I watched both the 1956 and 1978 versions recently and while both were good, am I the only one who prefers the original over the remake. The remake did have good special effects, but I just liked the small town atmosphere of the original plus it seemed kind of like a Hitchcock film. I also generally just liked how it wrapped up the story in less time
shareI like the '78 version better. The original is good but it has those unnecessary framing scenes and the part where Becky resurrects as a pod person doesn't seem to make sense. The remake doesn't have either problem and I think it's creepier and more apocalyptic. In fact it may be one of the best horror movies I've seen.
shareThe '78 version is much better than the '56 version, but the '56 version is still very good. The '93 version is also better than the '56 version.
"Science creates fictions to explain facts" - Gilman
I prefer the original. I liked both versions, but the isolation of the small town, the realization that your friends have become monsters, and the menacing black and white made the Don Seigel versin creepier to me.
However, I am still conflicted over whether Dana or Brooke are more beautiful.
Is it a wimp-out to say I like them both?!
I love the small-town "you're on your own" atmosphere, the noirish sense of menace, and the plot tautness of the first one. The downside of its slickness -- as someone very focussed on story this annoys me a bit -- is that this version of Miles just plucks assumptions out of the air, presumably as a way of keeping the story moving along. (For instance, with the first body at Jack's, he just pulls the idea of it having no fingerprints, and of it being a clone that will turn into Jack and that Jack will die, out of absolutely nowhere, with no evidence or even discussion to lead up to it.) But the red-scare metaphor, and the incipient paranoia, are really well done, and perfect for their time. (I'd very much like to see it without the "optimistic" bookend scenes.)
Also perfect for its own time, I think, is the first remake. By the late 70s, with American self-image being in cities rather than small towns, I think it made sense to urbanise the story, moving it to a city where pod people could vanish in the crowd, and the "self-actualisation" psychobabble of 70s San Francisco worked better I think to explain the paranoia than the "contagious hallucination" idea from the first one. The horror is more explicit and immediate, and the longer screen time lets it develop the ideas better. I do enjoy Kevin McCarthy and Dana Wynter, but I think I like Donald Sutherland and Brooke Adams better. Or maybe I just personally find them easier to relate to. And of course, this was the film that made me a lifelong fan of perpetual horror-victim Veronica Cartwright.
Got to put in an Honorary Mention for Abel Ferrara's version from the 90s, which develops a nice buzz of spookiness. It's flawed, but I think it's still a worthy effort. The Kidman one from the 2000s really has nothing to recommend it, imo, since it comes across as just "Me! Me! I want a go too!", with no clear reason why it was even made. But I suspect Hirschbiegel got really rough treatment by the studio, which panicked on seeing the first cut and decided it needed an action flick rather than more moody paranoia (which Hirschbiegel can deliver in spades), rescripted and reshot almost the entire film, and ended up with something that was neither fish nor fowl. I'd love to see Hirschbiegel's cut of what he shot, but I suspect that will never be possible now.
tl;dr version: I like the 1956 original, but on balance I vote for the 1978 remake as best overall.
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
I'm a sucker for the whole damn franchise. But I prefer the original. I saw it first as a kid on late night TV and was enthralled by it. The other ones each have something different about them and are enjoyable. Would be interesting to marathon them all back to back.
shareOverall I prefer the 1978 but there is one thing I like BETTER about the original and that is the at least partial "victory" of the main character.
I like to root for the underdog and I would have preferred the main hero of the newer movie to successfully escape and warn the world before it was too late. There are so far FIVE versions of the story (original novel plus 4 movies) and that was the ONLY version that had a totally hopeless ending.
I think both films are excellent in their own right: The original astutely nails the insidious dread and paranoia of the 1950's Red Menace while the '78 remake provides a trenchant commentary on the selfish 70's Me Generation mentality.
I've been chasing grace/ But grace ain't easy to find
That is a good point. There is a reason to make a movie that refers to the red scare, if that is indeed what the original did. I don't know - I hear it so often it must be true, but I don't see it, I just see a good movie. But, going with your theory, making a movie about the me generation is far less warranted ... and ... who really cares? There were too many cliches in the remake I thought, it was like a made for TV movie, pooped out by the Hollywood machine.
shareI'm also one who prefers the original. Perhaps I'm biased because this was the first version I saw.
I like the cast and black and white for a movie like this is just so much more appealing. I love this sort of thing on a lazy Saturday afternoon or on Halloween night. Pop a big bowl of popcorn, have some friends over and watch this, The Thing (original), The Incredible Shrinking Man.....
The Thing From Another World! Great movie!
shareThe original is more realistic. The remakes are always trying to be hip for whatever new generation, and also self-consciously refer to the original with some lame twists. This is just about the time special effects started to take over in movies at the expense of writing and characters. I prefer the original as I do for most movies. Some remakes are OK, though I am not sure I can think of one now off the top of my head.
share