Quote:
|
Originally Posted by squarejawhero
@Once - snob.  The remake. Seriously, how is it inferior? The remake is a solid film on its own without knowledge of the original. In fact, its damn frightening. |
But have you
seen the original? I may be a film snob in some respects, but believe me, I can say when a remake is better than the original. For instance, the 1939 Wizard of Oz is superior to all four versions made prior.
The 1941 version of The Maltese Falcon starring Humphrey Bogart is better than the one made ten years earlier. The 1959 Ben-Hur starring Charlton Heston is the definitive version of that film, even though the 1925 silent version is quite good. Also, I'm convinced that Peter Jackson's King Kong stands a damn good chance of topping the 1933 King Kong (and should easily trounce the 1976 version). Most snobs wouldn't make that last comment and you know it.
Anyway, not only is the remake of The Manchurian Candidate pretty decent as remakes go, but even the original Manchurian Candidate was a flawed classic. There are some cheesy parts when viewed through today's eyes, and the remake is more relevant to the way things are in the present. At the same time, as cinema, the original is just a better movie. When the current events and issues that the remake deals with in a "scary" way become irrelevant down the road (as the original film's already have), we will only be able to compare the films on the merits of their acting, filmmaking, writing, etc. And the original wins that fight.
EDIT: Ok, ok...the acting is a toss up. It's tough to say the acting was better than Denzel Washington and Meryl Streep... Still, Angela Lansbury is just BRILLIANT in the original (I listed her as one of my favorite movie villains in the villain thread mag cooked up), and I suppose I do prefer her portrayal over Streep's. Also, how can anyone resist Old Blue Eyes in the starring role?
