Collecting Movie Classics: Nobody Can Play (That Part) Better Than (That Actor)!

Yes, sometime are newer actors better than the original. Johnny Weissmüller is far the best Tarzan, but he wasn't the first one. Sean Conney wasn't the first James Bond, but he too is the best. And I would say Alan Arkin was the best Inspector Clouseau. Peter Sellers overacted in EVERYTHING he did!

Sorry to you Sellers-fan.

THERE IS ONLY ONE "THE WOMEN", DIRECTED BY GEORGE CUKOR....THE OPPOSITE SEX WAS A REAL DUD....JUNE ALLYSON WAS MIS-CAST...AS WAS JOAN COLLINS AS CRYSTAL....THERE WAS A TV VERSION WITH SHELLY WINTERS IN THE CRYSTAL ROLE....NO COMENT.....

Humphrey Bogart as Sam Spade - iconic.

And then of course, there is the occasional improvement when a part is re-cast. A prime example features Timothy Dalton as James Bond after Roger Moore. Another offers Christopher Lee rather than Bela Lugosi as Dracula. And how 'bout George Reeves rather than Kirk Alyn as Superman?

When you have an iconic actor in a "classic" it is almost impossible (barring an excellent remake) to think of someone doing it better. It is easier for young ones to think a newer actor is better, mainly because they did not grow up watching a particular film (often over and over again).

It is impossible for me to think of any one else as Inspector Clouseau than Peter Sellers -- he embodies the role. That series with Sellers is one of my favorite of all time. Very few films I have seen as many times as The Pink Panther Strikes Again (1976). I tend to think most agree with me (Alan Arkin was horific when he attempted that role; I shudder to think of the ones created after Seller's death as well).

I too think of Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka. I like Johnny Depp, though I think some of his later performances he is just channeling other actors/performers like Michael Jackson in the remake. Though I'm not as strong with this as I am with Peter Sellers.

No one outdid Boris as the Monster though I did enjoy the many, many, many sequels/influences.

I'm a John Wayne fan so True Grit is a favorite of mine. There are some weaknesses in the film (some of the secondary performances) so I didn't mind it redone. But please do not remake The Searchers .

I have read the above comments from all, and there is an untangible variable that enters into polls such as these, and that is our own personal likes, and dislikes. Our personal choices have intangibles as well, envirement, education, generation all come into play. I for one cannot abide Adam Sandler, Sean Penn, or Will Ferrel, but then they are not my generation, and I am not their target audience. Our pesonal thoughts on movies are our personal thoughts on movies ! There is no right, or wrong answer, if someone tells me their favorite film is Dumb & Dumber, I try not to scoff, it's their personal view. Movies are art, if you like paintings of children with big eyes, I won't hire you to decorate my house, but I still would have you as a friend. I am over sixty, and the reason I prefer older films, and the originals over most remakes could be nothing more than nostalgia. Oh well I didn't intend to write a book, so I will end with one example of my choice of a film versus tha remake. The Humphrey Bogart film "we're no angels" is a witty enjoyable film, ..to me. The remake with Dinero, & Penn, not anywhere near in my estimation,and I might add I am a huge Dinero fan. I very much enjoy talking about movies with people, and I try to be objective. If I am talking with a thirty year old, we will no doubt disagree on most films, I just try to get them to realize there really is no wrong choices, there are just different reasons for them !

clint eastwoods man with no name, peggy singlton as blondie, nigil bruce as dr watson, basil rathbones as holmes and long chaney jr.s as larry talbot the wolfman

My gripe with some remakes (and that includes TV to big screen) is the tendency of film makers to "update" the story. Where the original may take place in the 50's, they place the remake in the 80's, 90's or later. It doesn't work. Batman and Superman maybe the exception in the time frame. Some remakes are more violent than the original was. My biggest question is isn't there anymore original thinking in Hollywood anymore?

Congrats to Bill Dunphy for mentioning one of my favouite "small " films the original "My Three Angels". It was beautifully acted and cast (Aldo Rey Humphrey Bogart Peter Ustinov)and registered on a really human level, never overstated and totally engrossing and believable, set in the correct era.

An important point about Gus Van Sant’s “Psycho” remake: In the Hitchcock original, Norman Bates became a killer because of his gender confusion. To put it bluntly, he killed because he was gay — and the character reflected societal attitudes towards homosexuality at the time. Van Sant is a gay director, and the entire raison d’être of his shot-for-shot remake was to portray Norman as plainly heterosexual (the straight porn in his room, etc.), thus exonerating homosexuality from its cultural misperception as a murderous pathology. (For added measure, Van Sant’s movie also hints that Marion Crane’s sister [Julianne Moore] is a lesbian.)

