely surprising considering both Kurosawa and Leone are among the best directors who ever worked in the business. Is it a cop out? Nah, because fights end in draws here and there. There are even ties in football.

[Morris Schæffer]

The Thing From Another World 1951 is fantastic, but I too prefer the remake by a hair. And I also preferred The Departed.

[Dukefrukem]

I'm having tons of fun with this thread, btw. And yes I will eventually finish my Top Westerns thread. That requires far more effort and writing ability than this one.

The Thing From Another World (1951, Hawks and some other guys)


The Thing (1982, Carpenter)


The Thing (1982) by a knockout in 20 seconds. In the first round.

Yaaaaaaay one I can finally comment on and agree with!!

[number8]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/07/Copoutposter.jpg

[D_Davis]

The final battle in this movie is drawn out in Leone's typical fashion, where as Kurosawa doesn't even bother to have his epic last battle between his hero and the villains last long. Its short, quick, and if you blink you'll miss Mifune killing most of the gangsters.

This is a typical trope/convention in Japanese cinema, especially in the chambara/samurai genres. There is a word/phrase (which I've totally forgotten) stating that the build up before the action is far more important and meaningful than the actual action. For one, when two samurai/swordsmen would face each other, the winner was probably already known by the combatants. Secondly, you will notice that in these movies the actual action - when the blades are drawn and swung - lasts only seconds, while the build up to the action seems to hang for an eternity.

[Raiders]

This is a typical trope/convention in Japanese cinema, especially in the chambara/samurai genres. There is a word/phrase (which I've totally forgotten) stating that the build up before the action is far more important and meaningful than the actual action. For one, when two samurai/swordsmen would face each other, the winner was probably already known by the combatants. Secondly, you will notice that in these movies the actual action - when the blades are drawn and swung - lasts only seconds, while the build up to the action seems to hang for an eternity.

Interesting point/thought.

[D_Davis]

Interesting point/thought.

It's part of the reason why many Japanese films seem anti-climatic to some western viewers. We're more used to long, drawn out ending-conflicts.

[MadMan]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/07/Copoutposter.jpgHey I liked that movie. It was decent.


The Thing From Another World 1951 is fantastic, but I too prefer the remake by a hair. And I also preferred The Departed.Cool.


Yaaaaaaay one I can finally comment on and agree with!!:pritch:

Huh Davis, I never thought about samurai battles in that manner before. And no I don't think its anti-climatic. I loved how fast the sword battles in Yojimbo are. Build-up is rather underrated when it comes to creating and showcasing action sequences.

[MadMan]

Okay here's another horror themed one.

House on Haunted Hill (1959, Castle)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/__lZhex01AAg/TAHIFTZYsxI/AAAAAAAAEu0/w2Yvpv108G8/s1600/House+on+Haunted+Hill.jpg

When I was younger, I saw this movie on AMC around Halloween. Despite the fact that it s really campy, and the acting isn't the greatest (Vincent Price being really awesome as usual, aside) I'm still a huge fan of it, dated FX and Castle's usual flair for over promoting his movies be damned. There's a good degree of charm to be found here, and the fact that they credit the skeleton at the end of the movie is a nice touch.
That said, this is merely a decent/okay movie at best, old memories trying to convince me otherwise. Time hasn't been that great to this movie, and it was never scary at all, which is one of the main reasons horror movies exist. Last time I checked, I think. There's not much else to discuss here.


House on Haunted Hill (1999, Malone)

http://www.flix66.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/House-on-Haunted-Hill-1.jpg

