It's the Same, Only Different Trivia Quiz

Answer: Robert Montgomery, Evelyn Keyes, and Claude Rains

Warren Beatty reprised Robert Montgomery's Joe Pendleton, Julie Christie stepped into Evelyn Keyes' shoes as Betty (Evelyn was Bette) Logan, and James Mason took over from Claude Rains as Mr. Jordan. Both Mason and Rains had beautifully modulated speaking voices, so maybe that's what's required to play the character of Mr. Jordan. In the original Joe was a boxer and in the remake, he's the starting quarterback for the Los Angeles Rams.

This is one of the very few instances in which I like both the original and the remake. Both films are available on DVD, and they're both worth watching.

Answer: Leslie Banks and Edna Best

For some reason, Hitchcock changed the names of his lead characters from Lawrence to McKenna, and morphed the original daughter into a son. Of the two films, I prefer the 1956 version. By the time he remade his own film, Hitchcock had become an absolute master of suspense and it shows.

In the 1954 version, Doris Day, playing a singer (there's a surprise!), introduced the Jay Livingston/Ray Evans classic, 'Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be)'. The song plays an important part at the climax of the suspenseful plot.

Both versions are available on DVD, so you can decide for yourself which one is better.

Answer: Shia LaBoeuf, Sarah Roemer and David Morse

I'm not sure why director D.J. Caruso felt it necessary to remake 'Rear Window' and I, for one, wish he had quashed the impulse. Maybe he thought he was creating an homage to Hitchcock, but if that's the case, he fell far short of his goal.

Why, for instance, did he reduce his leading man's age by at least 20 years and place him under house arrest wearing one of those electronic bracelet gizmos instead of in a wheelchair wearing a plaster cast on his broken leg?

Call me an aging curmudgeon, but when it comes to movies, teenage romances (which are largely based on hormones rather than on emotional maturity) don't hold my interest the way that a romance between two adults does.

Both movies are available on DVD, but if you take my advice, you'll go for the original and give the disturbing 'Disturbia' the go-by.

Answer: Vince Vaughn, Anne Heche, Julianne Moore, and Viggo Mortensen

Even though director Gus Van Sant literally recreated rather than remade 'Psycho' by reproducing it shot-by-shot and keeping Hitchcock's plot and characters intact (Hitchcock deviated somewhat from Robert Bloch's novel of the same name), the 1998 version just doesn't work. As critic Roger Ebert pointed out "the genius lies between the script and the shot". Whatever it takes to make one break out in goosebumps, Hitchcock had it and Van Sant doesn't, at least as far as 'Psycho' is concerned.

I believe the problem was in the casting. There's no way that baby-faced Vince Vaughn could capture the same essence of 'is he or isn't he insane?' that Anthony Perkins projected. As for the ladies? Well they're just not Janet Leigh and Vera Miles, are they? And while Viggo Mortensen is good, he doesn't quite fill John Gavin's shoes. I'm not surprised that the 1998 version of 'Psycho' earned Van Sant a Razzie award as Worst Director. I will, however, concede that William H. Macy recreated Martin Balsam's Detective Arbogast well.

If you're going to rent the movie, my suggestion is that you take home the original and give the remake a pass.

Answer: The Bad News Bears

Casting Billy Bob Thornton in a role created by Walter Matthau is just not right in my book. Would you hire Billy Bob to coach a kids' baseball team? The 2005 version, while funny, lacks the bumbling charm of the original, and by the end of the movie one has had more than enough of Thornton and his pint-sized co-star Kraft.

I recommend that you rent the 1976 version of this classic.

Answer: Dial M for Murder

'A Perfect Murder' starred Michael Douglas, Gwyneth Paltrow and Viggo Mortensen in roles first created by Ray Milland, Grace Kelly and Robert Cummings. It's another example of a remake of a Hitchcock film that should have not been remade!

In the original, Milland plays Tony Wendice, an ex-pro tennis player, Kelly is his wealthy wife, Margot, Cummings plays her lover, Mark Halliday, a writer of crime novels, and the movie is set in London. In the 1998 version, Douglas plays Steven Hayes, a Wall Street stockbroker, Paltrow is his wealthy-in-her-own-right wife Emily, Mortensen is Emily's lover, artist David Shaw, and the action takes place in New York. Apart from the names, professions of the two men, and the city in which the action takes place, the other main change is the fact that the price of murder-for-hire has gone up considerably in the 44 years that elapsed between the original and the remake!

Of the two films, I prefer the 1954 version (everyone in the 1998 remake seems to be 'phoning it in, except for Mortensen, who is always good no matter how bad the film is, and this one is bad!). While you're at the movie rental store, pick up 'Anatomy of a Murder' which is also worth seeing.

Answer: James Cromwell

I'm not the biggest American football fan in the world, but I prefer the original version of 'The Longest Yard' for one major reason...product placement! Every five minutes in the remake, some product or other is being promoted, which is dandy for outfits like McDonald's but a bit of a snooze for the audience. If you're going to rent 'The Longest Yard' get the 1979 version. That way you can concentrate on the action and not the product placement.

Answer: Alan Arkin and Peter Falk

For my money the 2003 remake of 'The In-Laws' just doesn't compare to the off-the-wall lunacy of the original. Michael Douglas is just too believable as a CIA agent, while one has to stretch one's imagination to see Peter Falk as a cloak-and-dagger type (in much the same way that his rumpled 'Columbo' was not the stereotypical TV homicide detective). I'm not exactly sure why Alan Arkin's dentist turns into Brooks' podiatrist in the remake. Are feet funnier than teeth?

You can rent and compare both movies for yourself, but I'll lay dollars to doughnuts that you'll end up agreeing with me.

Answer: Michael Rennie and Keanu Reeves

Over the years we've seen scores of movies about visitors from outer space. Most of them depict the beings from beyond our galaxy as bad guys, bent on either dominating or destroying the earth. The original version of 'The Day the Earth Stood Still' is not like that at all. It's a gentler, kinder movie than the run-of-the-mill sci-fi earth vs aliens flicks. That's why I loathed the remake. First of all, Keanu Reeves' Klaatu has none of the gravitas and compassion of Michael Rennie's portrayal. Second, the remakers changed the reason why Klaatu visits earth in the first place, and that affects the whole movie!

Rent both these movies and see why the 1951 version is far superior to the 2008 remake. Pay close attention to Klaatu's message and you'll see why I prefer the 1951 version.

Answer: Michael Caine

Much as I like Jude Law, his Alfie wasn't a patch on Michael Caine's original portrayal of the loveable cad. I think I know why. Jude is a nice middle class boy, his parents were school teachers, and there's not a drop of Cockney blood in him. Caine, on the other hand, grew up in a very blue collar home - his father was a Billingsgate fish porter and his mum was a charlady - and he had all the resources of his inner Cockney cheekiness to bring Alfie to life on the screen.

Sorry, Jude. 'Alfie' wasn't your role to play. It was and always will be, Michael Caine's.