Remakes you liked?

[Myasishchev]

No, it was a popular and reasonably well-made film. I just always hated the concept (aliens attack Earth, die because they do not understand the concept of bacterial infections).

Not enough explosions and mayhem for you? I think WOTW is genius.

No, but between the cop-out with the kid and the implausibility of an alien race that can master space travel but not antibiotics, I simply wasn't sold. But I've never been sold on War of the Worlds, in any rendition or any medium.

It's a relatively well-made failure, however. But even the shittiest Spielberg movie is bound to be well-made.

I completely disagree. Abre Los Ojos is superior to Vanilla Sky in every possible way. Better direction, better lead actor, better use of music (i.e. it uses the music to help the story, rather than the other way round - using the story to make a feature-length video for director's favorite songs), it doesn't have the lame romcom ending, and overall it feels really dark and dramatic, like a real thriller/drama, not as another one of Cameron Crowe's dramedies.

Not willing to agree on either the composition of the shots nor on Cruise's performance, particularly the latter--even if one insists that Tom Cruise can't play anyone but Tom Cruise, giving him the role of a rich but charming total asshole is still perfect casting.

I can get behind the latter criticism of Crowe, however.

I don't really know what you mean by "romcom" ending. The last shot of VS is Cruise opening his eyes on the far future, leaving it completely up in the air what's gonna happen next (which, iirc, is how Abre ends too, or something to that effect).

 

[DevilEyes]

I completely disagree. Abre Los Ojos is superior to Vanilla Sky in every possible way. Better direction, better lead actor, better use of music (i.e. it uses the music to help the story, rather than the other way round - using the story to make a feature-length video for director's favorite songs), it doesn't have the lame romcom ending, and overall it feels really dark and dramatic, like a real thriller/drama, not as another one of Cameron Crowe's dramedies.

Not willing to agree on either the composition of the shots nor on Cruise's performance, there, although I can get behind the latter criticism of Crowe. I don't know what you mean by "romcom" ending. The last shot of VS is Cruise opening his eyes on the far future, leaving it completely up in the air what's gonna happen next (which, iirc, is how Abre ends too, or something to that effect).

As far as the story goes, the ending is the same; I was referring to Cruise's lines to Cruz's character and overall feel of the scene, which made it way too light-hearted in comparison with the original rendering of the same scene. Though I realize that some people might prefer Crowe's version.

 

[saturn5]

No, it was a popular and reasonably well-made film. I just always hated the concept (aliens attack Earth, die because they do not understand the concept of bacterial infections).

Not enough explosions and mayhem for you? I think WOTW is genius.

No, but between the cop-out with the kid and the implausibility of an alien race that can master space travel but not antibiotics, I simply wasn't sold. But I've never been sold on War of the Worlds, in any rendition or any medium.

It's a relatively well-made failure, however. But even the shittiest Spielberg movie is bound to be well-made.

I completely disagree. Abre Los Ojos is superior to Vanilla Sky in every possible way. Better direction, better lead actor, better use of music (i.e. it uses the music to help the story, rather than the other way round - using the story to make a feature-length video for director's favorite songs), it doesn't have the lame romcom ending, and overall it feels really dark and dramatic, like a real thriller/drama, not as another one of Cameron Crowe's dramedies.

Not willing to agree on either the composition of the shots nor on Cruise's performance, particularly the latter--even if one insists that Tom Cruise can't play anyone but Tom Cruise, giving him the role of a rich but charming total asshole is still perfect casting.

I can get behind the latter criticism of Crowe, however.

I don't really know what you mean by "romcom" ending. The last shot of VS is Cruise opening his eyes on the far future, leaving it completely up in the air what's gonna happen next (which, iirc, is how Abre ends too, or something to that effect).

I enjoyed the WOTW series although it could sometimes be incredibly violent and sadistic, you thought you were watching F13th.

Does have one of the greatest lines ever though. The ep where an alien is disfigured and the alien god entity orders him put to death. Influenced by humanity he flees and comes across the dead body of a deformed human asking
"Does your god reject you?"
Also like the last ep where they peace with the aliens and the humans look at each other as if to say 'Well what now?'
"Let's go for a walk" suggests Jared "I think it's going to be a beautiful day" And they do.

 

[JarodRussell]

True Lies
The Fugitive
Father of the Bride

Seems I might be able to like the A-Team, but we'll see about that.

 

[Myasishchev]

I enjoyed the WOTW series although it could sometimes be incredibly violent and sadistic, you thought you were watching F13th.

