THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (1925) vs. THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (2004)

Many versions of this classic movie exist, both on the big and small screen, especially since Andrew Lloyd Webber brought the musical to the stage in 1986.  But as this is a blog written specifically to compare the original to the remake, so then shall we look at the first and most recent films.

While one is the beloved adaptation of the celebrated novel written by Gaston Leroux, the other is strictly adapted from Andrew Lloyd Webber's book and stage play.  The classic and unforgettable organ in Webber's version is powerful and instrumental, pun intended, in its driving force in announcing the phantom and using its deep tones to strike fear in the hearts of the audience.

SYNOPSIS (1925): A mad, disfigured composer seeks love with a lovely young opera singer. Source: IMDb.com

SYNOPSIS (2004): A young soprano becomes the obsession of a disfigured musical genius who lives beneath the Paris Opera House. Source: IMDb.com

The synopses for both films are relatively similar.  Notice that the original paints the phantom as a mad, deranged figure--understandable as the original is considered a horror film--whereas the remake makes him out to be a musical genius--fitting for an adaptation based on a stage play.

DIRECTOR: Rupert Julian vs. Joel Schumacher

Right off the bat I want to cringe at even the mention of Schumacher's name.  While he had several good films early in his career and decent films in recent years, he is probably most well-known for effectively ruining the Batman franchise with Batman Forever and Batman & Robin in the mid- to late-90s (which he was actually nominated for a Razzie as worst director for the latter film), forcing a brilliant reboot of the franchise in the late 2000s by Christopher Nolan.

That being said, he actually did a decent job at directing the remake of Phantom of the Opera.  Granted, he had a lot of great material to work with.

Still, Schumacher could not overcome the direction of Rupert Julian's silent film original.  The ground-breaking film, in its blurry and shaky shooting, upped the creepy factor brilliantly and intensified the fear by setting up for the audience in gruesome detail how grotesque the disfigurement of the phantom actually was long before he was unmasked.

Even though I viewed the 2004 remake shortly after it was released, a good ten years before I watched the original, I had the thought after watching the earlier film as I typically do after watching Japanese anime.

I prefer to watch my anime with English subtitles rather than the English dubbed version.  Hearing the audio in English, despite having A-list actors with great acting skill, takes away from the artistry of viewing it with Japanese dialog.

In the same way, some films are just better in black-and-white--and, in this particular case, some movies just come across the screen better as a silent film.  It really adds to the audience experience having the limitations of not being able to produce sound to your moving picture and being forced to create suspense by the actors' ability to act as well as the written "dialog" cue cards that are common in silent films, as well as using orchestral music to set the tones throughout the picture.

WINNER: Original, Rupert Julian

SCREENPLAY: Gaston Leroux vs. Andrew Lloyd Webber

I will be the first to admit that I don't typically like horror films.  Modern day horror focuses too much on the gore to create fear in the viewer rather than character-driven acting and film techniques that earlier movies used to instill in the audience a sense of pure and utter dread.

This case is no different.  The original film was a horror film but the remake was more of a romantic-drama set as a musical.  So while the stories were similar and were centered on the same characters, the two different styles really don't make this match-up fair.  An argument could be made for either film depending on which genre you prefer.

One is not better than the other; rather the two styles are complimentary to their respective films in a way that wouldn't come across as well had the original been a musical or the remake been a horror film.  The earlier film works better as a horror film for the reasons mentioned above in the DIRECTOR category; and, thus, the newer film works better as a musical.

WINNER: Both

CAST/ACTING: Lon Chaney, Mary Philbin, & Norman Kerry vs. Gerard Butler, Emmy Rossum, & Patrick Wilson

The remake has a great cast, with also a good supporting cast that includes Minnie Driver as Carlotta, the Prima Donna of the opera house.  Her character is hated as the phantom prefers the voice over the younger, more innocent, more seductive singer.  Carlotta is loud, obnoxious, and prideful of her talents (to which only she can recognize) and is played brilliantly by Driver.  The acting of the main actors isn't terrible either; in fact, Emmy Rossum was nominated for an Oscar for her portrayal as Christine.

