Film remakes: do they ever succeed?

[Stavros]

Spike Lee has re-made Oldboy, a Korean classic from 2003 by Chan-Wook Park but has, as often happens with re-makes in English from foreign originals, changed the ending to suit American -or Spike Lee's tastes.

Carrie, an American re-make of a desperately trashy American film originally by Brian de Palma in 1976 has also had poor reviews.

Do remakes ever succeed in improving on, or being as good as the original? I can think of one but most seem poor; but I haven't done a thorough search so please offer your own...there are a lot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_film_remakes_A-M
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_film_remakes_N-Z

Failures:
Some Like it Hot ((Billy Wilder, 1959)
A re-make of the French film Fanfare d'Amour (1935) which was also re-made in German in 1951 as Fanfaren der Liebe -I haven't seen any of the two previous but it is hard to imagine a film as poor as this, not just because of the presence of the human Dumbo, Marilyn Monroe, which guarantees a disaster. Crucially, it is supposed to be comedy but doesn't raise a laugh. Wilder added the mob element to the story, as if that mattered.

Sliding Doors (199 eight)
A sort-of remake of Kiezlowski's Blind Chance (1981) which Agnieszka Holland described as having the philosophical depths and stylistic subtleties stripped away...the film was never going to get far with John Hanna, whose inability to act is embarrassing. The original is so good this version slides down the escalator to nowhere.

The Departed (Scorsese, 2006)
The original Hong Kong movie from 2002 has an edge that the Scorsese film lacks, as well as the nuances of life in Hong Kong that do not export well to Chicago. The script is poor, the acting mechanical. Not so much a departure as a pause without a conclusion.

Get Carter (2000)
A re-make of a British classic from 1971. The only reasonable response one can make to this is: no, no, no. Get Lost.

The Hitcher (2007)
The original 1986 film with Rutger Hauer cannot be bettered, simply because Hauer is one of the great creeps in cinema, and delightfully so in a spooky kind of way -like Christopher Walken's anarchist brother.

Meet me Half-way: partial successes
The Magificent Seven (John Sturges, 1960)
A remake of Kurosawa's Seven Samurai (1954) and one of the most thrilling films ever made, with an awesome performance from Toshiro Mifune. Nevertheless, this American version does a good job of translating the drama even if it doesn't have the intensity of the original.

Successes
A Fistful of Dollars (Sergio Leone 1964)
Although a remake of Kurosawa's Yojimbo (1961) Leone translates the meaning while giving the film its own style -for some reason westerns manage re-makes better than other films, but I don't know why.

The Italian Job (2003)
An American remake of the British film with Michael Caine, this is at least as good as the British film, mainly because it doesn't have the loathsome Noel Coward to ruin it, as he ruins the British film. In fact at one time he threatened to ruin western civilization. Let's face it, who would you rather see in a film, Noel Coward or Charlize Theron? But nothing will ever replace the stunning conclusion to the British version.

[samanthasurprise]

The Maltese Falcon

[Prospero]

You will certainly raise a lot of hackles by selecting "Some Like It Hot" as one of the worst re-makes ever. This film is almost universally loved.

Equally I have met few people who did not find "The Magnificent Seven" a thrilling film - even if the "TheSeven Samurai was" an undisputed masterpiece.

I agree with the rest - though for me one of the worst remakes ever was "Sleuth" directed by Kenneth Branagh with Michael Caine taking the part originally played by Olivier and Jude Law playing the part originally performed by Caine. it was quite mind numbingly bad.

But sorry the remake of "The Italian Job" was dreadful - not a patch on the original.

But aside fro your astonishing distate for "Some like It Hot' I broadly agree with your judgements.

[SpoogeMonkey]

The Italian Job (2003)
An American remake of the British film with Michael Caine, this is at least as good as the British film, mainly because it doesn't have the loathsome Noel Coward to ruin it, as he ruins the British film. In fact at one time he threatened to ruin western civilization. Let's face it, who would you rather see in a film, Noel Coward or Charlize Theron? But nothing will ever replace the stunning conclusion to the British version.

what? are you for fucking real? The US Italian job was a decent film with no way in any relation to the British film of the same name, aside from the same name.

Noel Coward is legendary in the film.. Maybe you meant Benny Hill's part which is essentially a molester, and Im surprised its not been cut out and replaced with jar jar binks in latest releases.