Does have one of the greatest lines ever though. The ep where an alien is disfigured and the alien god entity orders him put to death. Influenced by humanity he flees and comes across the dead body of a deformed human asking
"Does your god reject you?"
Also like the last ep where they peace with the aliens and the humans look at each other as if to say 'Well what now?'
"Let's go for a walk" suggests Jared "I think it's going to be a beautiful day" And they do.

You know, I hadn't thought of the WotW series in years, but I remember it (from my childhood) as being pretty good. May have to check it out again.

 

[Deckerd]

I liked Battlestar Galactica, although not so much the ending.

 

[Gojira]

Remakes I like.

King Kong (I like the 1977 version as well as Peter Jackson's version)
The Fly
War of the Worlds
The Time Machine
BSG
The Day the Earth Stood Still


I like all the original versions of these movies too.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

3:10 to Yuma (2007)
The King and I (1956)
The Magnificent Seven (1960)
Ben Hur (1959)
The Bourne Identity (2002)
Charlotte's Web (2006)
Dangerous Liaisons (1986)
Down and Out in Beverly Hills (1986)
The Grudge (2004)
His Girl Friday (1940)
The Maltese Falcon (1941)
Ocean's 11 (2001)
Peter Pan (2003)
The Thomas Crowne Affair (1999)
True Lies (1994)
The Wizard of Oz (1939)

 

[DevilEyes]

Dangerous Liaisons (1986)

I don't think that adaptations of literary works count as "remakes". Or else we'd have to count every adaptation of Hamlet as a remake of the first film adaptation of the play, whatever that was - probably a silent movie from the beginning of the 20th century that few people have heard of.

 

[Greg Cox]

Dangerous Liaisons (1986)

I don't think that adaptations of literary works count as "remakes". Or else we'd have to count every adaptation of Hamlet as a remake of the first film adaptation of the play, whatever that was - probably a silent movie from the beginning of the 20th century that few people have heard of.

I don't know. I think that's an artificial distinction. Is a new version of LOGAN'S RUN or PLANET OF THE APES not a "remake" because they were originally adapted from books, as opposed to, say, SOYLENT GREEN or FANTASTIC VOYAGE?

Most movies are based on something, be it a novel, play, comic book, video game, or whatever. If new adaptations aren't considered remakes, then the word becomes pretty much meaningless.

THE FLY, THE THING, INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS, I AM LEGEND, THE WAR OF THE WORLDS, BEN-HUR . . . pretty much every remake we've discussed is based on a movie that was based on a classic book or short story.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

Dangerous Liaisons (1986)

I don't think that adaptations of literary works count as "remakes". Or else we'd have to count every adaptation of Hamlet as a remake of the first film adaptation of the play, whatever that was - probably a silent movie from the beginning of the 20th century that few people have heard of.

Stephen Frears' 1986 film was a remake of the 1959 Roger Vadim movie Les Liaisons Dangereuses.

 

[butch101]

There's not a lot, but...

Ocean's 11, the Thing and the classic remake of the Invasion of the Body Snatchers are truly great. I'll have to add to the list Spielberg's War of the Worlds.

Good day !

Butch

 

[Admiral2]

Godzilla (1998) (Yep, I'm the one.)

New Battlestar Galactica

Spielberg's War of the Worlds

Jackson's King Kong

Rob Zombie's Halloween (Yep, I was that one too.)

Bay's Transformers (Including Fallen)

 

[DevilEyes]

Dangerous Liaisons (1986)

I don't think that adaptations of literary works count as "remakes". Or else we'd have to count every adaptation of Hamlet as a remake of the first film adaptation of the play, whatever that was - probably a silent movie from the beginning of the 20th century that few people have heard of.

Stephen Frears' 1986 film was a remake of the 1959 Roger Vadim movie Les Liaisons Dangereuses.

No, it is an adaptation of the 1782 novel Les Liaisons Dangereuses by Choderlos de Laclos, or more specifically, it is a film adaptation of Christopher Hampton's 1985 play of the same name, which was itself an adaptation of Chodelos de Laclos' novel. It's therefore very unlikely that the Frears film was based in any way on Vadim's 1959 adaptation of the novel. (Not to mention that Vadim set the story in contemporary setting, while Hampton/Frears have kept the original 18th century setting.)

Dangerous Liaisons (1986)

I don't think that adaptations of literary works count as "remakes". Or else we'd have to count every adaptation of Hamlet as a remake of the first film adaptation of the play, whatever that was - probably a silent movie from the beginning of the 20th century that few people have heard of.

