Forums Horror Movie Talk
Original vs. Remake: Top 5 Horror Remakes Superior To Their Predecessor

It's a common notion that the remake of a film, especially in the horror genre, cannot live up to the expectations of its original. But I've decided to put in my two cents and provide my top five list of remakes that are just as good or superior to their predecessors. Whether you agree or disagree, it's the debating that makes these lists fun and worth reading! Here it goes:





5.

Now here is a remake and its original that I love equally. Meir Zarchi, director of the original I Spit on Your Grave (1978), had the guts to cross the boundaries of cinema and create a controversy for numerous aspiring filmmakers to look back on and respect.

I give kudos to director Steven R. Monroe for admiring such a film and push the boundaries even further in a day where “getting away with murder” isn’t as easy as it used to be. The remake of I Spit on Your Grave

(2010) is a modernized veron of Zarchi’s Day of the Woman (as its original title was intended) that packs even a bigger emotional punch to its viewers.

Grave’s original star, Camille Keaton, did not seem timid one bit for engaging in such a role in a time where “exploitation” films were taking off and playing throughout countless, as what we now call it, “grindhouse” theatres. But the young, flourishing Sarah Butler portraying Jennifer Hills this time around was willing to take the huge risk of manifesting such degradation on screen and played her vengeance beautifully.

The remake sticks to the roots and does not stretch beyond its original storyline. Zarchi had the witty idea of intentionally not implementing any mucal score in his original to retain a realistic atmosphere. And Monroe does a fine job of not wandering from realism and manages to keep the dark, gritty setting with amplified acts of vengeance compared to its predecessor. Most importantly, the remake also recreates the infamous bathtub scene that the film is so notorious for. A prime example of a remake just as good as its original.



4.

Wes Craven will always be condered a horror icon in my personal perspective. And with his initial big-screen adaptation based on a true story, Last House on the Left (1972) is a masterpiece that will always be remembered with such high shock value that triggered many “exploitation” films to follow.

Director Dennis Illiadis of the remake (2009) works with Craven’s original script with a twist in certain aspects that heightens the impact even more for its viewers. The remake does bend the story a bit with how the girls become entrapped with Krug and his crew, as well as one of the main characters, Mari, surviving to the end credits; whereas, in the original, Mari gets executed in the woods as she enters a pond following the rape scene.

But, ultimately, the finale is the most prominent difference here as Krug is killed off with a chainsaw in the original, but Illiadis (and with the clever mind of Craven as he was one of the producers of the film) decides to implement a bit of comic relief with blowing up Krug’s head in a microwave. I personally prefer the original’s clasc ending, but the remake just packs a bigger emotional punch, especially leaving such an unsettled feeling with what seems like one of the longest rape scenes in cinema history.

?img=40-4028-FSRWF00Z&x=24&y=13&w=290&h=427&ze=2&maxw=1000&maxh=1000

3.

I believe that we can all agree that Mr. George A. Romero set the foundation on the zombie horror sub-genre, and opened the door for many masterpieces to ensue. Romero’s original Night of the Living Dead (1968) is downright a top horror hall of famer in my book, and Tom Savini took the ultimate risk to recreate a flawless piece of artwork and ended up bringing even more life to the canvas.

Savini, known for his astonishing gore effects (mainly the Friday the 13th series), worked with Romero on his directorial debut to bring a clasc into the contemporary world of horror and successfully raised the bar in many areas. Night of the Living Dead remake (1990) keeps the storyline of its predecessor precisely, despite the ending. Tony Todd (Candyman) portraying Ben couldn’t be conceived in any other way imaginable. The remake also places more emphas following Barbara (Patricia Tallman), and brings more life to her character, in which the original depicts her as very quiet and timid.

Savini also heightens the scare factor with more suspense, a mucal score that’s creepy enough in itself and gross-out special effects that only he himself could envion. The reconstruction of Dead does not necessarily surpass the original in a plot sense, but adds depth with better character development and on-screen images that of course works to Savini’s forte.

2.

I can confidently say that the 70s era produced numerous of my favorite horror flicks, and even opened the door to many franchises that extend into this day and age (i.e. Halloween and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre). Another franchise original born then, The Amityville Horror (1979), was based off the true story of a family slaughtered by their demonic-possessed son with only the house they lived in to blame.

James Brolin is, hands down, a great actor, and portrayed George Lutz credibly while progresvely going more insane as the film endures. But Ryan Reynolds taking the lead role in “Amity’s” remake (2005) does a fine job showing his “crazy de” as it’s a different type of role for him. Even the robust beard that Reynolds sports in the film keeps true to the original’s impreson.

Amity remake director Andrew Douglas sticks with the plotline precisely, but did a complete overhaul by adding an immense amount of suspense, graphics (which the original bacally lacks), and a much nicer pace (meaning faster in this film’s sense) compared to the near two hours of its predecessor.

Overall, I did enjoy the original, but the remake surely resurrected the franchise (especially with many tedious sequels), and I can confidently state that this is a rare implication where the remake outweighs the original in nearly every aspect.



1.

