The Criterion Collection

[The Sovereign]

Originally Posted by SeanJoyce

3:10 to Yuma, The Killers and The Thing are the strongest arguments one can make against the "all remakes are useless" stance. Like somebody else said above, they do wildly different things with the source material that give us two fresh, exciting options.

I'm happy we live in a world with both.

Like most all or nothing positions, that’s a weak one. And while I’d agree that there are many bad remakes, there are more than a few good ones. Along with the one’s you mentioned, some that I like:

Invasion of the Body Snatchers
The Fly
Seven Samurai/The Magnificent Seven (1960)
Dawn of the Dead
Let the Right One In/Let Me In
Nosferatu
The Parent Trap

[SeanJoyce]

Originally Posted by The Sovereign

Like most all or nothing positions, that’s a weak one. And while I’d agree that there are many bad remakes, there are more than a few good ones. Along with the one’s you mentioned, some that I like:

Invasion of the Body Snatchers
The Fly
Seven Samurai/The Magnificent Seven (1960)
Dawn of the Dead
Let the Right One In/Let Me In
Nosferatu
The Parent Trap

As we all know, there's plenty of good-to-great remakes out there...I was just listing the ones that take the most different approaches to the source material.

But I agree, there's generally something very fresh and new with the ones you listed.

[Kyle15]

I stop at calling some of those remakes, cuz they're more like re-adaptations of source material instead of movie remakes. Van Sant's Psycho is a remake.
The Thing is a re-adaptation.

[regeyer]

Originally Posted by The Sovereign

Like most all or nothing positions, that’s a weak one. And while I’d agree that there are many bad remakes, there are more than a few good ones. Along with the one’s you mentioned, some that I like:

Invasion of the Body Snatchers
The Fly
Seven Samurai/The Magnificent Seven (1960)
Dawn of the Dead
Let the Right One In/Let Me In
Nosferatu
The Parent Trap

I don't consider The Magnificent Seven a remake of Seven Samurai. It's based on Seven Samurai, but it's not really a remake. And, in my opinion, Seven Samurai is the far superior film.

I do like the remake of The Parent Trap. If I had to chose between the two I'd probably stick with the original. But I think the remake is strong and Disney did a great job of staying true to the original and updating it at the same time.

Another remake that I like is Sabrina. In fact, I like the Harrison Ford version better that the Bogart version. But I do like them both.

[The Sovereign]

Originally Posted by regeyer

I don't consider The Magnificent Seven a remake of Seven Samurai. It's based on Seven Samurai, but it's not really a remake.

"based on" / "remake"

Originally Posted by regeyer

And, in my opinion, Seven Samurai is the far superior film.

I'd imagine that's most people's opinion - but it doesn't diminish The Magnificent Seven.

[SeanJoyce]

Originally Posted by Kyle15

I stop at calling some of those remakes, cuz they're more like re-adaptations of source material instead of movie remakes. Van Sant's Psycho is a remake.
The Thing is a re-adaptation.

That's true about The Thing, but for the sake of simplicity very few people are going to make the distinction between "remake" and "re-adaptation" in these discussions.

But that's more to my original point...we get two completely different, SUCCESSFUL movies from Campbell's short story, and both are worth treasuring.

[RCRochester]

There's nothing I find sillier than the constant pedantry over films being remakes, re-adaptations or reboots. I say, if a film generally tells the same story as an earlier film, it's a remake regardless of what the original source material is.

John Carpenter's Thing is a remake. If you want to also qualify it by saying it's a re-adaptation of the source material, that's fine, but people sure do flip out sometimes when they start insisting it's NOT a remake.

[Banned User]

Originally Posted by The Sovereign

Let the Right One In/Let Me In

Have to disagree here. I thought Hollywood took away what was so special about the original film and turned it into a fairly typical vampire picture that lacked the atmosphere and impact of the first one. Maybe I need to rewatch it again, but was not a fan of it.

