Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Once A Villain
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.  |
How about The Thing From Another World vs. The Thing? La Jetée vs. 12 Monkeys? The Fly vs. The Fly? Yojimbo vs. A Fistful of Dollars? Spoorloos vs. The Vanishing?
Quote:
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?
|
I think the two come out pretty even. Laurence Harvey and Liev Schreiber are both excellent in their part. I don't care much for either Sinatra's or Washington's efforts, and Streep and Lansbury both walk a fine line between brilliant and awful. The romantic interest (I forget the name) is better in the original, but I think playing up the crazed veteran schtick works well for the remake. Also, I prefer the plotting in the remake:
Spoiler:Making Ben Marco the assassin is more interesting (and makes more sense) than having it be Raymond Shaw.
On the other hand, the satire is sharper in the original, where in the remake it relies too much on Haliburton=Cold War China intertextuality. In my opinion, it's a tie.
