Orginal vs Remake

I like the original better because it is more subtle and scarier. Robert DeNiro's performance was intense but bordered on over-the-top comical and I found myself laughing out loud at many of his scenes in the remake instead of shaking with fear. Also, the casting was a problem for me. Never once did I believe that Robert DeNiro was Nick Nolte's physical superior. Both actors try hard to play their roles (i.e. Nolte the Wimp and DeNiro the Menace) but at the end of the day, I always felt that Nolte would own DeNiro in a fight. In the original movie, Robert Mitchum, although shorter than Gregory Peck, was very buff, so when he puts Peck in a chokehold, it looks believable when Peck struggles to break free. But no way could DeNiro beat up Nolte!

I gave them both the same score: 7/10.

The 1962 verison has better acting for the male characters, but feels dated, and is thin on plot.

The 1991 version has more believable characters, particularly the women, and has a better story, but the acting isn't quite there, the special effects are goofy, and the ending is over the top.

Basically both are a good way to waste your time and not feel too bad about it. But they're not deserving of any particular attention.

the remake is much deeper and i find i can rewatch it and find new things in it alot more than i can with the original.

the 1962 version is the better film, but I enjoy watching the remake a lot more. and I think scorsese's version is a lot more suspenseful and scary.
I play cards with J.D. Shelnut, chief of PO-lice! So kiss my ass, you old bastard!

[deleted]

[deleted]

Really love both, but prefer the 1962 film.







"Tell Me, Do You Bleed? You Will."

Original is better - all day, every day and twice on Sunday.

If you watch them back to back it's glaringly obvious how bad the remake is and how it borders on absurd.

Remake has also aged poorly and has none of the beautiful shots littered in the original.