As for this new Old boy film, I dont even have to watch it to know it will be shit.

[blackchubby38]

Are we talking financial success, critical success, or both?

The Departed remake takes place in Boston btw.

[EZWind]

Some Like It Hot.........c'mon man....if ya didn't get a chubby from Marilyn, ya gotta get at least a smile from the performances of Lemmon and Curtis. More to the point, if you haven't seen the originals you can't really say that it doesn't measure up now can ya

Magnificent Seven....okay, maybe not as intense as the original, but still pretty damn good. Great characters well portrayed by a terrific cast.

...you're pretty much spot on tho w/ your other examples.
....there's quite a few remakes of American films that failed miserably as well
...Adam Sandler's Longest Yard comes to mind first
...also Psycho

[GroobyKrissy]

Are you talking about reboots?

Most all [major] superhero (not talking Punisher or Flash) movies have done pretty decently... Spiderman, Superman, Batman, etc.

[GroobySteven]

Cape Fear - cracking re-make.
Red Dragon was quite decent also yet not as good as Manhunter.

... and to suggest that the US Italian Job was anything close to the original, is like suggesting Stallone's Get Carter, was even a shadow of the original.

[VictoriaVeil]

The US Version of the Italian job... I agree nothing like the original, but a good popcorn movie all the same.

[flabbybody]

if the remake takes an obscure film that no one saw it's not fair to classify it as as failure. I thought 1999 Sliding Doors was a new idea. How many folks can say they saw the original? (I may check it out now)
Your analysis seems to unfairly penalize big production films that are heavily marketed versus their lesser known originals. Big budget doesn't necessarily mean poor quality.

[stan.smith]

And half of the Bollywood movies are corny remakes of Hollywood movies!

[dderek123]

I liked the Dawn of the Dead remake and The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (but the swedish version was better in some ways).

It's subjective though what I like wouldn't be someone elses favourite thing. I rarely rewatch films these days because I just want to be entertained for a little while. I get more irritated with poorly written books since I need to invest more time and effort into the experience.

[Stavros]

Are we talking financial success, critical success, or both?

The Departed remake takes place in Boston btw.

Oops!

[Prospero]

similarly the original of "Let the right one in" (swedish) was far better than the US remake.

[Stavros]

what? are you for fucking real? The US Italian job was a decent film with no way in any relation to the British film of the same name, aside from the same name.

Noel Coward is legendary in the film.. Maybe you meant Benny Hill's part which is essentially a molester, and Im surprised its not been cut out and replaced with jar jar binks in latest releases.

As for this new Old boy film, I dont even have to watch it to know it will be shit.

'Jar jar binks' -?? No comprende.

Noel Coward in The Italian Job served little purpose other than to move the plot along, the man was a virus. Cant say much about Benny Hill other than that he was from Southampton, which explains a lot, and is/was Tony Benn's favourite comedian. Go figure. The American version was not bad as an entertaining film.

[Jericho]

Red Dawn was a pretty woeful remake.

Better than the original....

True Grit
Payback (Yeah, yeah, it's Mel Gibson, get over it) :shrug
The Getaway

[bluesoul]

The Departed (Scorsese, 2006)
The original Hong Kong movie from 2002 has an edge that the Scorsese film lacks, as well as the nuances of life in Hong Kong that do not export well to Chicago. The script is poor, the acting mechanical. Not so much a departure as a pause without a conclusion.

i don't think i'd call some of these failures.

the departed won scorsese a 'best director award' (something even goodfellas couldn't do for him) and made the studio back their money plus some profit.

some like it hot was a major success (critically and financially)- it's even now part of the national congress not to mention making the director a million and all 3 stars more than 500,000 each. whether or not you like the film, it's place in history is sealed.

i get what you're saying- and i too frown upon remakes- but most of those films made their money back and that's all the producer and especially the studio cares about to consider the film a failure or success.

the new oldboy isn't something i'm looking forward too (despite my hatred for spike lee coupled with his asshole-ism behavior (http://www.slashfilm.com/oldboy-poster-artist-gets-screwed-asks-spike-lee-for-help/)) but i also disliked the original and hated stolker.

i think a better question you should've asked could've been 'why do american remakes of foreign films make more money and become more popular?" eg: the vanishing (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108473/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_61), insomnia (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0278504/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_18), traffic (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181865/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1) or solaris (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0307479/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1)

[Prospero]

Answering the last point. I assume they are remade in the English language because the industry assumes that the vast majority of Americans will not watch films with subtitles .. Away from key enclaves on the east and West coasts. The US version of Solaris missed the point of the original totally.

