Monday, August 3, 2015

Movie Re-Makes: Worth it or Not?

I saw the new RoboCop released in 2014 and enjoyed it a lot. Rotten Tomatoes said, "While over-the-top and gory...is also a surprisingly smart sci-fi flick that uses ultraviolence to disguise its satire of American culture." I've seen the 1987 version, which I also enjoyed, but the FX technology in the re-make is, of course, far superior.
RoboCop, 1987
Sometimes movie re-makes can be an improvement over the original film, like The Maltese Falcon.  In the 1931 version, sound was relatively new in movies, and sometimes actors delivered lines with their backs to the camera.  In addition, there was no mood music.

The Maltese Falcon, 1941
The 1941 re-make has become a classic, thanks to a charismatic cast that includes Humphrey Bogart, Peter Lorre, Sidney Greenstreet and Mary Astor. The musical score and dramatic cinematography place this film head and shoulders above its earlier counterpart.

Psycho, 1960
Although some re-makes surpass their predecessors, that's not always the case.  Take Psycho, for instance. The 1960 version was directed by Alfred Hitchcock.  Hitchcock--need I say more? Then along came the 1998 version, a shot by shot remake.  Why?

Do you have a favorite movie re-make and a not so favorite one?

Thanks for visiting and have a great week!

Reprinted from 1/13/14

4 comments:

shelly said...

I agree with you on Psycho. The original was the best.

Norma Beishir said...

In most cases, remakes seem pointless. But I will confess that I love the re-make of Sabrina much more than the original.

William Kendall said...

The shot by shot remake of Psycho just seemed misguided.

Crystal Collier said...

I have mixed emotions about remakes. Some of them are so good and build on the original, and some are just money makers. I wish we could root out all of the second variety.