Home > Blogs > Sir Critic on Cinema > Archives > 2009 > August > 12
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
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