[tsmirandameadows]

Better than the original....

True Grit


Beat me to it. The Coen Brothers remake was, in nearly every way, clearly superior to the original.


The Getaway

I never saw the remake with Alec Baldwin and Kim Bassinger, but I have hard time envisioning them topping the sheer cool factor of Steve McQueen (the coolest man no longer alive) and Ali McGraw at their heights. Plus, Sam Peckinpah.

[bluesoul]

Answering the last point. I assume they are remade in the English language because the industry assumes that the vast majority of Americans will not watch films with subtitles .. Away from key enclaves on the east and West coasts. The US version of Solaris missed the point of the original totally.

i don't think that's an assumption because it is a fact (as proved by the box office success of those films). but on the same note: why remake a hollywood film that was already originally in english? example tron, or the upcoming videodrome?

[tsmirandameadows]

See? Coolest man no longer alive:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kTPOpuA_f8

[danthepoetman]

I almost completely agree with your assessments, Stavros. I've never been able to get to the end of Some Like it Hot, although on the other hand, I can't share your extreme dislike for femininity icon Marilyn Monroe, who's excessive and sometimes almost carricatural charm I just can't resist.

I think in general it's easy to realize that remaking author cinema into commercial hollywoodian movies won't work. A good example comes to my mind in Tarkowski's "Solaris", remade by Steven Sodherberg, a great director nonetheless, who did a decent job but gave in to the more pop side elements of the original to produce a love movie on the same topic. In this case of course, it was an impossible task. Also comes to mind the absolutely terrible, ridiculous, pathetic, mushy mushy "City of Angels", by "I can't remember whom", as a remake of the magnificent Wim Wenders original "Wings of Desire", written by Nobel Prize Peter Handke. I can't think of anything in this remake that's not plain wrong. Jim McBride's "Breathless", with fair efforts by a rarely good Richard Gere and a lovely Valery Kaprisky was certainly not worthy of the original Jean-Luc Godard's either, but has in this case to be put in the "well tried" department. A good example of this impossibility to remake something too personal is certainly Jean Renoir's "Boudu Sauvé des Eaux"; Paul Mazursky should have stayed out of this one ("Down and Out in Beverly Hills"), and even good French actor-director Gérard Jugnot ("Boudu").
We generally should be thankful to the gods that author's movies are ordinarily too personal to be translated into hollywoodian flicks. I can say for myself that they saved me from many ulcers and high blood pressure.

I guess it's a bit different when it comes to a second movie made on the same novel rather than on the previous movie. "Eye of the Beholder" was directed in 1999 by Stephan Elliott from a Marc Behm polar. But Claude Miller's very personal interpretation was much much better: "Mortelle Randonnée" ("Deadly Circuit"), 1983, with Michel Serraut in his greatest role and Isabelle Adjani, still a goddess at this point, is a magical movie, bordering on masterpiece. Fred Zinneman's "The Day of the Jackal" was a good movie(1973), based on a Frederick Forsyth novel, that Michael Caton-Jones' boring "The Jackal" is far from matching (1993).

Also different, I suppose, when the circumstances in which the film was produced are important. "Le Corbeau", a great, great unsung Henri-George Clouzot movie, made during the war, with a layer of meaning definitely about collaboration and the anguishing, agonizing state of occupation, could not be remade properly either despite Otto Preminger's considerable talent. Fred Zinneman's "High Noon" also comes to mind, produced painfully during the McCarthy era; Peter Hyams 1981 attempt was far from the original, despite its conversion into sci fi, in "Outland", with Sean Connery.

There's also this... what? cuteness, vanity (the word I have in mind is "coquetterie") of remaking exactly or almost exactly an old cinema classic. Very good director Werner Herzog's "Nosferatu" and Gus Van Sant's "Psycho" are fun to watch, but still not at the height of the originals, maybe largely because, well... they simply aren't.

