Trotwood-Madison vs. Winton Woods
.JPG)
2009-10 UD men's basketball
Pyramid Hill lights up
Home > Blogs > Sir Critic on Cinema > Archives > 2009 > August > 12 > Entry
What sequels/remakes top the originals?
In my What Are You Watching post Tuesday, commenter “Channel Nine” mentioned watching The Bride of Frankenstein and was struck that it was the rare sequel that was better than the original.
So that, dear readers, is today’s question, with just a slight spin: What sequels - or remakes - are better than the original films?
People very commonly cite The Godfather Part II and The Empire Strikes Back as the prime examples of improved sequels. Funnily enough, I disagree with with both choices.
I concede that Empire is a better made movie than the original Star Wars - it’s certainly better written. However, if I’m going to sit down and watch one Star Wars movie just for the heck of it, it’s always going to be the original. Simply put, nothing can replicate the thrill of discovery that only comes with the 1977 film. Plus, I’m still smarting that I found out the big twist about Darth Vader before I actually saw Empire.
The Godfather situation is similar. Part II is certainly more ambitious and darker than the original film, but more ambitious and darker do NOT equal better. Think of it this way - if you’re going to watch one Godfather film, which one will it be? I’m willing to bet a sizable chunk of my DVD collection most people would say the first. It’s also worth noting that most of the heavily quoted lines and iconic scenes come from the first film, not the second. (For the record, Part III, while not nearly as good as the others, is also not as bad as many people make it out to be.)
Some other examples:
Toy Story 2: I’m never surprised that the original Toy Story makes lists of the greatest animated films of all time, but I am surprised the sequel never makes the same lists. It’s clearly better than the first - funnier, more imaginative, and more poignant. No scene in an animated movie tears me up faster than when Jessie is abandoned during “When She Loved Me.”
Superman II: I remember a lot of people at the time saying the Man of Steel’s second movie was better than the first. Revisionist history will tell you the 1978 film is the great one, and the sequel is compromised because director Richard Donner, who started the film, was fired, and had much of his work reshot by Richard Lester. Sorry, I don’t buy it. The 1978 Superman is lots of fun, but is a touch bloated and it takes way too long to get going. The sequel is leaner, punchier, and more moving. (And yes, I’ve seen the “Richard Donner cut” and I like it even less than the 1978 film. No amount of editing can fix a film that wasn’t finished.)
Spider-Man 2: Better villain, better action scenes, better effects, more fun. Simple.
Aliens: It’s almost unfair to compare James Cameron’s sequel to Ridley Scott’s original, because they’re such different movies. Scott made a sci-fi haunted house movie, Cameron made a sci-fi combat film. While no one scene in Aliens is as iconic as the the original chest-bursting scene, I prefer Cameron’s relentless adrenaline to Scott’s slow burn.
The Maltese Falcon: People complain that Hollywood is overly hung up on remakes. It is - but classic Hollywood did it too. Thing is, when they did it, they often did it right, remaking what wasn’t very good in the first place. The Dashiel Hammet novel was made into three feature films: First, in 1931 (not bad, but not great), again in 1936 as the little-remembered comedy (!) Satan Met a Lady, starring Bette Davis, no less, then finally as an inidsputable classic with Bogie in 1941.
So what sequels or remakes top the originals for you? Need to jog your memory? Here’s a list from Times Online, and one from GreenCine.
Regarding these lists: The Dark Knight better than Batman Begins? Sure! The Road Warrior better than Mad Max? Sure! Back to the Future Part II better than the original? HORSE MANURE!
Your serve!
Permalink | Comments (16) | Post your comment | Categories: Ask the Audience
Comments
By Allie D.