Robert DeNiro is a fine actor but he gave a dreadful performance as the monster in Branaugh's Frankenstein film. The makeup department on that film takes a lot of the blame - Frankenstein's creation looked more like a worked over victim from a Scorsese film rather than an eerie, frightening, re-animated abomination. The Boris Karloff/Jack Pierce characterization remains unchallenged. Bill Dunphy is on track again by saying a character's popularity could be generational in preference. When a youngster watches a movie and likes the actor playing a certain role that tends to affect his judgement for evaluating another actor portraying the same part. Twenty years from now the Disney studios could revamp the Pirates franchise and cast, say, Justin Bieber as Captain Jack Sparrow (or Dakota Fanning as Captain Jackie Sparrow) and the grownups of that generation may rebel against the temerity of trying to re-cast an iconic Johnny Depp role. And, the young viewers of the new version may embrace the new performance and regard Depp as a musty old dinosaur in comparison. So, fellow film fans, embrace the moment and enjoy what you enjoy. Changes are part of the journey. Calm seas to you all!

Not too many will agree with this, but as much as I like Bogie's Philip Marlowe in "The Big Sleep", I still prefer Dick Powell's original incarnation in "Murder, My Sweet." Indeed, Powell was dining out on that characterization when he did "Richard Diamond" on the radio.

I also have always found Basil Rathbone's Sherlock Holmes to be very high camp. altho it pales when compared to Nigel Bruce's Andy Devine-as-Jingles approach to Dr. Watson. No way would I ever want that buffoon approaching me with a stethascope. Actually, the only Holmes I have ever enjoyed is that of the late Jeremy Brett (I have forgotten who was his Dr. Watson but he was excellent), ditto Joan Hixon's definitve Jane Marple and David Suchet's brilliant take on Hercule Poirot. (For many of us Margaret Rutherford was a fun Jane Marple, but not for author Agatha Christie who was aghast at what the movies had done to her spinster sleuth.)

Finally, I could have seen a young Rod Taylor as Sean Thornton, I loved Jeff Bridges Rooster Cogburn in the retelling (as opposed to remake) and I have never been onboard with Topol over Zero Mostel's Tevyeve in "Fiddler on the Roof" (he was too young), Streisand's Dolly Levi in "Hello Dolly" (Carol Channing or Ginger Rogers would have been much better choices as Streisand was far too young) and it is inexcusable that Angela Lansbury was replaced by Lucille Ball (who was too old and couldn't sing) in the fiasco that was the screen version of "Mame."

RE: Psycho -- George you should have countered with "Norman is not a homosexual. Norman is a transvestite, but he is not a homosexual." (paraphrasing Glen or Glenda). I don't agree with the theory that he is homosexual. He has a very deep seated interest with his mother. His first murder is because of his interest in the female and the fact that his mother was jealous. His mother was first in his life like all good boys.

Personal aesthetics: there may or not be a right answer but there are better answers. The whole point of discussion of what is artistically superlative is to use not only your personal acumen but to try to understand other opinions as well. All opinions are not the same though. I would take in consideration say Donald Richie on Japanese movies over Roger Ebert (but still take his viewpoints into consideration), but would still prefer both over a condescending berating review on IMDB from someone who has seen 32 films. Of course this topic could take up volumes of pages.

RE: Jason Scott Lee in "Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story"...: well the movie is quite fictional based on Linda's book (hmmm where's Betty Ting-pei ) but let me think of his performance.
I like JSL but BL is awfully big shoes to fill. JSL is too big, too slow, not a real martial artist at the time (has improved since). The best person to play BL would have been a MA first then an actor. But to be fair both Taiwan and Hong Kong put out quite a bit of Bruceploitation films that failed to find a successor to BL (heck even Lo Wei tried to put Jackie Chan as a Bruce Lee type in New Fist of Fury). Those movies are prime examples of "nobody can play that part better." Of course there are exceptions: Jet Li played the part of Chen Zhen quite excellently in FIST OF LEGEND (I hope you have seen this George).

Hmmm, I'm going to have to eventually reply in the W.C. Fields thread .

I guess it depends on the movie. The first time I saw "Double Indemnity" was the TV version with Cliff Robertson and Lee J. Cobb. It was very will done, and when I saw the original with Fred MacMurray and Edward G. Robinson, I thought both versions, by all actors were excellent, though I would give a nod toward the Robertson version because he came closest to the character.
Another movie was "Stagecoach." I saw the re-make first with Willie Nelson and Johnny Cash in the leads before I saw the John Wayne original version, and again, I thought the re-make was slightly better although both were good.
The worst re-make was "The African Queen," proving that some movies you just cannot re-make even if you try. I can't remember the actor's name in the re-make, but all he did was IMITATE Humphrey Bogart; he didn't PLAY THE CHARACTER.
Another one that belong sin the dung-heap is the re-make of "It's A Wonderful LIfe" with Marlo Thomas. They took a great story and a masterpiece of filmmaking, and turned into a feeble blow for women's lib.
Laurel and Hardy made re-makes of their movies all the time, often re-cycling the plots that had worked well for them. What is fun is to compare two versions of, let's say "Should Married Men Go Home?" and "The Sons of The Desert." BOth have the same premise and plot, but in the "Sons" there is more depth to the characters while in "Married Men" it's just one gag after another, though the gags fit the characters. Hollywood will continue to make re-makes until the end of the motion picture business.