Another one that gave us two great films: Yojimbo & Fistful of Dollars ( will not mention that Bruce Willis movie in the same sentence here out of reverence for the two directors )

[The Sovereign]

Originally Posted by Banned User

Have to disagree here. I thought Hollywood took away what was so special about the original film and turned it into a fairly typical vampire picture that lacked the atmosphere and impact of the first one. Maybe I need to rewatch it again, but was not a fan of it.

Yeah, I get that, and there's no question that I significantly prefer the Swedish film. Still, I like the American version too, possibly because I had very low expectations of liking it at all. And if it helped anyone go back and discover the original, all the better.

[SeanJoyce]

Originally Posted by Banned User

Another one that gave us two great films: Yojimbo & Fistful of Dollars ( will not mention that Bruce Willis movie in the same sentence here out of reverence for the two directors )

I wonder why everybody always forgets about Miller's Crossing here when discussing these films.

[latehong]

Originally Posted by SeanJoyce

I wonder why everybody always forgets about Miller's Crossing here when discussing these films.

One can say they are all in the same vein of Dashiel Hammet's hardboiled novels, but technically, Yojimbo and A Fistful of Dollars are rooted upon Red Harvest (the stranger-protagonist plays and betrays both gangs, cleansing the whole town), while Miller's Crossing is more or less an adaptation of the same writer's The Glass Key (

[Show spoiler]the gangster-protagonist seems to betray his own boss, which is actually an act of royalty

).

[MassiveMovieBuff]

Originally Posted by The Sovereign

Yeah, I get that, and there's no question that I significantly prefer the Swedish film. Still, I like the American version too, possibly because I had very low expectations of liking it at all. And if it helped anyone go back and discover the original, all the better.

I much prefer the American version though I do like the Swedish version as well. The American version just improved on damn near everything and it's much more emotionally involving IMHO. I like how it's an alternate version of the story like Carpenter's The Thing.

[dwk]

Regarding the questions about the tinting in the new HAXAN Blu-ray, the Criterion Forum's review states:

This edition makes use of a new 2K restoration performed in 2016 by Svensk Filmindustri, which was scanned from a 35mm duplicate negative.

...The old DVD tinted night time scenes and the last portion of the film blue, and every other sequence red, with the latter being an obnoxious aspect of that presentation. The Hell sequences here are still red, but most day time shots (and that last section of the film) are now a sepia, while most nighttime sequences are blue. The digitally created intertitles are also tinted blue now. The restoration notes indicate the tinting was based on instructions left by Christensen.

[ravenus]

Originally Posted by Rzzzz

Maybe you guys can help me with something regarding 3:10 to Yuma. I have never seen the original because I too am not a big Glenn Ford fan (but I did order the Big Heat from the recent Indicator/powerhouse sale, still waiting on shipment) but I did see the remake on tv and liked it except for one part that bugged me (I think I may have gotten in 1/2 way through which probably didn't help) why does Russel Crowe

[Show spoiler]help Christian Bale get him on the train? He is not putting up much of a fight and seems like he is on Bales side against the bad guys when he is a bad guy too and should be fighting Bale all the way through. If I remember correctly, Crowe felt sorry for Bale and admired him, so he went along, which I have always had a problem with.

Thanks for your help....

Yes, both films take the approach that the bandit is sympathetic or respectful of the farmer's determination despite the odds (and a little envious of the loving homestead he is struggling to keep) and his actions at the end are guided by that. It's an aspect that even the source story author Elmore Leonard has issues with, but given how unfair the stakes are against the farmer, it would seem otherwise impossible to achieve.

[ravenus]

Originally Posted by regeyer

I don't consider The Magnificent Seven a remake of Seven Samurai. It's based on Seven Samurai, but it's not really a remake. And, in my opinion, Seven Samurai is the far superior film.

If it credits the original screenplay, it's a remake. Don't know what the specific case is for SS/MS.