However, I have to give the edge to the acting skills of the original film.  Because it was a silent film and, as I outline before, they had to rely on their pure acting skill using facial expressions and body movement to bring the characters to life as they didn't have the luxury of using their voices for dialog and tone.  It takes a much higher skill level as an actor to strike fear in the audience by a mere look or a certain way the actor moves.

Not to mention that the original phantom was truly disfigured, a skeletal face with no nose shrouded in a dark over-sized cloak.  The remake's phantom was a handsome man, dare I say dashing, with half of his face severely burned which is the reason for the mask.  Both perceptions of the character are essential to the feel of their respective movies; the original makeup designed to be more horrifying where the makeup in the remake was more in line for the romantic audience.

CAST WINNER: Remake; ACTING WINNER: Original

SCORE/MUSIC: Uncredited/Unknown vs. Andrew Lloyd Webber

The original movie uses classical music to set the tones of jovial scenes versus the horrific scenes where the phantom is prominent.  The remake uses more modern musical-style numbers that are beloved to this day by many fans of the theater but still uses its style to create a memorable experience.  Both movies, again, utilize their particular styles in a way that define the genre and era when each movie was released.

The remake's Phantom of the Opera soundtrack could be listened to and enjoyed without the movie to accompany it.  Whereas the original work is crucial to the movie in a way that doesn't translate or stand alone as a solely musical accomplishment.

Heck, even Gerard Butler has a pretty decent singing voice as The Phantom!

WINNER: Remake, Andrew Lloyd Webber

The Phantom of the Opera (1925):

• Rotten Tomatoes: 90% or 8.4/10 average rating
• IMDb.com: 7.7/10 from 11,511 users
• Metacritic: none

The Phantom of the Opera (2004):

• Rotten Tomatoes: 32% or 5.0/10 average rating
• IMDb.com: 7.4/10 from 91,213 users
• Metacritic:  40/100

OVERALL WINNER: Another tie!

Looks like you, the reader, will have to vote for yourself again. I definitely didn't think this was going to be a close entry either.  I am partial to the original 1925 The Phantom of the Opera myself.

Rotten Tomatoes wasn't very kind to the remake, as you can see.  The comparison is closer in rating on the IMDb.com website; but everyone seems to take in to account Rotten Tomatoes as the "go to" nowadays for the rating of films.

Take a watch of both films though, per my suggestion of course.  There's a lot to enjoy about both films.  It would be a shame to miss out on one or the other.

You can also check out the review of the original in the same book as I mentioned in the Psycho post: 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die by Steven Jay Schneider, 2011.

THE ITALIAN JOB (1969) vs. THE ITALIAN JOB (2003)

"Charlie, there are two kinds of thieves in this world: The ones who steal to enrich their lives, and those who steal to define their lives. Don't be the latter. Makes you miss out on what's really important in this life."

Heist movies have an excellent appeal to them not only because they are exciting action-dramas but also because there's a true sense of realism in most of the heist movies that I've ever watched.  Movies like Ocean's Eleven (and subsequent sequels) and even some movies in the James Bond and Mission Impossible series are entertaining because the viewer is always on the edge of their seat wondering if the "good guys" are going to make off with the score and--after having seen the film--can think to himself "Now how plausible can that really be done in the real world?" and "I wonder if I could get away with something like that!"  The answer to the latter question would likely be a resounding 'no;' but that's precisely what's fun about the movies: they make people feel free to dream a life so unlike their own!

This time we're looking at the original heist flick from 1969 The Italian Job pitted against its remake from 2003.  As close as I thought the last battle was between the two Gone in 60 Seconds movies, this one was even closer!  So it'll be hard to pick apart these two tense films to see who edges out the winner.  This could be a long post, ya'll, so buckle in.

