Has anyone else noticed how many so-called “bad” remakes actually get praised only to be forgotten a year later, while the ones that genuinely improve on the original somehow get ignored? I’m trying to put together a watchlist of remakes that aren’t just competent but actually surpass the source material in a meaningful way—better pacing, deeper character work, a tighter script, maybe a different ending that fixes a glaring flaw.
I was going fine for a while. The Thing (1982) obviously counts, though Carpenter’s is already a remake of a 50s movie. The Departed is better than Infernal Affairs if you accept it as a different beast. The Fly (1986) is more emotionally brutal than the original. But then I hit a wall with The Wizard of Oz (1939)—technically a remake, but is it really “improving” the 1925 version when the 1925 version is barely remembered? Or think about Scarface (1983)—Al Pacino’s performance is iconic, but the 1932 original has a tighter narrative and less bloated runtime. Does a more memorable performance automatically make it better?
That’s the specific wall I’m stuck on. Where do you draw the line between a remake that improved the original vs. a remake that’s just more famous? I want examples where the remake objectively fixes a weakness—like replacing a wooden lead, cutting a nonsense subplot, or updating a dated moral stance—not just cases where the remake has better special effects or a bigger star. What are your picks that pass that stricter test?
I was going fine for a while. The Thing (1982) obviously counts, though Carpenter’s is already a remake of a 50s movie. The Departed is better than Infernal Affairs if you accept it as a different beast. The Fly (1986) is more emotionally brutal than the original. But then I hit a wall with The Wizard of Oz (1939)—technically a remake, but is it really “improving” the 1925 version when the 1925 version is barely remembered? Or think about Scarface (1983)—Al Pacino’s performance is iconic, but the 1932 original has a tighter narrative and less bloated runtime. Does a more memorable performance automatically make it better?
That’s the specific wall I’m stuck on. Where do you draw the line between a remake that improved the original vs. a remake that’s just more famous? I want examples where the remake objectively fixes a weakness—like replacing a wooden lead, cutting a nonsense subplot, or updating a dated moral stance—not just cases where the remake has better special effects or a bigger star. What are your picks that pass that stricter test?