I guess remakes in the comedic genre are particularly difficult to render, especially when translation is involved. Having access to original French versions might give me some biases, but many remakes stucked in my throath over the years. A few movies were remade after fabulous French comedic actor's performances, Pierre Richard. Richard is one of the 3 or 4 greatest giants of French comedy. He had a unique style and created an inimitable and charming character that he pretty much kept from one movie to the next. "La Chèvre", "Les Fugitifs", "Le Grand Blond avec une Chaussure Noire" and "Le Jouet" (dir. : Francis Veber, Yves Robert) to name only a few, were remade after wild European successes under titles: "Pure Luck" (with Martin Short and Richard Glover), "Three Fugitives" (Nick Nolte, Martin Short), "The Man with One Red Shoe" (Tom Hanks), "The Toy" (Richard Pryor). Despite good efforts in each cases, none came even close to be as good as the originals.
I guess that in this case too, the uniqueness of a director's style can be difficult to match. I'm thinking in this case of Edouard Molinaro. Mike Nichol's "The Birdcage" and Billy Wilder's "Buddy, buddy" were pale in comparison to nice comedies "La Cage aux folles", "Trois Hommes et un Couffin" and "L'Emmerdeur". French director Jean-Marie Poiré is even more personal: the remake of his delightful and delirious "Le Père Noël est une ordure" (which would translate by "Santa Claus is a Dirty Son of a Bitch") was made into a pale and confused "Mixed Nuts" by Noah Ephron.

I realize that I'm writting a complete essay, here, so I'll finish this up with the exceptions. I think that science-fiction movies, because of technical progress in special effects, are bound to potentially be better in remakes, providing of course, that they're not, as I said, author movies (you won't see a good remake of Fritz Lang's "Metropolis" or Tarkovsy's "Solaris", "Stalker" or "Offret"), and that they therefore remain at pop level, made for wide audiences. So are horror movies for the same reasons. I prefer the 1978, Philip Kaufman version of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" to the Don Siegel, 1956 version (which on the other hand, was a fabulous carricature of the MacCarthism); in fact, I prefer the 78 version to the two ulterior ones, by Able Ferara in 93 and Oliver Hirschbiegel in 2007 ("The Invasion", with a once again cold and stuck up Nicole Kidman).
Suspense have also had their share of improved versions. One that immidiately comes to my mind is "Cape Fear". The 1991 Martin Scorsese version, with Robert de Niro and an all star cast is much better than the 1962 J. Lee Thompson original.

There. I'm stopping right here before putting everybody to sleep...

[saifan]

Hollywood has been in the remake game since its earliest days. The current wave sucks but it is more poor choices in what they are updating.

2 success that spring to mind immediately for me are "Scarface" and "John Carpenter's The Thing".

I also don't consider "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" a remake as it was just an adaptation of the same book.

[youngblood61]

Some movies should be left alone. Like the GF no way this movie should ever be remade. As is 3 almost ruined it for me.

[Quiet Reflections]

Oceans 11 was good

[broncofan]

As Miranda said, there was no reason to re-make the Getaway, one of the few Jim Thompson books to successfully be made into a movie with the great Steven Mcqueen.

A good project for a re-make would be the most recent Jim Thompson book turned into a movie, The Killer Inside Me. The directing wasn't bad, and Casey Affleck turned in an excellent performance as Lou Ford. However, something is clearly missing when a very good book makes an average film. I'm not saying all good books should make good films, but room for improvement here.

But I can't think of any examples not mentioned. Recent re-make I saw that destroyed the original was the Manchurian Candidate. Ugh.

[my my my!]

I don't know if Clash of the Titans is a remake, or just Clash of the Titans re-imagined, but it seems like a completely different movie.

I always thought that was a movie that could benefit from almost a scene by scene remake, with modern effects and CGI , and it is actually quite different.

The old one , I love, but it just aged rather badly in my opinion.

[Ben]

Some do; some don't.
I liked the remake of Assault of Precinct 13 -- at the time:

Assault on Precinct 13 (2005) (Theatrical Trailer) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=em5blAbl2Iw)

[Ben]

See? Coolest man no longer alive:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kTPOpuA_f8

The original is really good....

[Abartig]

... "John Carpenter's The Thing".

This, love this movie :)

John Carpenter's The Thing trailer (1982) HQ - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p35JDJLa9ec)

[fred41]

I liked Carpenter's "The Thing" much better than the original.

[fred41]

I also prefer Cronenberg's "The Fly"..

[maxpower]

Those are both great movies, Fred, and similar in their grotesquerie, I think.