It is hard to see anyone more suffered than Klaus Kinski. He is one of those actors that is much more a character than well a normal human (like Fields). Let's see a remake of Fitzcarraldo (1982) -- I'm kidding.

Sherlock Holmes has inspired so many good performances. I'm a huge Basil Rathbone fan, though I have liked many actors in this role including Peter Cushing . Interesting point about a base in literature helping not to define a particular character. Shakespeare's plays are good references as well since they have been done so many times in many different countries. I know some think of Oliver as Richard III, Hamlet etc... This includes movies based from the Bible as well (I know some will always think of Willem Dafoe as Jesus)

Random observations:
Can there be a new Dirty Harry? (still find it hard to believe it could have been Frank Sinatra). Clint's Man With No Name are hard to top even though it has an influence from Toshiro Mifune (for me he seems the ultimate samurai even though Tatsuya Nakadai is a close second).

Forgot to mention that I hope that noone redoes Taxi Driver. There is only one Travis Bickle. I think there are several DeNiro roles I would not like to see redone including The King of Comedy's Rupert Pupkin.

Now let's see Jim Carrey do a remake of Jerry Lewis's The Bellboy.

In the 1936 classic "These Three", the role of Mary Tilford was played by a 13-year old actress named Bonita Granville who won an Academy Award nomination (Best Supporting Actress) for her brilliant performance in this film. This was unheard of at the time, what with her being so young. The remake made in 1961 - "The Children's Hour" had a wonderful cast but Karen Balkin as the malicious schoolgirl, Mary Tilford, couldn't compare to that of Miss Granville. Bonita went on to appear in many other films including a starring role as Nancy in the old NANCY DREW movies, which she also played to near perfection.

JIM RICK- I don't see a TV version of "The Women" listed under Shelley Winters' credits. More info please. What year was it on? Who else was in it?

Glenn Strange as the Frankenstein monster in the
classic "Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein" did an excellent job as the monster and kudos to the
makeup artist who made him look exactly like the
Karloff version!

Many interesting comments.

I think the one about Connery not being the original James Bond is a bit disingenuous. The original Bond adaptation was a made-for-television production seen by few and forgotten almost instantly. In terms of the movies, Connery WAS the original and to my mind, still the best Bond - although I also enjoyed Pierce Brosnan's interpretation.

Basil Rathbone is undoubtedly the "iconic" Sherlock Holmes because of his looks, but I would agree that the Jeremy Brett productions are superior in every way. And the new BBC TV series with Benedict Cumberbatch as Holmes and Martin Freeman as Watson is an astonishingly good "update" of the Holmes legend.

While I love Bogie in "The Big Sleep," I think Dick Powell and James Garner both portrayed a Marlowe far closer to the character as created by author Raymond Chandler.

And as for remakes, I can think of one that was better than the original: "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels" is far superior to "Bedtime Story."

But like the other Bill above, I am approaching 60 and generally prefer the originals to the remakes.

BTW one of the worst remakes was "Cat People" which totally missed the whole point of the subtlety and mood of the original Val Lewton production.

Lon Chaney Sr as the Phantom of the Opera. I know the film is silent, mostly B&W with only a few scenes with some primative color, poor supporting roles and weak direction, but Chaney, who created his own make-up and ignored the director, gave a performance for the ages. I saw it recently in a real theater on a big screen with "live" pipe organ music (using some of the themes from the Broadway show) and Chaney is still extremely effective. And its all acting, not "Star" power. The real Chaney is well hidden under the Phantom.

Tito: Sorry to dispute you, but Sean Connery absolutely was the first James Bond (Doctor No, 1962), as well as the best.

I tried to watch the recent "The Women", but I just couldn't get through it. "Remake" was such a joke. I might have been able to watch it as an entirely different movie, but knowing -- and loving -- the original made the "remake" impossible to sit through. I don't watch the original "The Women" for the female buddy-buddy nonsense; I watch for the absolutely delicious, beautifully scripted CAT FIGHTS!

The remake of "We're No Angels" was a complete mistake. It was so funny and so well done. I can't see anyone replacing the combination of Bogart, Ustinov, Ray, and of course, Adolf.