Here it is, my ultimate selection of a remake trumping its original: The Hills Have Eyes. Although Wes Craven has already made an appearance earlier in my list, but with a film that is far superior than his original installment of “Hills” (1977) that just seems a bit too slow and deficient in creative imagery to keep a high interest.

But that changes drastically as Alexandre Aja, a French director known for the infamous ultra-violent film High Tenon, revives Craven’s effort for the re-establishment of “Hills” (2006). Right from the film’s opening sequence, the thrills and chills thrive with exceptional graphics and a gore rating that deserves an 11 on a scale of 10.

There’s nothing slow about this remake as it is one of the most action-packed horror flicks out there, in my opinion. From the intro to the ending credits, it’s a thrill ride of constant unnerving, which is an essential quality in working to keep the viewer’s pulse elevated. Character development is nicely established, and the cannibalistic clan between the original and remake is like comparing Halloween to The Sound of Muc on a scare factor.

All in all, as much credit is given to Craven for setting forth the idea of such a film, Aja took the story and engraved his own degn on how a gut-wrenching gore fest with an actual plot, and without straying far from the original, blends together perfectly. A job well done.

I agree with last house on the left, but I strongly disagree with the rest. Except maybe Hills have eyes, thats a tie.

agree with everything other than NOTLD and Amityville - NOTLD remake was a lot of fun, but it lacks the impact of the original imo

amityville remake was just terrible. Brolin > Reynolds 8 days a week.

pretty good picks otherwise man!

I have only seen two of each and that is The Last House on the Left and Hills Have Eyes and I disagree with both.

With TLHOTL, I thought the grittiness of it was what made the movie. The remake, to me personally, was horrible and boring. I loved in the original they were just livid with what happened, they took no prisoners. The remake they were unsure and to me, it lost its appeal. And the ending of the original with the mom and the main guy was awesome and cringe-worthy.

And on THHE, yeah no. Alexandre Aja needs to make his own movies. High Tenon - awesome. The Hills Have Eyes - horrible. Mirrors - horrible. Piranha was a surpringly good movie. Cheesy but good. Bacally don't touch Wes Craven movies, as well as Hitchcock movies (Psycho...really?). I liked that in the original that they looked human. To me, that's scarier than when they look gruesome. The remake was bacally carbon copy.

I am a huge explotation fan and I have to disagree with you on the Last House remake, it was boring and way over the top.

In the orginal you have Mari, who was innocent and naive, and the fact that it was her death not just the rape alone that we as an audience feel juistified with the parents reaction to the torture and killings of Krug and his gang.

The orginal is also a dark and a feeling of grit with a level of dirtiness to it but the remake loses that somehow and its just a glossy toothless copycat.In the remake, Mari is over sexualized and loses any innocence that we may have felt for her and the fact that she survives at the end doesnt "justify" what her parents do, now dont get me wrong the microwave scene was great and I think it was done just for the audience's sake but it was too far, the parents have their little girl and the criminals have been punished in one way or another. With this one you dont walk away with that feeling of justice having been done.

Just my 2 cents.

I have only seen two of each and that is The Last House on the Left and Hills Have Eyes and I disagree with both.

With TLHOTL, I thought the grittiness of it was what made the movie. The remake, to me personally, was horrible and boring. I loved in the original they were just livid with what happened, they took no prisoners. The remake they were unsure and to me, it lost its appeal. And the ending of the original with the mom and the main guy was awesome and cringe-worthy.

And on THHE, yeah no. Alexandre Aja needs to make his own movies. High Tenon - awesome. The Hills Have Eyes - horrible. Mirrors - horrible. Piranha was a surpringly good movie. Cheesy but good. Bacally don't touch Wes Craven movies, as well as Hitchcock movies (Psycho...really?). I liked that in the original that they looked human. To me, that's scarier than when they look gruesome. The remake was bacally carbon copy.

I totally agree with you on TLHOTL, but I dissagree with you wholeheartedly about the remake of THHE. The remake of The Hills Have Eyes is far superior. The original actually made me fall asleep and never once did I cringe or feel that it was a strong film. The remake is really powerful and made me cringe in numerous spots.

I also dissagree about the Amityville remake, it was pretty good don't get me wrong and sure it was a lot quicker in pacing but the original just had something really strong about it. The length of the film really gives realistic time for the father to progresvely change and definitely had a creep factor far superior.

Good list though, everyone has their opinions and it's fun to see them in the comments.

Agree with Hills and Last House on the Left. I don't mean to step on anybody's toes but it can't be too hard to remake a Wes Craven film and have it be better than the original. For the most part i think Wes lacks talent behind the camera. He just got involved at the right time and made one of the most controveral (if not poorly made) films i have ever seen. But hey - you know i'm a hater if my favorite Wes Craven film is Red Eye. So take what i say with a grain of salt.

Haven't seen the I Spit on Your Grave remake, but i really liked the original.

Haven't seen either of the Amityville flicks if you can believe it.

And i liked the Night of The Living Dead remake - i liked it a lot, but it isn't better than the original. NO WAY.