I don't know. I think that's an artificial distinction. Is a new version of LOGAN'S RUN or PLANET OF THE APES not a "remake" because they were originally adapted from books, as opposed to, say, SOYLENT GREEN or FANTASTIC VOYAGE?

Most movies are based on something, be it a novel, play, comic book, video game, or whatever. If new adaptations aren't considered remakes, then the word becomes pretty much meaningless.

THE FLY, THE THING, INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS, I AM LEGEND, THE WAR OF THE WORLDS, BEN-HUR . . . pretty much every remake we've discussed is based on a movie that was based on a classic book or short story.

The distinction is not at all artificial, if the film is based on the original literary work, rather than on a previous adaptation of the same literary work (see above). If someone makes a version of Romeo and Juliet set in Renaissance Verona, would you consider it a remake of Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet, rather than an adaption of Shakespeare's play?

 

[Lapis Exilis]

I don't think that adaptations of literary works count as "remakes". Or else we'd have to count every adaptation of Hamlet as a remake of the first film adaptation of the play, whatever that was - probably a silent movie from the beginning of the 20th century that few people have heard of.

Stephen Frears' 1986 film was a remake of the 1959 Roger Vadim movie Les Liaisons Dangereuses.

No, it is an adaptation of the 1782 novel Les Liaisons Dangereuses by Choderlos de Laclos, or more specifically, it is a film adaptation of Christopher Hampton's 1985 play of the same name, which was itself an adaptation of Chodelos de Laclos' novel. It's therefore very unlikely that the Frears film was based in any way on Vadim's 1959 adaptation of the novel. (Not to mention that Vadim set the story in contemporary setting, while Hampton/Frears have kept the original 18th century setting.)

Numerous "remakes" are actually new adaptations of written works and plays that are not particularly influenced by the previous films adapted from the same works - such as The Wizard of Oz (1939). Is there some reason Dangerous Liaisons should be considered apart from other cases such as these?

 

[Goji]

I'm not sure if this counts, because the original and "remake" exist in separate media, but I vastly prefer the Raul Julia/Barry Sonnenfeld Addams Family movies to the television sitcom.

I also, strangely, prefer the recent War of the Worlds movie to the original. Usually I love science fiction and horror films from that era (I prefer the originals of The Fly, The Thing and Invasion of the Body Snatchers), but the George Pal War of the Worlds has always left me with a sort of "meh" feeling overall, aside from the obviously iconic design of the Martian war machines. Especially compared to his adaptation of The Time Machine, it feels lacking. The remake isn't much better, and makes considerably less scientific and logical sense (they buried their war machines underground centuries ago? Really? Why? And nobody found them? Even when building sewer systems and subways?) but it is much more exhilarating to watch. The atmosphere of pure dread it creates is very effective, even if it is ultimately cheapened by a WTF ending.

Peter Jackson's King Kong is not better than the original, but I enjoy it nonetheless.

 

[DevilEyes]

Stephen Frears' 1986 film was a remake of the 1959 Roger Vadim movie Les Liaisons Dangereuses.

No, it is an adaptation of the 1782 novel Les Liaisons Dangereuses by Choderlos de Laclos, or more specifically, it is a film adaptation of Christopher Hampton's 1985 play of the same name, which was itself an adaptation of Chodelos de Laclos' novel. It's therefore very unlikely that the Frears film was based in any way on Vadim's 1959 adaptation of the novel. (Not to mention that Vadim set the story in contemporary setting, while Hampton/Frears have kept the original 18th century setting.)

Numerous "remakes" are actually new adaptations of written works and plays that are not particularly influenced by the previous films adapted from the same works - such as The Wizard of Oz (1939). Is there some reason Dangerous Liaisons should be considered apart from other cases such as these?

Nope, because those other "remakes" are not actually remakes, either. By definition, a remake is a work that has a previous work in the same medium as the main source, e.g. a film that is primarily based on a previous film is a remake of the latter.

If a film is mostly based on a previous film, even if the previous film was based on a story/novel, then it is a remake. But, for instance, a new film version of Hamlet is very unlikely to be remake of a movie made in 1907. It is an adaptation of a play.

 

[Harvey]

I'd agree with you on principal, DevilEyes, but there's some murky ground there. John Carpenter's The Thing, for example, is much closer to the original story than the Howard Hawks production. However, it directly quotes the cinematic predecessor in several instances, and also draws its title from it (the earlier film is The Thing From Another World; the short story is Who Goes There?).

Another question, since you define a remake as a work in one medium that seeks to replicate a previous version in that same medium--how does television fit into this? Is the film version of The Fugitive a remake, or is it simply an adaptation of the television show?