August 16, 2009 12:58 PM | Link to this
I should have actually known better than to make the kind of mistake I made in my earlier comment. Red Dragon is actually a remake on Manhunter, and it is therefore a better comparison. I actually thought Red Dragon was a good movie, especially when you consider that Brett Ratner made it.By Jack Walter
August 13, 2009 7:28 AM | Link to this
Both the 30’s original and the 70’s remake of The Front Page were very good. But the Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell twist on the movie, His Girl Friday, exceeded both. I am thankful for Charlie’s Angels:Full Throttle. It was so bad it hopefully ended the potential series at two odes to unnecessary excess.By SRCputt
August 13, 2009 4:41 AM | Link to this
Since I teased Eric about his favorite director, I’d better speak up for my favorite. Especially since I genuinely believe Spielberg’s War of the Worlds is a much richer, more emotional experience than the 50s version.By SRCputt
August 13, 2009 4:31 AM | Link to this
Three 90s films I want to mention: Alphonzo Cuaron did something magical with A Little Princess, much more than the Shirley Temple version did. Claude Lelouch’s version of Les Miserables, while not a literal remake, by being “inspired” by the classic book is much more powerful than any other adaption of it. And I’m going to call this last one a tie: as the 90s version of Little Women and the 30s version are both brilliant. And thank you, Zack, for mentioning Before Sunset.By Up too late
August 13, 2009 2:37 AM | Link to this
Rocky IIBy LA
August 12, 2009 7:45 PM | Link to this
I would have to rate A Place In The Sun over the original An American Tragedy although I admire both directors, Von Sternberg and Stevens. Hard to improve on Montgomery Clift and Elizabeth Taylor.By Sir Critic
August 12, 2009 6:31 PM | Link to this
I like to be unpredictable every now and again.By SRCputt
August 12, 2009 5:43 PM | Link to this
Stunned that Eric “I love Scorsese” Robinette did not mention either Cape Fear or The Departed in this article. Hannibal did not have Jodie Foster, so is automatically inferior to The Silence of the Lambs.By Tony
August 12, 2009 4:39 PM | Link to this
The second movie in series that wind up in trilogies usually are my least favorite because IMO they do not have a definitive ending, such is the case for me with Empire and Two Towers. It seems as if the directors know they can continue, then there is too much of a Cliffhanger. With original movies, then there has to be an end because they do not know whether there will be call for another movie or not. I will say that some are equally as good and that the Spiderman and XMen series all improved upon their predecessors. I think the Bourne movies are all equal. Personally, I liked Hannibal better than Silence because it was just a little more twisted, especially the scene where Hannibal catches the character played by Ray Liotta.By Sir Critic
August 12, 2009 4:28 PM | Link to this
I really must interject again - the only thing masterful about “Charlie’s Angels “Full Throttle” was how it inspired me to think of a variety of forms of self-mutilation that would have been preferable to seeing that frenzy of light and noise a second time - or even a first.By Allie D.
August 12, 2009 4:13 PM | Link to this
Well, Eric and some of the other posters mentioned some of my picks already. I highly agree about The Godfather, Aliens, Spiderman 2, and Terminator 2. I will have to highly disagree with Charlie’s Angles Full Throttle, and I desperately wish I had those two hours of my life back that I gave up when I saw that piece of crap. As for my other picks, I’d have to say that Romero’s Dawn of the Dead was superior to Night of the Living Dead. Evil Dead II was far better than the first. I would rate The Bourne Supremacy higher than The Bourne Identity, although The Bourne Ultimatum bests them both (kind of rare for the third part of a trilogy to be better than its predecessors). And though I’m not quite sure if this qualifies as a pick because it’s not quite a remake or a sequel, even though it features the same characters: The Silence of the Lambs was far superior to Manhunter.By vistavision
August 12, 2009 1:22 PM | Link to this
“The Dark Knight,” anyone? We had to endure dozens of Batman movies before somebody got it right. “Wrath of Khan” definitely fills the criteria. You could argue that “Heaven Can Wait” is better than “Here Comes Mr. Jordan.”By Zack
August 12, 2009 1:07 PM | Link to this
I disagree with your choices, except for TOY STORY 2 (which I’d say is the equal of the original) and THE MALTESE FALCON remake. I agree with @somethingbetter that T2 is an improvement on THE TERMINATOR. My other picks? I like BEFORE SUNRISE, but BEFORE SUNSET is one of my very favorite films. I thought THE TWO TOWERS theatrical was better than FOTR theatrical (extended cut of FOTR is amazing, tho). CHARLIE’S ANGELS: FULL THROTTLE is a pop masterpiece. WRATH OF KAHN is light years ahead of THE MOTION PICTURE. PRISONER OF AZKABAN, GOBLET OF FIRE, and HALF-BLOOD PRINCE are leagues better than their peers. GREMLINS 2: THE NEW BATCH is far more daring than GREMLINS, though they’re about on par. X2 was definitely an improvement on X-MEN. THE FLY by Cronenberg is iconic, although I haven’t seen the original.By Sir Critic
August 12, 2009 1:06 PM | Link to this
BTTF 2 had some VERY clever moments that make it worth seeing, including scenes from the first film viewed from a different vantage point. However, the alternate 1985 sequence was so harsh, so over the top, it sent the movie off the rails. As for Indy, this post is meant to be about sequels BETTER than the originals. Perhaps ranking the films of the most popular series is a post for another day.By somethingbetter
August 12, 2009 12:44 PM | Link to this
Terminator 2 is on this list, IMHO. 2 had mind-blowing special effects that 1 couldn’t come close too.By Kim S.
August 12, 2009 11:41 AM | Link to this
To me, BTTF 2 is the same film as one - there are far too many “repeated” scenes. And the third was totally unnecessary, so the first should have stayed on its own. And no mention of “Temple of Doom” being worse than it’s predecesor?