SYNOPSIS (1969): Comic caper movie about a plan to steal a gold shipment from the streets of Turin by creating a traffic jam. Source: IMDb.com

SYNOPSIS (2003): After being betrayed and left for dead in Italy, Charlie Croker and his team plan an elaborate gold heist against their former ally. Source: IMDb.com

DIRECTOR: Peter Collinson vs. F. Gary Gray

While The Italian Job wasn't Collinson's first feature film, it was the first to be nominated for a Golden Globe award for best English-language Foreign Film.  Collinson's previous movie, The Long Day's Dying released just a year earlier in 1968, nabbed him two wins at the Sans Sebastian International Film Festival.  Collinson spent many years directing a few episodes for a variety of television shows but decided to focus on the big screen with his directorial debut The Penthouse in 1967.  His movies grew pretty steadily in popularity during that short time, according to the ratings for the films leading up to the one we're dissecting today.

F. Gary Gray, by contrast, was a younger more brazen man who got his feet wet early in 1995 when his first movie Friday was released when he was only 29.  Viewed today as a cult classic, the movie gained enough buzz and propelled his career in the action-drama genre with early projects like Set It Off (a different kind of heist movie centered around a gang of female bank robbers) and The Negotiator, and later projects  However, Gray's movies seemed to appeal more to the younger crowd right out of the gate and included many big-name Hollywood actors.

Concerning their respective films, I must say that it was definitely hard to choose.  The directing style was superb in both films, each director utilizing the evident star-power in their actors and crew, their knowledge of cinematography and how to shoot a particular scene to make the audience feel emotionally connected to the experience, and overall piecing all the elements of a good movie together to make it one unforgettable ride!

Specifically speaking, from the opening credits of the original film, Collinson puts the camera on the dash and on the wheel-well of a very fast and sporty car as it races along an Italian mountain road set to a classic Italian song.  You don't really know who the man behind the wheel is.  But it sets the tone for the movie and immerses the audience in an ambiance of a high-octane artisan thrill ride.  And when the car exits the opening scene in flames, your eyes are transfixed and you wonder "Who was that guy?!"  And you continue to be glued to the screen until the final credits roll.

In the remake, Gray uses smart technical editing during his opening credits sequence set to a modern blend of orchestral and techno/club beats that prepares you for how articulate and precise the characters have to be in order to pull the haul of a lifetime.

The vote for 'director' really could swing either way.  Whether you prefer one over the other would likely depend on whether you just like updated versions of good films or in awe of how good a movie that's "so old" can be without the advancement of the technology that movies today can offer.

For the sake of argument though, I could say that Gray edges out Collinson in this category because he's a younger director and he made his version more "cool" to appeal to a younger audience (like myself when I first viewed it).  I could also cast my vote for him because, despite being a young director, it is easy to judge his films as "all flash and no substance."  But take a closer look at his resume.  It is stacked with impressive films throughout his career.  He makes cool movies but makes a long-lasting statement in doing so that makes you want to keep watching them over and over.

Even amidst writing this post, I kept going back and forth in this category but ultimately decided that the longevity of the impact of Gray's films--recently the overwhelmingly surprise hit Straight Outta Compton--would be the better legacy to movie fans.  But if you voted for Collinson  after viewing both films yourself, I wouldn't be mad at ya.  A strong argument could be presented for him as well.

WINNER: Remake, F. Gary Gray

SCREENPLAY: Troy Kennedy-Martin vs. Donna & Wayne Powers

While not a direct shot-for-shot remake like 1998's Psycho was, the remake of The Italian Job borrowed a lot from the original screenplay; so much so that Kennedy-Martin is actually credited with writing honors in the remake.  One could possibly say that the Powers' made improvements on the original without losing its creativity and influence but instead strengthened it with their editions.

The remake tells its own story, though, even with the same names as the two lead male characters (Charlie Croker and John Bridger).  Although it alters the roles slightly in the remake, the newer film also introduces John Bridger's daughter, Stella, and fleshes out the remaining supporting characters as well.

A quick glance at the two movie posters above should tell you how essential the three Mini Coopers were in both films.  I think the use of the small cars was crucial in the carrying out of the heist for the same reasons:  fast, compact cars that are easy to maneuver in and out of traffic to avoid the police chasing them while being strong enough to handle the weight of the gold being stolen.