What really caused this post is that AMC decided to show the remake on their Fear Fest festival that they air every year. And a second viewing made me realize that I kind of acknowledged the last time I viewed it: that its a decent, interesting remake. There are plenty of creepy moments here, primarily Geoffrey Rush getting put into a wacked out chamber (no idea what its for) and is confronted by the dead spirits that wander the house. Does much of this movie really make sense? No, although the ending of course provides clues and solves the mystery. Which is lame, really, because I would have preferred the movie to be much like one of Argento's giellos, where by the end of the movie you aren't really sure what the hell you just watched. Or have a clue about what it was exactly about (there are exceptions, of course).
Plus this movie has a surprisingly good cast. Rush of course actively excels in the Price role, and Famke Janssen is stunning-too bad she's not up to much these days-there was no point for her to be in Taken. Chris Kattan actually in a odd way channels Jeffrey Combs, which is funny because Combs is also in the movie, although in flashbacks and when his undead spirit comes back to scare the crap out of Rush via video camera. Ali Larter and Tay Diggs actually serve a purpose, even though their roles are rather thankless, as is Peter Gallagher and Bridgette Wilson. Even though I'm not sure if I can give this movie a particularly high rating, but I think this is another case where the remake is better than the original. Not by much, and I still like the original a good deal more even if it isn't the better movie.

Winner: 1999 version. Even though Price>Rush, easily.

[Ezee E]

Nice matchup there. I never really bothered with the remake, and was watching a clip and was surprised that the cast was actually good (Rush and Famke in particular).

[MadMan]

I think that Rowland also likes the remake quite a bit. You should check it out, as it has some really eerie moments and dives a bit into gothic horror. Although I must warn that there is some bad CGI. Oh well. The original does have an acid vat in the basement, so there is that, heh.

On Criticker I looked at my scores for both. I'm now curious about revisiting the original just to find out why the hell I previously gave it an 80, when my current thinking says its a 70 at best.

[Dukefrukem]

I agree with this next battle. The only thing that ruins 1999's House on Haunted Hill is the retarded "spirit ending". The climax just dissolves after they break through the wall.

The sequel is quite bad too. It's on AMC like every night.

House of Wax?

[number8]

It's the better of the two Castle remakes, that's for sure.

[D_Davis]

I love the House on Haunted Hill remake. I think it's really well made, and actually kind of spooky. Plus, Famke.

[MadMan]

I agree with this next battle. The only thing that ruins 1999's House on Haunted Hill is the retarded "spirit ending". The climax just dissolves after they break through the wall.Yes I do agree that the ending is kind of weak/crappy. But the rest of the movie makes up for it.


The sequel is quite bad too. It's on AMC like every night.No interest in viewing that one.


House of Wax?I've viewed part of the remake. What I saw was god-awful. Not even getting to watch Parris Hilton get killed is enough for me to see it. But the original 1953 version with Vincent Price is really underrated-I watched it a couple months back, I think.

I'm not sure what William Castle would think of a studio bearing his name that remakes his movies. I bet he'd appreciate their marketing ideas for House on Haunted Hill, and then sue them.

[Dukefrukem]

I've viewed part of the remake. What I saw was god-awful. Not even getting to watch Parris Hilton get killed is enough for me to see it. .

It's probably the best Dark Castle production and the Paris scenes are definitely the worst part about the movie. But it's a pretty engrossing slasher.

[MadMan]

It's probably the best Dark Castle production and the Paris scenes are definitely the worst part about the movie. But it's a pretty engrossing slasher.Dark Castle strikes me as filling the comment about how one can play the notes, but one cannot play the music that I've read somewhere.

Halloween (1978, Carpenter)

http://i856.photobucket.com/albums/ab129/filmosophy/Halloween4.jpg

Is this really a fair battle? The only reason I'm covering this one is simply to state that even though the original is insanely superior in every single way, that the remake is actually quite solid, and one of the handful of decent/good remakes. Naturally I'm also heavily biased in favor of the original because it still scares the ever living hell out of me. Carpenter crafted a slasher movie that is intelligent, frightening, creepy, and very realistic. Thanks to him I'm forever terrified of surburbia-its dark corners, the possiblity that a masked psychopath is sneaking around in the bushes, or even hiding behind bedsheets in your backyard. The Boogyman is personalified here, and its a damn shame that the sequels robbed him of his mystique, although I liked Halloween II and III, the latter which didn't even feature Michael Myers. I have a far longer review of this movie which I wrote a couple years back on the Axis, so I'll just cap this at "Its goddamn brilliant, watch it" and move on.


