Most "re-makes" are worse than the originals. However, in this instance the re-make" works on its' own terms. Part of the reason is that, while the two versions tell the same story, their approaches are totally different. The original version of "The Little Shop of Horrors" was an ultra-cheap film produced in less three days on a budget of $22,000. Roger Corman, who produced and directed it, once noted that one "cannot set out to make a cult film. Only the audience can make a cult film." the original "Little Shop" became a perfect case in point.
This version could not be more different from the original. This time it is a fully-rigged musical with a Hollywood "A-List" cast, elaborate special effects and one of the biggest budgets of any film produced up to that time. However, those factors alone do not guarantee a successful film.
What makes the remake of "Little Shop" work is an excellent and witty script, good songs and, perhaps most important, a good sense of pacing. That last factor cannot be over-emphasized, and provides an object lesson to many contemporary directors. Far too many movies have been dragged down by the director's poor sense of pacing, allowing their film to get bogged down with scenes and characters that don't matter and only serve to slow things down. For all its' extravagant special effects and big production musical numbers, "Little Shop" does not fall into that trap. The story keeps moving along. In that sense, it could be held up as an example of the proper way to make a film.
So, which version of "Little Shop" is better, the original or the remake? The answer is that both work equally well - on their own terms.
This version could not be more different from the original. This time it is a fully-rigged musical with a Hollywood "A-List" cast, elaborate special effects and one of the biggest budgets of any film produced up to that time. However, those factors alone do not guarantee a successful film.
What makes the remake of "Little Shop" work is an excellent and witty script, good songs and, perhaps most important, a good sense of pacing. That last factor cannot be over-emphasized, and provides an object lesson to many contemporary directors. Far too many movies have been dragged down by the director's poor sense of pacing, allowing their film to get bogged down with scenes and characters that don't matter and only serve to slow things down. For all its' extravagant special effects and big production musical numbers, "Little Shop" does not fall into that trap. The story keeps moving along. In that sense, it could be held up as an example of the proper way to make a film.
So, which version of "Little Shop" is better, the original or the remake? The answer is that both work equally well - on their own terms.