Originally Posted by RCRochester

There's nothing I find sillier than the constant pedantry over films being remakes, re-adaptations or reboots. I say, if a film generally tells the same story as an earlier film, it's a remake regardless of what the original source material is.

Would you regard each new film of a Shakespeare play as a remake of the previous one? Should Kurosawa's Throne of Blood or Polanski's Macbeth be considered remakes of Orson Welles' film? Should the Welles Macbeth be regarded as a remake of the 1916 silent film? IMO, if an original screenplay is the source of inspiration it's a remake. If it's some other source, like a book or play, unless it incorporates the bulk of its elements from a previous script, it's another adaptation. This is not pedantry, but a very valid distinction.

[ravenus]

Originally Posted by acroyear2

I haven't seen much of Ford in movies to have a strong opinion either way, but I did like his turn as the "nice guy" role in Jubal (a Criterion release I keep meaning to buy, I love that movie). The only other role (albeit brief) I've seen him in is a weird late-70's sci-fi movie called The Visitors.

You mean to say you haven't seen Superman: The Movie where he has a brief but effective cameo as Jonathan Kent?

[nitin]

or Gilda?

[Aclea]

Originally Posted by SeanJoyce

I wonder why everybody always forgets about Miller's Crossing here when discussing these films.

As noted, it's closer to The Glass Key. But Last Man Standing is Red Harvest via Fistful of Dollars (even though it credits the screenplay for Yojimbo as the source) while the Italian The Last Round basically is Red Harvest stile Italiano.

Mind you, Leone always claimed Goldoni's safely out of copyright Servant of Two Masters was his source...

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by ravenus

If it credits the original screenplay, it's a remake. Don't know what the specific case is for SS/MS.

Would you regard each new film of a Shakespeare play as a remake of the previous one? Should Kurosawa's Throne of Blood or Polanski's Macbeth be considered remakes of Orson Welles' film? Should the Welles Macbeth be regarded as a remake of the 1916 silent film? IMO, if an original screenplay is the source of inspiration it's a remake. If it's some other source, like a book or play, unless it incorporates the bulk of its elements from a previous script, it's another adaptation. This is not pedantry, but a very valid distinction.

No, I would not regard Roman Polanski's Macbeth a remake OF the Orson Welles one. The word "remake" means they are making another one, so if someone films another movie version of Macbeth, they are making another one, thus a "remake".

Bradley Cooper's "A Star Is Born" is as much a re-adaptation of the 1937 film's screenplay as the 1976 version, so why even start nitpicking about whether something is a "remake" vs a "re-adaptation" just because its origins are a play or a novel as opposed to a film script?

Originally Posted by ravenus

You mean to say you haven't seen Superman: The Movie where he has a brief but effective cameo as Jonathan Kent?

How is this for pedantry? Glenn Ford doesn't have a cameo in Superman, he has a credited supporting role. Rex Reed has a cameo in Superman.

[belcherman]

Originally Posted by ravenus

If it credits the original screenplay, it's a remake. Don't know what the specific case is for SS/MS.

Would you regard each new film of a Shakespeare play as a remake of the previous one? Should Kurosawa's Throne of Blood or Polanski's Macbeth be considered remakes of Orson Welles' film? Should the Welles Macbeth be regarded as a remake of the 1916 silent film? IMO, if an original screenplay is the source of inspiration it's a remake. If it's some other source, like a book or play, unless it incorporates the bulk of its elements from a previous script, it's another adaptation. This is not pedantry, but a very valid distinction.

But what about movies where the source material is relatively obscure, such as Invasion of the Body Snatchers? Jack Finney isn't exactly Shakespeare when it comes to name recognition. Even when the film-makers say that they're going to go back to the source material and make a movie that's more true to the book, it's still a remake, in my opinion, because the prior film will have more currency with the audience than the source material.

I don't think that these distinctions are always black and white.