Sometimes once isnt enough.
Whats different?Not as much as you think.
Grandiose and (perhaps overly) long, it is still the crime epic to beat.
So well done on taking the original film and expanding significantly upon it.
See also:Michael Manns Heat how research created a classic thriller.
Compare it with his other work, andFunny Gamesstands out like a sore thumb.
So when offered the chance to finally get his wish, Haneke jumped at the chance.
Whats different?The actors.
So if youve seen the Austrian version, then you wont need to bother with this.
Whats different?The scale, if thats somehow possible from the original epic.
He wanted another go round with one of his earlier, and his mind inferior, British films.
It also served as a way to fulfil his contractual obligations to Paramount.
Whats different?Quite a lot, actually.
It all still ends in the Albert Hall though.
Which one is better?A tough one, this.
The later film is undoubtedly the work of a master, and feels like one.
Plus Peter Lorre in the original is a far more sinister villain.
But overall, its 50s Hitch.
Sam Raimi wanted a new horror hit, this fit the bill.
Which one is better?Depends on how you like your horror to be presented.
This makes the entire film slightly unsettling, and hard to predict.
By comparison, we feel we know where were going in the remake.
Either that or they dumped a massive pile of money on Sluizers drive.
Whats different?Again, one is a dark and stark portrayal of obsession and the nature of evil.
In fact its pretty terrible.
The films may share a name, but thats about all.
See also:the top 22 haunting endings to modern movies.
Whats different?Not too much really.
The remake is considered glossier than the original, which in turn has been criticised for its apparent misogyny.
Otherwise, they really are too close to call.
Gela Babluani 13 Tzameti (2005) / 13 (2010)
Why do it?Why indeed?
What do you do if youve made a universally-acclaimed Sundance Grand Jury prize winning debut feature?
Go to the USA and remake it with a bunch of action stars of course.
Whats different?The Statham.
Also a load more back-story for every single character in the film.
Gone is the stark black and white aesthetic and pared-back narrative, replaced instead with bloated motives for everybody.
Which one is better?Well, I would say the original.
But it doesnt have the Stath.
Nicolas Cages production company duly took note, and bought the rights to give Cage a new action vehicle.
Whats different?One is a successful action flick.
The other is borderline unwatchable.
Guess which is which?
It did gain another amazing wig for Nicolas Cage though.
Which one is better?The original, insofar as its actually watchable.
Which one is better?Its a hell of a tough call, but I thinkEvil Dead IIwins out.
Honourable mentions
Of course, many filmmakers get their big break from remaking some of their earlier short-film work.