[Stavros]

i don't think i'd call some of these failures.

the departed won scorsese a 'best director award' (something even goodfellas couldn't do for him) and made the studio back their money plus some profit.

some like it hot was a major success (critically and financially)- it's even now part of the national congress not to mention making the director a million and all 3 stars more than 500,000 each. whether or not you like the film, it's place in history is sealed.

i get what you're saying- and i too frown upon remakes- but most of those films made their money back and that's all the producer and especially the studio cares about to consider the film a failure or success.

the new oldboy isn't something i'm looking forward too (despite my hatred for spike lee coupled with his asshole-ism behavior (http://www.slashfilm.com/oldboy-poster-artist-gets-screwed-asks-spike-lee-for-help/)) but i also disliked the original and hated stolker.

i think a better question you should've asked could've been 'why do american remakes of foreign films make more money and become more popular?" eg: the vanishing (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108473/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_61), insomnia (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0278504/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_18), traffic (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181865/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1) or solaris (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0307479/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1)

The point about failure is a personal one -they fail me. I think Prospero is right about the re-makes in English of non-English films, but there are plenty of people in the UK who think anything with sub-titles is to be avoided, not just in the USA. It is just economics: the English-speaking world is a larger market than Korea or Sweden so the opportunity to make a book profit is there. It was revealed yesterday that only 7% of the British films made between 2003-2007 made a profit...
http://www.contactmusic.com/article/british-film-profits-study-bfi_3979440

[Stavros]

I almost completely agree with your assessments, Stavros. I've never been able to get to the end of Some Like it Hot, although on the other hand, I can't share your extreme dislike for femininity icon Marilyn Monroe, who's excessive and sometimes almost carricatural charm I just can't resist.

I think in general it's easy to realize that remaking author cinema into commercial hollywoodian movies won't work. A good example comes to my mind in Tarkowski's "Solaris", remade by Steven Sodherberg, a great director nonetheless, who did a decent job but gave in to the more pop side elements of the original to produce a love movie on the same topic. In this case of course, it was an impossible task. Also comes to mind the absolutely terrible, ridiculous, pathetic, mushy mushy "City of Angels", by "I can't remember whom", as a remake of the magnificent Wim Wenders original "Wings of Desire", written by Nobel Prize Peter Handke. I can't think of anything in this remake that's not plain wrong. Jim McBride's "Breathless", with fair efforts by a rarely good Richard Gere and a lovely Valery Kaprisky was certainly not worthy of the original Jean-Luc Godard's either, but has in this case to be put in the "well tried" department. A good example of this impossibility to remake something too personal is certainly Jean Renoir's "Boudu Sauvé des Eaux"; Paul Mazursky should have stayed out of this one ("Down and Out in Beverly Hills"), and even good French actor-director Gérard Jugnot ("Boudu").
We generally should be thankful to the gods that author's movies are ordinarily too personal to be translated into hollywoodian flicks. I can say for myself that they saved me from many ulcers and high blood pressure.

I guess it's a bit different when it comes to a second movie made on the same novel rather than on the previous movie. "Eye of the Beholder" was directed in 1999 by Stephan Elliott from a Marc Behm polar. But Claude Miller's very personal interpretation was much much better: "Mortelle Randonnée" ("Deadly Circuit"), 1983, with Michel Serraut in his greatest role and Isabelle Adjani, still a goddess at this point, is a magical movie, bordering on masterpiece. Fred Zinneman's "The Day of the Jackal" was a good movie(1973), based on a Frederick Forsyth novel, that Michael Caton-Jones' boring "The Jackal" is far from matching (1993).

Also different, I suppose, when the circumstances in which the film was produced are important. "Le Corbeau", a great, great unsung Henri-George Clouzot movie, made during the war, with a layer of meaning definitely about collaboration and the anguishing, agonizing state of occupation, could not be remade properly either despite Otto Preminger's considerable talent. Fred Zinneman's "High Noon" also comes to mind, produced painfully during the McCarthy era; Peter Hyams 1981 attempt was far from the original, despite its conversion into sci fi, in "Outland", with Sean Connery.

There's also this... what? cuteness, vanity (the word I have in mind is "coquetterie") of remaking exactly or almost exactly an old cinema classic. Very good director Werner Herzog's "Nosferatu" and Gus Van Sant's "Psycho" are fun to watch, but still not at the height of the originals, maybe largely because, well... they simply aren't.

