Original vs. Remake: The Wolf Man

Time for another face off between a classic movie and its remake. This time it’s The Wolf Man, the 1941 horror classic by Universal starring Long Chaney Jr. (also The Mummy in the Universal sequels), and the 2010 remake, starring Benicio Del Toro.

The Similarities:

Lawrence “Larry” Talbot returns to his home in England after the death of his brother to help his father maintain the family estate. He befriends some of the locals but is attacked by a werewolf and becomes inflicted with its curse. Larry is assisted by a gypsy woman named Maleva and Gwen, a woman he’s fallen in love with, but is doomed to die as a result of the curse.

Incidental similarities: Both films feature a psychedelic dream sequence. In the original this happens just before Larry’s first transformation into a werewolf, in the remake on the night after he is bitten by the werewolf.

***

The Differences:

Original: In the film Larry Talbot is a telescope salesman living in the 1940s. Gwen Conliffe is a local woman working at a jewellery. In the film, it’s mentioned that Larry’s brother died during a hunting accident but the event is never mentioned beyond the beginning.

Remake: Lawrence Talbot is an actor living in the late 1800s. Gwen is the fiance of his late brother. Larry’s brother, Ben, is killed by his father while in werewolf form during the opening scene of the film.

Original: Larry becomes infected with the werewolf curse when he is attacked by Bela  in wolf-form.

Remake: The first werewolf is Larry’s father who attacks him while Larry is seeking clues to his brother’s death in the gypsy camp.

Original: Larry only kills two people in the movie. Bela the gypsy (in wolf-form) and, during Larry’s first transformation, an unsuspecting undertaker.

Remake: When Larry transforms he kills many people indiscriminately.

Original: Several characters believe Larry is suffering a mental breakdown, after having killed Jenny (actually killed by Bela), and some think he should be locked away. He is not due to the insistence of the local doctor.

Remake: On the morning following a transformation, Lawrence is captured and taken to a mental institution where he is treated violently for his supposed psychotic condition.

Original: Larry is killed by his father using the silver-handed cain which Larry bought from Gwen. As he dies he reverts back into his own form leaving his father in a state of disbelief

Remake: Lawrence is shot by Gwen with silver-bullets after Lawrence battles and kills his father in the burning mansion. He reverts back to his real form and thanks Gwen before dying. However, Detective Aberline was bitten by Lawrence before his death with the ending suggesting that he now carries the curse of the werewolf.

***

How is it better?

Original: The atmosphere and dialogue are much better – especially in the case of the latter, dialogue scenes are much more enjoyable due to the well-written dialogue and solid acting. The film also has some comic-relief to ease the atmosphere.

Remake: The film’s overt violence makes it more tongue-in-cheek but also adds a lot of entertainment value. The Wolf Man transformations look really good. The casting is top-notch.

***

How is it worse?

Original: There is no transformation sequence. All that is seen is Larry taking off his shoes and the hair on his feet is seen growing fast. The iconic full-moon and facial transformation scene was first seen in Frankenstein meets The Wolf Man.

Remake: The dialogue is pretty lifeless and the only actors you’ll pay any attention to are Benicio Del Toro, Anthony Hopkins and Hugo Weaving.

***

Final verdict – Which One to See?

Remake – While both films have their strengths, on the over-all, I have to choose the remake simply for entertainment value. The setting and the dark atmosphere is great yet the over-the-top violence keeps the movie from turning too serious. The original is a nice modest film but severely lacking in the horror department. Even though it has far more solid actor performances and better dialogue, it only makes the movie more pleasant – but not necessarily better – than the remake.

Original vs. Remake: The Day The Earth Stood Still

This is a new feature on the blog where I compare a movie and its remake to determine which is better. Today I’ll take a look at the 1951 science-fiction classic The Day The Earth Stood Still starring Michael Rennie and the 2008 remake starring Keanu Reeves and Jennifer Connelly.

The Similarities

An alien named Klaatu arrives on Earth and is attacked and captured by the US government who consider him a threat. He escapes and joins a group of average humans in order to covertly accomplish his goals. In both versions Klaatu is accompanied by a destructive robot named Gort.

***

The Differences

Original: The reason why Klaatu appears human is never disclosed.

Remake: Klaatu takes the appearance of a mountaineer who encounters an alien pod-ship. It is established that Klaatu’s race has had another member on Earth, disguised as an Asian man who Klaatu meets later in the film.

Original: Klaatu’s space-ship resembles a traditional flying saucer and the ship is more technological in design.

Remake: Klaatu’s ship is spherical and his technology appears more organic.

Original: Klaatu acts like a polite person with heavy concerns for mankinds’s development, especially the development of their nuclear weapons.

Remake: Klaatu shows less emotions and is on a mission to save Earth’s animals while wiping out mankind, who he sees as a threat to the planet’s survival.

Original: Klaatu befriends a human family when he lodges at their boarding house.

Remake: Klaatu seeks out the astrobiologist Helen Benson who stood in his defense when he is shot by soldiers.

Original: Klaatu does not display any special abilities beyond extensive scientific knowledge.

Remake: Klaatu has the ability to control mechanical objects as well as reanimate dead persons, though he only appears to do so when he has been forced to kill them against his will.

Original: Gort does not attack humans except for when they first attack Klaatu and when he later orders Gort to knock out the soldiers guarding his space-ship. Gort has an eye-laser which can disintegrate weapons but he only uses it once. The words “Klaatu Barata Nikto” are used by Helen Benson to stop Gort when Klaatu is wounded.

Remake: Gort is a gigantic robot with the same eye-beam abilities. “Klaatu Barata Nikto” is said by Klaatu when he is hit by bullets and Helen Benson comes to aid him. Gort is later shown to actually be composed of destructive nano-machines which eat their way through the facility where Gort gets transported.

Original: The titular Day the Earth Stood Still is a show of might from Klaatu. With no other way to get his message through, Klaatu cuts power to every electrical device on the planet except for hospitals and aeroplanes in flight.

Remake: When Klaatu is shown that mankind is worth saving he stops his nano-machines from destroying the planet. Their deactivation causes a massive pulse (possibly an EMP) which causes everything electrical on the planet to stop working.

***

How is it Better?

Original: The dialogue is more engaging and the film has a very warm, homely feeling. There is no overt peril and despite its somewhat clichéd sci-fi aspects, the story is well written and has great meaning to it.

Remake: The film is more suspenseful and action-oriented. It’s also more impressive, special effects wise the sharply contrasting character relations add more drama to the film.

***

How is it worse?

Original: The film can be a little dull at times. Unnecessary Christian insertion towards the end of the film.

Remake: Keanu Reeves keeps insisting that “[He] must get back to the city” for much of the movie, which is repetitive. Some of the CGI rendered destruction and especially Gort blowing up army jets feels a little excessive.

***

Final Verdict – Which One To See?

Both - The remake doesn’t spoil or ruin the original. Both films have deeply contrasting story-motives though they achieve them in very similar ways. The newer film is flashier and feels more like a contemporary sci-fi film, but the original impresses with its acting and dialogue. Neither version has a decisive edge over the other because of their stylistic differences and I frankly love both films.