Both sequences using the Mini Coopers were similarly spectacular.  If automobiles could win an award for best supporting actor, these cars would take it for sure.  Well, that is unless Kit from Knight Rider, Herbie the Lovebug, or even the Batmobile were up for the award too!

I have to choose the original on this one.  Because, without it for F. Gary Gray's team to craft their improved version, the remake definitely wouldn't have been as good.

WINNER: Original, Troy Kennedy-Martin

CAST/ACTING: Michael Caine, Noel Coward, Benny Hill, Maggie Blye vs. Mark Wahlberg, Charlize Theron, Edward Norton, Donald Sutherland

Simply looking at the surface of the casting list, one might automatically dub the remake the winner because there's many more A-list actors.  However, the simple fact that Michael Caine plays the lead character in the original should give you pause.  Considering the movies the tenured British actor has starred in, Caine is a living legend in his own right.

Caine could have been the only recognizable actor in that whole film and it would still carry as much weight because he is that good!!  Benny Hill is a well-known British comedian, but his role in The Italian Job was extremely minimal and didn't utilize his comedic talent at all.

As I mentioned before, the characters in the remake were much more fleshed out and were a much better support system for the main characters.  The original film required too many team members to accomplish the heist while the remake centered around the camaraderie and expertise of only five members.  Supporting cast and great acting rounding out the team came courtesy of actors Jason Stathom (most well-known for his cast-typing persona as a hard ass-kicking action star made famous in his role in the Transporter trilogy) as premiere wheelman Handsome Rob, R&B/rapper Mos Def as demolition artist 'Left Ear,' and comedic Seth Green as the tech wizard Lyle.

The acting in both films were splendid.  And the vote might have swung the original's way if they involved the minor characters more instead of using them simply for comedy relief.  I don't really blame them though.  Why?  Two words:  Michael freaking Caine.  Oh wait, that's technically three.

WINNER: Remake

SCORE/MUSIC: Quincy Jones vs. John Powell

Based on name recognition alone, I'd cast my vote for Quincy Jones in a New York-minute!!  But, I have to be as objective as I can be.  So here goes.

The original score used classical music to heighten the mood of its action sequences.  Strange?  Perhaps.  But what made it unique was that whenever I saw the main characters planning the heist, testing that plan, and following through with the plan, the American and Italian classic pieces they used made me feel like the actors had a genuine humble reason for stealing the gold.  It's a bit hard to explain.

The remake used more modern and hip-hop or club-style/techno music to create its tension to heighten the necessity for the plan to go as perfectly as possible.  You were still rooting for the good guys because, while the original hinted at a revenge motivation, the remake clearly made revenge the motivating factor.  Like Stella said when Charlie asks her, a civilian, not a trained thief like the rest of them, to be a part of the team, "I want to see the look on that man's face when his gold is gone. He took my father from me, I'm taking this"

If I were basing my opinion solely on the music alone, it would be easy to choose the more up-to-date score or soundtrack.  But in these comparative match-ups, I look at how the score makes the movie worse or better.  In this case, the original score made me feel more connected to the character's situation than the remake did.

WINNER: Original, Quincy Jones

The Italian Job (1969)

• Rotten Tomatoes: 84% or 7.4/10 average
• IMDb: 7.4/10 from 28,765 users
• Metacritic: none

Gone in Sixty Seconds (2000)

• Rotten Tomatoes: 73% or 6.4/10 average
• IMDb: 7.0/10 from 269,983 users
• Metacritic: 68/100

OVERALL WINNER: Too close to call.  I told you.

?????

I could go ahead and say that I'm going to break the tie with the ratings from Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb.com, but I've never been one to believe (or care) what professional movie critics say.  So, for this entry, I'm going to let YOU decide.

I didn't expect to like the original as much as I did because I own the remake and watch it all the time.  Or at least used to before I got married and had a kid.  My time isn't my own anymore.....but that's another blog post for another blog, not this one.