I guess remakes in the comedic genre are particularly difficult to render, especially when translation is involved. Having access to original French versions might give me some biases, but many remakes stucked in my throath over the years. A few movies were remade after fabulous French comedic actor's performances, Pierre Richard. Richard is one of the 3 or 4 greatest giants of French comedy. He had a unique style and created an inimitable and charming character that he pretty much kept from one movie to the next. "La Chèvre", "Les Fugitifs", "Le Grand Blond avec une Chaussure Noire" and "Le Jouet" (dir. : Francis Veber, Yves Robert) to name only a few, were remade after wild European successes under titles: "Pure Luck" (with Martin Short and Richard Glover), "Three Fugitives" (Nick Nolte, Martin Short), "The Man with One Red Shoe" (Tom Hanks), "The Toy" (Richard Pryor). Despite good efforts in each cases, none came even close to be as good as the originals.
I guess that in this case too, the uniqueness of a director's style can be difficult to match. I'm thinking in this case of Edouard Molinaro. Mike Nichol's "The Birdcage" and Billy Wilder's "Buddy, buddy" were pale in comparison to nice comedies "La Cage aux folles", "Trois Hommes et un Couffin" and "L'Emmerdeur". French director Jean-Marie Poiré is even more personal: the remake of his delightful and delirious "Le Père Noël est une ordure" (which would translate by "Santa Claus is a Dirty Son of a Bitch") was made into a pale and confused "Mixed Nuts" by Noah Ephron.

I realize that I'm writting a complete essay, here, so I'll finish this up with the exceptions. I think that science-fiction movies, because of technical progress in special effects, are bound to potentially be better in remakes, providing of course, that they're not, as I said, author movies (you won't see a good remake of Fritz Lang's "Metropolis" or Tarkovsy's "Solaris", "Stalker" or "Offret"), and that they therefore remain at pop level, made for wide audiences. So are horror movies for the same reasons. I prefer the 1978, Philip Kaufman version of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" to the Don Siegel, 1956 version (which on the other hand, was a fabulous carricature of the MacCarthism); in fact, I prefer the 78 version to the two ulterior ones, by Able Ferara in 93 and Oliver Hirschbiegel in 2007 ("The Invasion", with a once again cold and stuck up Nicole Kidman).
Suspense have also had their share of improved versions. One that immidiately comes to my mind is "Cape Fear". The 1991 Martin Scorsese version, with Robert de Niro and an all star cast is much better than the 1962 J. Lee Thompson original.

There. I'm stopping right here before putting everybody to sleep...

I have never understood the appeal of Marilyn Monroe, so while we agree on Some Like it Not, we have to disagree on her. I also agree with most of your comments, and think perhaps the French language films are harder to translate though not sure why --the different sense of humour may be a factor, although I did think Les Visiteurs was often hilarious, comedy is difficult to cross over. My father loved Fernandel and took me to see some of his films but I wasn't impressed. I can't imagine anyone doing a remake of a Jacques Tati film...unless...

[robertlouis]

There are three reasons that Hollywood does remakes.

1. The original is at least a generation away, eg Carrie, or in a relatively obscure language such as Swedish, eg Let the Right One In and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, that the younger generation of US filmgoers, who make up the vast majority, are unlikely to have seen it before.

2. Hollywood these days comprises the celluloid offshoots of vast multinational conglomerates whose interest is in low-risk high-profit product. Look at the largely terrible franchises that run out of imagination after the first or second episode but keep limping along while the gullible are still prepared to exchange their folding money for it. And simply take an older film, throw in more bangs and some CGI and the punters will lap it up. And artistic integrity, whatever that is, can go fuck itself.

3. And last, but not least, it's about maximum profit for the least effort. That's capitalism, baby.

In short, it's utterly cynical. And the result is largely execrable rubbish.

[RyderMonroe]

"The Thing" with Kurt Russel was awesome and that was a remake. and the remake/prequel they made of that a few years ago was pretty good too.

[youngblood61]

"The Thing" with Kurt Russel was awesome and that was a remake. and the remake/prequel they made of that a few years ago was pretty good too.I agree, Ryder that was a good one.

[MrBlonde]

No doubt the remake of The Bourne Identity was much much better than the original.

