"Cape Fear was also #36 on Bravo's 100 Scariest Movie Moments for its famous scene where Max Cady attacks Sam's family."

I don't know how seriously I'd take that. If Bravo has airing rights to it, it will be on their list of top 100. I'm sure a lot of Bond movies are on Superstation's critical best list.

It appears a lot more critics reviewed or commented on the 91 version, which probably led to the lower rating. The only major reviewer on that list, Vincent Canby, gave it a good review. Most reviews I read(prior to the remake) of the original were pretty meh. It didn't help much that the original came out on the heels of Psycho, and was looked upon as another Hitch clone. And coincidently, the remake suffered the same fate, going up against the showier Silence of the Lambs in the Oscar race. If it had been released any other year, it would have fared better, critically.


A good portion of the films that came from Hammer's golden era(1957-65) were remakes, and I think some easily surpassed the originals- most notably Horror of Dracula. Browning's version is creaky and looks very much like the stage play it's derived from. Curse and Revenge of Frankenstein are much more animated(although the monster make-up was bad) versions too, and hold their own with the original.

I see a lot of old films that had great premises, but were lacking in something- production values, good casts, strong editing, etc. Doesn't make them bad films, just films that could stand to be improved. I'm not for remakes either, if they involve classics(or near classics) like that Psycho garbage. Personally, I'm not looking forward to the Taking of Pelham 123 remake. Totally unnecessary. But a remake in the right hands is a different story. Scorsese has a better appreciation and knowledge of film, than the average studio hack trying to cash in on a film title. If CF had been remade by anyone else, it would have been National Lampoon's Cape Fear.

The more recent TCM(1st) and Dawn of the Dead remakes were good IMO. They were very close in spirit, to the orig. and gave the viewer an idea of what Hooper or Romero might have been able to do, had they the budgets and current technology. Were they as raw as the original. No, but in today's censorial atmosphere, you couldn't make either of them as intense as the orig. And both films concentrated on characters rather than FX, which I appreciated.

Hitchcock remade his own Man Who Knew Too Much, and I think both films are great. They both have their strong and weak points, but, ultimately are both enjoyable films. And let's face it, most old films will get remade eventually, because Hwood isn't exactly known for charting new waters. When they do get remade, hopefully it will be by someone who respects the material.

Even Eric Clapton remade Layla.

I'm well aware Hollywood is intent on remaking every film ever made. Doesn't mean I like them.

Horror of Dracula isn't a remake of Browning's Dracula. Sangster went back to the book with that and produced an original vision of the story.

you have to take into account how the rotten tomatoes rating system works, its not like most.
I have no comment on which is better, i haven't seen the original yet.

I didn't see the original but I loved the remake.

As mentioned previously these weren't remakes but other adaptations of Literary Sources.

I think the general public would regard them as remakes, because the characters in the early 30s versions weren't featured again, as the main characters based on the novels, until Hammer came along. I don't think you could regard Sons of, Daughters of and Abbott and Costello meets as originating from a literary source.

It wouldn't make them right, however.

I guess I wont bring up the subject of sequels, then. :(

More they were continuating of the Universal Serials