You be the judge!!  You make the call!!  Which is it going to be?  Watch both movies and comment below to cast your vote!!
 

GONE IN 60 SECONDS (1974) vs. GONE IN SIXTY SECONDS (2000)

 


(laughing) "I almost had you."
"Had me?! (grinning) It don't matter if you win by an inch or a mile.  Winning's winning."

While I'm not writing about the movie The Fast and the Furious, this interaction between Brian O'Conner and Dom Toretto after the movie's first drag race can be used to describe how close this "race" really was between the original Gone in 60 Seconds (from here on out we'll just title it Gone...) and the remake.  Now, let's line 'em up and see how they do.

SYNOPSIS (1974): Insurance investigator Maindrian Pace and his team lead double-lives as unstoppable car thieves. When a South American drug lord pays Pace to steal 48 cars for him, all but one, a 1973 Ford Mustang, are in the bag. As Pace prepares to rip-off the fastback, codenamed "Eleanor", in Long Beach, he is unaware that his boss has tipped off the police after a business dispute. Detectives are waiting and pursue Pace through five cities as he desperately tries to get away. Source: IMDb.com

SYNOPSIS (2000): A retired master car thief must come back to the industry and steal 50 cars with his crew in one night to save his brother's life. Source: IMDb.com

DIRECTOR: H.B.Halicki vs. Dominic Sena

For Halicki's directorial debut, he could have definitely done a worse job than Gone... He not only directed the movie, but cast himself as the lead actor who hashes the plan to steal the cars he needs and drives the infamous "Eleanor" in the final chase scene.

Also, since this was Halicki's first film with an independent production, he put a lot of his own money into the film, purchasing all of the police cars that were crashed and using nearly all of his own vehicles for civilian cars that were in close proximity to the final chase scene.  You have to admire a man who wants so desperately to see his vision realized on the big screen to put his own money into it.

Not only did he invest his own wealth into the film, he put his own life in real danger.  Twice, he got into real accidents while driving "Eleanor."  He clipped a Cadillac who had missed his mark that spun the Mustang, causing Halicki to hit a light pole at 85 mph!  And during the big jump, one that reached 30 feet high and clearing 128 feet, the director compacted 10 vertebrae and--according to the director of photography--never seemed to walk the same.  That's dedication to your craft that is hard to measure!

You can find out more inside trivia facts of the original film here, as well as a list of all the cars the characters steal.

Sena, meanwhile, before his remake of Gone... was released in 2000, had only directed one other film.  He did, however, have experience directing several music videos--mainly for Janet Jackson.  His work on his sophomore project is likely his most well-known.  He kept directing but, in my opinion, Gone... was his best work.  The only other movie that created significant buzz was Swordfish, released just a year later.

I've gotta give the nod to Halicki on this one.  His film had a gritty, more realistic feel to the movie where the remake relied a little too much on CGI to make the chase scenes come across as more exciting, even though the main stars were professionally trained as stunt drivers and did most of their own stunts.

It would have been nice, though, to see what kind of career Halicki would end up having in Hollywood. Tragically, Halicki died on Aug. 20, 1989 in a car crash during filming a sequel to Gone.

At the time the 1974 film was released, it held the record for the most cars crashed: 93 total.  Six years later, the first Blues Brothers film would break that record at 103.  However, Halicki reigned victor after all with his second directorial film The Junkman in 1982 by totaling more than 150 vehicles, only surpassed by more recent films Fast Five, The Matrix: Reloaded, and Transformers: Dark of the Moon. Read the blog that outlines the top 11 movies that killed the most cars.

WINNER: Original, H.B. Halicki

SCREENPLAY: H.B. Halicki vs. Scott Rosenberg

While Halicki wrote, starred, and directed the original, I feel the film lacked a coherent screenplay.  Halicki outlined main script points to progress the plot but a lot of the minor dialog was adlibbed by the supporting cast.