Halloween (2007, Zombie)

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/09/01/arts/hallspan.jpg

Interestly enough, this movie has a stronger first half, with the exploration of Michael as a white trash kid with a murderous streak in him that eventually gets revealed and exposed later on. Zombie actually makes the backstory of Michael disturbing and brutal, treating the violence of his actions in a rather serious manner, even if they do go over the top quite a bit. Even though this robs Myers of his scary factor, it also makes him a bit more sympthetic until its clear that this isn't a boy or a man, but pure evil. When he finally wrecks havoc, the shit hits the fan and no one is safe, which is kind of what the original also implied despite having a lower body count.
Also I think that Malcolm McDowell made for a better Dr. Loomis than Donald Pleasance did, if only because he makes the character more his own and gives him a certain extra something that was lacking. I can't put my finger on what it is, though.
The second half in some ways is weaker because it falls into slasher conventions, and I growned when some of the movie turned into a boring "Michael chases after Laurie, she screams for help, hides, blah blah" that looking back was also in the original, but was done with a sense of better pacing and care. That final shot though equals the original Carpenter film however in terms of power, and is rather different: while Carpenter's ending is meant to be creepy and haunting, Zombie's is nasty and shocking.

Winner: 1978 version, easily, even though the 2007 one is solid despite what the haters may say (and trust me, I've encountered many of them on Bloody Disgusting).

[Irish]

Great thread. Haven't seen this one before.

Disappointed in Zombie's remake.

Where it's good, it's original. After 30 minutes though, Zombie goes on autopilot and just shits out a straight remake plot point for plot point.

(You're batshit crazy, though, for thinking Scorcese's bloated The Departed is anywhere near as good as Infernal Affairs).

[Spun Lepton]

The Haunting (1963)
vs.
The Haunting (1999)

Where is it? I am preparing myself for outrage.

[Dukefrukem]

The Hills Have Eyes (1977)
vs
The Hills Have Eyes (2006)

Should be an easy one.

[MadMan]

The Haunting (1963)
vs.
The Haunting (1999)

Where is it? I am preparing myself for outrage.I've only viewed the original. The remake looks and sounds awful, but I might view it just for kicks.


Great thread. Haven't seen this one before.Thanks.


Disappointed in Zombie's remake.

Where it's good, it's original. After 30 minutes though, Zombie goes on autopilot and just shits out a straight remake plot point for plot point.For me its more like 45-50 minutes. But I agree that at times Zombie does go on autopilot, and that time hurts the movie.


(You're batshit crazy, though, for thinking Scorcese's bloated The Departed is anywhere near as good as Infernal Affairs).Nope. Even though Tony Leung Chiu Wai>everyone in both movies, the rest of the cast for Infernal Affairs ranges from merely good to decent to awful. And in a crime drama acting is insanely important. The Departed has more interesting themes that it touches upon, and is better directed, acted (as long as you don't compare them to Tony Leung, who's amazing all around-anyone who thinks otherwise is nuts) despite its bloated running time. It only needed about 30 minutes chopped off, though. I would have also changed the ending.

[MadMan]

The Hills Have Eyes (1977)
vs
The Hills Have Eyes (2006)

Should be an easy one.I'll watch the remake this Halloween.

Now for an interesting one:

12 Angry Men (1957, Lumet)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OYXm5rwHgws/Tq8SmgyYV4I/AAAAAAAACR8/3KeLjnWyH5s/s1600/12%2BAngry%2BMen.jpeg

A truly great film, and one of the best of the 1950s, this classic from Sidney Lumet features an excellent cast and is pretty famous at this point. Most people know the story-one juror decides that a man is not guilty, or at least determines that the prosecution has not met the standard of "Reasonable Doubt." Naturally Henry Fonda took the role, although Jimmy Stewart could have also done a really great job as Juror #8. I rather like that they do not give the jurors names, making us focus on what they believe in and what they say rather than focusing on who they are.

This also has one of my favorite scenes, which is when Henry Fonda asks Lee J. Cobb, the film's antagonist, to use a knife to prove a point about where the victim was stabbed and that the person charged with murder is in fact innocent. Its incredibly tensed and superbly well acted, and is one of the movie's true highlights. Really though this movie is incredibly tense due to being filmed in a tight, small space with a bunch of men who end up revealing their true natures over the long course of deliberations spurred by one man's at the beginning rather desperate bid to achieve justice.