And I agree with one of the other comments about John Wayne. John Wayne was a movie star who played John Wayne, except for two movies. One of my favorites, The Quite Man, and one of my husband's favorites, The Shootist.

I have a question about remakes. When they change a movie as much as they usually do, why even pretend it has anything to do with the older movie?

Go back up about 30 posts and you'll find the notion that John Wayne wasn't a real actor. He was just another movie star. In other words: John Wayne only ever played John Wayne (a ctiticism that has also been unfairly thrown at Clark Gable). I say: really...?! He always played the same character exactly the same way...?! "Stagecoach."
"Sands Of Iwo Jima." "The Searchers." "Rio Bravo." "True Grit." "The Cowboys." "The Shootist." I could go on but I'm sure you get my point. Not only was John Wayne an ACTOR, he was clearly one of the greatest film actors who ever lived (as was Clark Gable!)!

same ..? "Stagecoach." "Sands Of Iwo Jima."

Blair, sorry if I offended you, or John Wayne, as I said I meant no slight, it's just my opinion ! As I've always said there s no wrong answer when you ask someone their favorite movie/actor/actress or star. My opinions are just that, my opinions, they aren't right, or wrong, they're just me ! One of my oldie favorites of J.W.'s is "The Lady takes a chance w/Jean Arthur, a funny movie with a great cast of characters.

I thought timothy dalton and Roger Moore were awesome as James Bond.....I liked Sean Connery but Moore was my favorite Bond...Johnny W as Tarzan agree,,How about Christopher Plummer as Sherlock Holmes,,right up there beside Mr Rathbone in a classic great film called MURDER BY DECREE James Mason as Dr. Watson a classic film.....

It was an insult to remake Father of The Bride and Father's Little Dividend, I mean really who could possibly improve on Spencer Tracy and Elizabeth Taylor !!

Same With Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, the original cast was spot on for every role.

Don't throw the popcorn boxes at me but I love The Women, quite like The Opposite Sex for the 50's fashions and thought Ann Sheridan, and Ann Miller as well as Agnes Moorehead and Joan Blondell really stood out, now the more recent remake is total garbage imho

No one could improve on John Wayne and Maureen O'Hara in either The Quiet Man or McClintck

Jimmy Stewart in It's a Wonderful Life no competition there.

Audrey Hepburn is Holly Golightly
Carole Lombard and William Powell in My Man Godfrey can't be improved
Clark Gable in It Happened One Night perfection !!
Vivian Leigh and Clark Gable as Scarlett and Rhett
Vivian Leigh in Streetcar Named Desire
Ernest Borgnine in Marty
Shirley Booth in Come Back Little Sheeba
Sandra Dee was Gidget and Debbie Reynolds as Tammy
Nobody has ever been on better road trips then Hope and Crosby
Cinderella in my mind will always be Leslie Ann Warren
The only movie I can think of that I love love both versions of are The Philadelphia Story and High Society, because of the change in time frames and format they both shined with stellar casts.

Many thanks to Gord Jackson for your take on the Sherlock Holmes, Miss Marple, and Hercule Poirot characters and their iconic actors. I agree completely, and believe that the remakes do not compare (although I do like Cumberbach). Just wanted to mention the best Watson interpretation I have seen yet is in a remake of "The Hound of the Baskervilles" that starred Richard Roxburgh. He was perfeclty adequate as Sherlock, but Ian Hart's portrayal of Watson just blew me away. He played him as a younger man, full of vigor and intelligence, and quite willing to challenge Holmes when he wanted to. Quite a delight. Check it out!

Sorry I need to proof read my comments better:
I will just "give"... Mitchum and Garner were "great"...

Here's one you have forgotten -- my mother's favorite -- Gregory Peck in 'To Kill a Mockingbird' (actually her favorite actor was Errol Flynn, but she would have turned to Peck's Atticus Finch for this discussion). As for generational differences, I have great appreciation for films and performances from long before my time, and I'm capable of overturning an old favoritefor a newer (ala Brett for Rathbone). In general, I think kids born in the last twenty years or so have much less interest in the past, and our culture has deliberately rejected the idea of a canon. The young have too many contemporary tropes competing for their attention to take the time to develop an appreciation for our older ones. Us older guys were once like that too, but not to the same extent I think.

George, I would love to see your cinematic canon(s). I personally work on many lists at the same time including: TSPDT 1000, IMDB250, canons from several critics etc... I have written canonical lists as well as personal.

I find it sad when young ones eschew a film because of its age (or because of subtitles or because it is silent or black and white), but I do find enough younger folk that find cinema fascinating and, of course, I'm always willing to lend DVD/BDs to people (the amount of Asian cinema I lend is pretty high, followed by recent films, unfortunately silent tends to be last though some of those I just don't want to lend ).

Hmmm am I a film snob? Hee hee.