The remake had a better plot.  While still a bit far-fetched, at least the script for Sena's Gone... gave the characters a more urgent "do-or-die" reason for stealing the cars: to save the life of the main character's, Memphis Reines (Nicolas Cage), younger brother, Kit (Giovanni Ribisi), who had gotten in too deep in the business of boosting cars and was essentially held hostage.

Not only was the plot more clearly defined, the dialog between the characters gave them personality and gave the movie a lighter tone by injecting a lot of humor and one-liners that are quotable to this day. During the viewing of Halicki's Gone..., I kept getting confused as to what was actually happening because the plot and dialog were so convoluted and unclear I often found myself thinking "When do we get to the big chase scene?"

The remake also did a better job of showing more of the cars that the main characters were stealing.  The original only had a few scenes, one in particular that showed Halicki's character walking through the parking garage past all the cars that his team had already stolen to get to "Eleanor."  You can find the list of the cars stolen in the remake here, as well as more trivia facts.

WINNER: Remake, Scott Rosenberg

CAST/ACTING: H.B. Halicki, Marion Busia, Jerry Daugirda vs. Nicolas Cage, Giovanni Ribisi, Angelina Jolie

There is no "game of inches" on this one; the remake is the clear winner...and more than by just a mile too!  The original had a very small cast with no reason to have more due to the fact that there was no screenplay and hardly any dialog between the characters.  It was evident that Halicki wanted to make a movie starring the cars.  In that regard, he succeeded everyone's expectations.

The remake gives homage to Halicki, but the large cast of interesting supporting characters--played by the likes of Scott Cain, Will Patton, Delroy Lindo and Timothy Olyphant as the detectives determined to take Memphis down, the great Robert Duvall as the ring leader, and Vinnie Jones as "Sphinx"--shows that a lot of careful attention was given to mold a compelling story around all the characters to further the appeal of the cars themselves.

WINNER: Remake

SCORE/MUSIC: Ronald Halicki/Philip Kachaturian vs. Trevor Rabin

While the original didn't have terrible music, I feel like it could have been used more to set the tone for the viewing audience.  Looking back, the music was completely forgettable and was in essence background noise for what you were really interested in: fast, flashy cars speeding away from the cops!

From the opening credits of the remake, playing the smooth and steady techno-rock beat of Moby's "Flower" as the camera cuts between old photos of the main characters and car memorabilia gives you a bit of backstory even before the movie gets off the starting block while getting your heart pumped up for seeing some ridiculously awesome automobiles.  The opening song prepares you for a cool, exciting ride that doesn't let up!

Other songs that were in the remake that gave it more flavor included War's "Low Rider" and "Busy Child" by The Crystal Method, just to name two.  Even when the screen goes black and the ending credits roll to The Cult's "Painted on My Heart," you're still feeling the pulse-pounding energy of what you just watched!

WINNER: Remake, Trevor Rabin

Gone in 60 Seconds (1974)

• Rotten Tomatoes: 38% or 4.5/10 average
• IMDb: 6.5/10 from 5,926 users
• Metacritic: none

Gone in Sixty Seconds (2000)

• Rotten Tomatoes: 24% or 4.4/10 average
• IMDb: 6.5/10 from 205,164 users
• Metacritic: 35/100

OVERALL WINNER: Remake 2000 Gone in Sixty Seconds

Like I stated before, the original has the realism that some movie-goers prefer.  However, the lack of a screenplay and the small cast really hurt the picture for viewers that want more out of their experience than a long car chase.  The remake has an interesting cast of characters that you can relate to--and root for--as they attempt to steal 50 cars in one night!  The homage the later film makes to the original by keeping its star ("Eleanor") the center. The realistic car chase in the original is the only thing that made it a contender against the remake.

Unlike our first film, Pyscho, I would definitely watch both films, especially if you're a gearhead.  But if I were a betting man, I'd gamble that you enjoyed watching the newer film in its entirety but fast-forwarded to the final chase scene in the original after trying to stay awake through the first 30 minutes.  Seriously, the final big chase scene in the original is the complete second half of the film!