Well that and the fact that even though such a theme is rather very important, the movie's final shot really proves that in the end, men are not perfect, but even the worst of us are capable of being persuaded to maybe do something right. Or at the very least be utterly defeated by better men who have the daring to see their beliefs and convictions through to the end.



12 Angry Men (1997,Friedkin)

http://s3.amazonaws.com/auteurs_production/stills/4673/original.jpg?1289439033

How do you remake a great film? Very carefully, apparently. This is actually a rather underrated re-envisioning, with a cast that almost rivals the original's, although I will admit that it copies and mimics a lot of the original's most famous moments. Yet, I loved Jack Lemmon as Juror #8, and George C. Scott rather excels in the Lee J. Cobb spot, and getting to see the two of them go at it is a rather welcomed treat and makes this movie worthy of having even been made in the first place.

There's really not much else I can say about this movie, except that I actually think this film was one of the reasons I made this thread in the first place. Its also why I bumped it, simply to highlight a movie that I don't think is as well known, especially since I believe it was a HBO movie. I will admit that this movie does completely avoid the fact that its modern times and women are allowed to serve on juries, but I really don't mind that particular lapse in logic.

Verdict: Original, by 10 points on the rating scale I think. Check out the remake, watch the original if you haven't seen it already.

PS: I didn't realize that William Friedkin directed the remake, actually until recently. Huh, that's cool.

[Dukefrukem]

Since 12 Angry Men is in my top 5 all time, I should probably check out the remake.

Got another battle:

Fright Night (1985) vs Fright Night (2011)

[MadMan]

Since 12 Angry Men is in my top 5 all time, I should probably check out the remake.

Got another battle:

Fright Night (1985) vs Fright Night (2011)I'll rent the remake at some point-it just finally came out on DVD, I think. I really like the original, and for some reason I missed out on the remake in theaters.

[Mr. Pink]

. . . I still like the original a good deal more even if it isn't the better movie.


http://www.wearysloth.com/Gallery/ActorsC/3554-8943.gif

[MadMan]

http://www.wearysloth.com/Gallery/ActorsC/3554-8943.gifHeh, there's a difference between "Favorite" and "Best."

[Skitch]

I'll rent the remake at some point-it just finally came out on DVD, I think. I really like the original, and for some reason I missed out on the remake in theaters.

I was SHOCKED how much I enjoyed the remake. I think its failure is a case of an extremely poorly cut trailer.

[Dukefrukem]

Heh, there's a difference between "Favorite" and "Best."

I love this discussion. We should have it again.

[Dukefrukem]

I was SHOCKED how much I enjoyed the remake. I think its failure is a case of an extremely poorly cut trailer.

It failed??

[Skitch]

It failed??

Didn't it? Sorry, that was just an off the cuff comment, based purely on assumption. I hope it didn't. You know what? I actually had a freakin' blast with the remake.

[Skitch]

Just checked boxofficemojo. Made 37 million, cost 30. So I guess it is in the black. Good for FN!

[Thirdmango]

I saw this pop up and the past couple days I've been thinking about writing a remake vs. original blog posting because this year I've watched both or the one I hadn't seen of the following:

Ocean's Eleven
The Italian Job
The Taking of Pelham 123
Infernal Affairs

[MadMan]

I saw this pop up and the past couple days I've been thinking about writing a remake vs. original blog posting because this year I've watched both or the one I hadn't seen of the following:

Ocean's Eleven
The Italian Job
The Taking of Pelham 123
Infernal AffairsCool, man. I've only seen the remake of Ocean's 11 and the remake of The Italian Job, and of course I've seen both Infernal Affairs and The Departed. I imagine that the original The Taking of Pelham is better than the remake, although Brightside makes me want to check out Scott's version more so than I previously did. I bet the original Ocean's 11 is really awesome because of the Rat Pack, and I'm guessing the original Italian Job has to be better because the remake is mediocre and the original also has Michael Caine.

