Remakes better than the first

This has probably been done before (know it has with music), but what the hell ...

On the SERPENTINE SHEL!!! thread, someone asked why they remake great movies and ruin them. I tried to think of any remakes I've seen that I said to myself, "Damn, that was better than the original."

I can't think of many. "Scarface" certainly was better than the original, though they were really very different films.

I can't really think of any others off the top of my head. There's probably a few horror movies that were better the second time around, but I can't think of any.

 

Dawn of the Dead is the only one that comes to mind, though it has been a very long time since I saw the original.

The remake in 2004 was beautifully shot and the zombies were the best I've seen, like a pack of rabid dogs.

If I can cheat and include television, the new Battlestar Galactica is better than its relatively cheesy predecessor, but very dark and it won't appeal to everybody.

 

Haven't seen either version, but last year's remake of "3:10 to Yuma" was compared favorably to its predecessor.

 

We're not talking sequels.

I thought King Kong (the second remake, not the first) was better than the original, if only because of the special effects.

 

Ocean's 11.

 

good call on Ocean's

A Christmas Carol has been done well several times

 

Romero's Dawn of the Dead is a classic. The other one, not so much.

 

I'm really looking forward to the new Rambo movie with Stallone.

 

Isn't 3:10 to Yuma a remake?

I have not seen either one, though.

That's all I got.

 

Debbie Does Fort Worth?