If you base your desire to watch one and not the other solely by going off of Rotten Tomatoes' or IMDb.com's ratings, it'd be really hard to choose.  Which is why I decided to include Gone in 60 Seconds in this list and perhaps convince you either way by sharing my opinions as a fan of movies.

Until next time.

PSYCHO (1960) vs. PYSCHO (1998)

 “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”  You could tag this famous phrase on just about everything to describe why you didn’t change a thing from the original concept.  This couldn’t be more true than for the first entry in our list, Psycho.

SYNOPSIS: A Phoenix secretary steals a large sum of money from her employer’s client, goes on the run and checks into a remote motel run by a young man under the domination of his mother. Source: IMDb.com

DIRECTOR: Alfred Hitchcock vs. Gus Van Sant

The original movie was directed in 1960 by legendary director Alfred Hitchcock, famously recognized for his superb story-telling--as well as his rotund profile--particularly in the murder mystery genre.  He built up quite a resume of well-known films under his direction by this time, but Psycho stands out as a breakthrough film by showing the mass audience a different kind of horror film.  Moving away from movies featuring classic creatures like the Wolfman, Frankenstein, or Dracula, Hitchcock thought to make a film where the antagonist–in this case, Norman Bates–was more terrifyingly real and believable in a genre that could be easily labeled today as a psychological thriller.

Gus Van Sant directed the remake in 1998 but, while not new to the film industry, he didn’t quite have the reputation that Hitchcock had.  A year prior to Psycho, though, Van Sant was nominated for an Oscar for Best Director for his film Good Will Hunting.  He didn’t have anything new to bring to the table for the remake; he even went so far as to make the same cameo in his film that Hitchcock did for the original.  Hitchcock makes a cameo in every movie he shoots.  That was his thing.  Van Sant didn’t need to copy even THAT for his version, did he?!

For Psycho, Hitchcock has the edge over Van Sant in the fact that Hitchcock was a pioneer in the way movies were made.  For a film famous for its shower scene where the leading female character Marion Crane is murdered, Hitchcock had to work around the restraints of not showing the actress naked.  Movies at the time didn’t have nudity at all.  The way the scene was directed with a lot of jump cuts heightened the intensity without revealing too much.  Van Sant didn’t have those restraints in 1998, but decided that a shot-for-shot remake was the way to go.

WINNER: Original, Hitchcock

SCREENPLAY: Joseph Stefano vs. Joseph Stefano

Because the 1998 film was a shot-for-shot remake, the screenplay was the same for both films.  Adapted from the lackluster 1959 novel Psycho by Robert Bloch based on a real-life Wisconsin murder (you can read about the book here), Stefano altered a few of the details for the film, particularly the main character.  In the book, Norman Bates is a middle-aged, fat alcoholic.  Stefano, in a interview about the making of original film, stated that “he didn’t like [Bates] from the book because he was very unlikable.”  In order for the movie audience to switch their empathy for Bates after he kills Marion Crane, Stefano made the character a slightly younger, thinner, neighborly type.  He also wrote in for the character of Bates the fact that he eats Halloween candy throughout some big scenes.

In the same interview from above, Stefano explains that he got the job to write the movie for Hitchcock by centering the film not around Norman Bates–as the book had done–but to focus on the character of Marion Crane.  Hitchcock was impressed by this notion as proof that Stefano had the writing chops to do it.

The screenplay was written for the era at the time.  Because Van Sant wanted the same screenplay, not much was changed in the way of the script.  The dialog between the characters just didn’t translate to the newer version, with phrases like “I do declare” and “It’s the only case of murder and suicide on Fairvale ledgers.”  In 1998?  Seriously?  I guess the “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” mentality meant not having an updated screenplay to match the sign of the times.