[Thirdmango]

Cool, man. I've only seen the remake of Ocean's 11 and the remake of The Italian Job, and of course I've seen both Infernal Affairs and The Departed. I imagine that the original The Taking of Pelham is better than the remake, although Brightside makes me want to check out Scott's version more so than I previously did. I bet the original Ocean's 11 is really awesome because of the Rat Pack, and I'm guessing the original Italian Job has to be better because the remake is mediocre and the original also has Michael Caine.

I watched both Taking of Pelhams, the 09 version was okay but the original was fantastic. The lack of technology actually helped the first one a lot more. Also with the Italian Job the original was much better then the remake, but even though I've been interested in watching more Rat Pack movies the original Oceans isn't nearly as good as the remake.

[transmogrifier]

The original Taking of Pelham 123 is infinitely superior to the bland remake.

[Skitch]

The original Taking of Pelham 123 is infinitely superior to the bland remake.

Agreed!

[Grouchy]

The original Taking of Pelham 123 is infinitely superior to the bland remake.
I haven't even seen the remake and I'm certain this is true. The original is an underrated classic.

[Dukefrukem]

The original Taking of Pelham 123 is infinitely superior to the bland remake.

The remake was one of my worst films of 2009. I think that was the year Travolta was going through some personal issues at home... I don't think he was putting much effort into it.

[Thirdmango]

The remake was one of my worst films of 2009. I think that was the year Travolta was going through some personal issues at home... I don't think he was putting much effort into it.

I am glad it was made simply because I don't think I would have watched the original had I not watched the remake. I'm being selfish here. :twisted:

[Skitch]

I didn't hate the Pelham remake, but it was obviously inferior to the original. Travolta drops the F-bomb so often its awkward.

[Pop Trash]

I haven't even seen the remake and I'm certain this is true. The original is an underrated classic.

This is true. I watched it for the first time last year, and it holds up really well.

[MadMan]

Interestingly enough this weekend I realized once again that I have failed to cover two more movies that were both remade, one of them being rather famous. We'll start with a less obvious remake, however.

The Sons Of Katie Elder (1965, Hathaway)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-oJE6vqaS7OA/TZkz1kSKBQI/AAAAAAAAAqE/ZaW1dtFwuY8/s1600/sonsofkatieelder.jpg

Despite this film having a really good cast, and even though its well directed, I'm not a huge fan of this one even though I love John Wayne. I think this is due to this film being rather cliche and standard, even for the western genre. There's nothing particularly special about this movie, and honestly the last two times I've watched it I've realized that the ending was always painfully obvious. Now I normally do not hold that against most movies, but in this case even with a western I do desire a bit more from the movie I'm watching.

Henry Hathaway actually directed John Wayne in a couple of other westerns, and he had a long and varied career. The only other film I've seen from him is True Grit, which is a much better western than The Sons of Katie Elder, although I will grant that Elder is pretty entertaining. Too bad that Wayne didn't make more movies with Dean Martin, as they had a natural chemistry in the few movies they made together, primarily the classic 1959 film Rio Bravo. Oh and don't forget to look for Dennis Hopper in another early role, merely four years before he directed Easy Rider.


Four Brothers (2005, Singleton)

http://www.film4.com/images/four-brothers-2005-01.jpg

Sporting arguably a better cast, this gritty urban update changes the setting completely and is a concrete western mixed in with some blaxplotation elements. All which gel together fairly well, despite some cheesy moments (Mark Wahlberg walking across the ice is hilarious and cool at the same time, coming across as an amusing botched nod to spaghetti westerns), and the fact that some of the violence feels a bit unnecessary and over the top. Yet, the relatively good cast and Singleton's firm direction make this an engaging action-thriller, and at this point I've seen so many times on cable that I guess I can call it a favorite of mine.

Honestly this is more of a loose remake of The Sons of Katie Elder than a direct take on the material, but I can point to this solid re-imaging of the previous film as why remakes are not a bad thing. When I talk about good or great remakes taking previous material and building upon it or offering an interesting take, Four Brothers is what I should point to from now on. If anything, this thread reminds me that there are far more bad sequels and even prequels than there are remakes.

Winner: Four Brothers by KO

[MadMan]

12 Monkeys vs. La Jetee ?I haven't forgotten this one. I have viewed La Jetee, but only some of 12 Monkeys.