WINNER: Original, Joseph Stefano

CAST/ACTING: Anthony Perkins, Janet Leigh, Vera Miles vs. Vince Vaughn, Anne Heche, Julianne Moore

While the remake has bigger names than the original, with actors William H. Macy and Viggo Mortensen playing supporting roles, the acting wasn’t much better.  Janet Leigh won an Oscar for Best Actress for her role as Marion Crane.  Anne Heche, on the other hand, was nominated for a Razzie Award for her dull and lifeless interpretation of the same title character.  If you don’t know what a Razzie Award is, it’s a spoof award given to the worst of the worst.  A side note to add, the Psycho remake and Van Sant actually won a Razzie for Worst Remake and Worst Director respectively (Van Sant went from being nominated for the top award–an Oscar–for Best Director in 1997 to winning the worst award just a year later.  It wasn’t all his fault though; he should have used his own original screenplay).

I’ll be honest.  I’m biased against Vince Vaughn and Anne Heche.  Vaughn is normally known for his odd-ball quirky and raunchy comedies and I don’t like him as an actor AT ALL.  But I’ll give him his due diligence in respect that he went out of his usual typecast roles to play Norman Bates.  He didn’t do terrible, but his laugh is distasteful.  He even went as far as copying Perkins eating of the Halloween candy.  He couldn’t find anything original for his portrayal of Bates?!  As far as Anne Heche is concerned, I don’t think I’ve liked a single movie she’s ever starred in.  And the chemistry between the two leading characters is nonexistent, something the original actors clearly had much more of.

Hey, at least in the remake you get to see the bassist from Red Hot Chili Peppers, Flea, in a very small role!

CAST WINNER: Remake; ACTING WINNER: Original

SCORE: Bernard Herrmann vs. Bernard Herrmann

Sigh.  Really?  You used the same music too?!  It’s a good thing I decided to watch the original first because there is absolutely nothing to like about the remake.  The whole time I was watching both movies though, I kept thinking the music sounded awfully familiar, like I had heard it before and NOT in a film.  It wasn’t until halfway through the remake that I figured it out. Listen to the opening of Busta Rhymes “Gimme Some More.”  Incredible similarity, right?!

WINNER: Both original and remake

Psycho (1960)

• Rotten Tomatoes: 96% or 9.2/10 average
• IMDb: 8.6/10 from 377,145 users
• Metacritic: none

Psycho (1998)

• Rotten Tomatoes: 37% or 5.2/10 average
• IMDb: 4.6/10 from 36,472 users
• Metacritic: 47/100

OVERALL WINNER: Original 1960 Pyscho

Stick with the original film on this one.  The movie is actually better in black-and-white anyway, making the nuances of each character and the movie as a whole much more enjoyable to watch. The remake has nothing new to bring to the table and the use of the same screenplay from 1960 is completely outdated and the character interaction stale.

You can also check out a short movie review for Psycho in the book 1001 Movies to See Before You Die by Steven Jay Schneider, 2011.

Welcome to "MOVIES: THEN vs. NOW!"

With the advancement of technology and new film making techniques, the movie-going experience has changed a lot even in the last decade.  But what makes a movie great?  Is computer-generated images what makes newer movies more exciting to watch?  Or does “greatness” come from the early foundations of a fantastic story, superb acting, and character development?

Over the years, some film directors have taken it upon themselves to take old movies and remake them into visions that they see as an improvement of the originals.  Movies like The Longest Yard or Total Recall have been subject to change as well as a slew of others that we’ll take a look at throughout the next several months.

I will attempt to focus my attention on individual movies that have been remade and not rebooted film franchises–like those you typically find in comic book adaptations such as Spider-man, Batman, or Superman–or movies that are featured in a series like those of James Bond or Mission Impossible.  I will try to focus on stand-alone new movies that essentially tell the same story as the originals with the same movie title and the majority of the same characters.  As much as I’d like to compare 1989’s Batman to one of my favorite films of all-time, 2008’s The Dark Knight, they are two separate stories.

I hope you’ll find something to your enjoyment as you read.  Perhaps you’ll be encouraged to check out some of the earlier films and compare them to the newer, updated versions yourself.  Or maybe my opinions will spark up a running dialog of discussion as we share our own personal favorites with one another.  In any case, although these blogs are written under the guise of a school assignment, there’s nothing that says they can’t be entertaining!

Enjoy!