And I know I will catch the wrath of McQueen fans but besides "The Getaway" which I also thought was better with Baldwin I also completely loved the Pierce Brosnan remake of "The Thomas Crown Affair". In fact I think the more recent Crown Affair is in my top 20 movies ever. It's just a fucking fun ass movie. But I will admit I did see the remake before the original so that could shape my thoughts on it.

[RyderMonroe]

No doubt the remake of The Bourne Identity was much much better than the original.

And I know I will catch the wrath of McQueen fans but besides "The Getaway" which I also thought was better with Baldwin I also completely loved the Pierce Brosnan remake of "The Thomas Crown Affair". In fact I think the more recent Crown Affair is in my top 20 movies ever. It's just a fucking fun ass movie. But I will admit I did see the remake before the original so that could shape my thoughts on it.

I liked the Bourne remake a lot but the original was still better imo.

[danthepoetman]

I agree with you guys, that the second version of "The Thing", by really fun director John Carpenter, was fabulous. Very good little sci fi flick, full of suspense, horror and surprises.
John Carpenter is a master of the genre. He's the one who also directed films like "Escape from New York", with Kurt Russell, "The Fog", the original "Halloween", "They Live", "Vampires" with James Woods, the remake of "Village of the Damns" with Christopher Reeves and a bunch of other good little sci fi and fantastic movies. And if you don't, you'll be interrested to know, Ryder, that the guy does his own music! He composes musical scores that are always perfect for the action of his films.

[RyderMonroe]

I agree with you guys, that the second version of "The Thing", by really fun director John Carpenter, was fabulous. Very good little sci fi flick, full of suspense, horror and surprises.
John Carpenter is a master of the genre. He's the one who also directed films like "Escape from New York", with Kurt Russell, "The Fog", the original "Halloween", "They Live", "Vampires" with James Woods, the remake of "Village of the Damns" with Christopher Reeves and a bunch of other good little sci fi and fantastic movies. And if you don't, you'll be interrested to know, Ryder, that the guy does his own music! He composes musical scores that are always perfect for the action of his films.

That's really cool! i've always been a fan of his. I never knew he did his know scores though.. he is def an amazing talent..

[Dark Adventurer]

Count me in the school of thought that the only movies which should be remade are those with great concepts but poor execution OR it has been a sufficient number of years since the original was made that the remake would be a significant difference and do the story justice.

[MrBlonde]

You know the Mad Max remake/reboot whatever is coming soon. That's borderline bad because Mad Max has such a great cult following. If not for the fact that it's with Tom Hardy I'd probably be un happy myself.

[maxpower]

I liked the Bourne remake a lot but the original was still better imo.


Ryder, I think you and Mr. Blonde are talking about two different things, maybe? My interpretation is that he is referring to the Matt Damon version being better than the old version with Richard Chamberlain, and that you mean the remake from last year was not as good as the Matt Damon version. Is that right? I would also agree with both of those assessments.

[danthepoetman]

I didn't even know about an older version! With Richard Chamberlain, Max? I have to see this eventually.

[broncofan]

The Chamberlain version was very true to the book Dan. As a result, I am one of the only people who enjoyed it better than the Matt Damon version, which was apparently a better production.

What I remember about the Chamberlain version is that it was very long, containing nearly every sequence of the original book. So in retrospect it probably would not hold up very well to the Matt Damon version and was only enjoyable for me because I had just finished the book when I saw it on tv.

[danthepoetman]

A book too! Who wrote it, do you remember, Broncofan?

[broncofan]

Robert Ludlum. I was just a kid when I read it, so it might not be very good writing, but it kept my attention:).

Edit: Just read a review of the Chamberlain version. Apparently it was quite different from the book as well. So there goes that;

[danthepoetman]

Thanks! I might just eventually try the book. Ludlum is not a bad writer in his genre.

[RyderMonroe]

I agree with you guys, that the second version of "The Thing", by really fun director John Carpenter, was fabulous. Very good little sci fi flick, full of suspense, horror and surprises.
John Carpenter is a master of the genre. He's the one who also directed films like "Escape from New York", with Kurt Russell, "The Fog", the original "Halloween", "They Live", "Vampires" with James Woods, the remake of "Village of the Damns" with Christopher Reeves and a bunch of other good little sci fi and fantastic movies. And if you don't, you'll be interrested to know, Ryder, that the guy does his own music! He composes musical scores that are always perfect for the action of his films.


Ryder, I think you and Mr. Blonde are talking about two different things, maybe? My interpretation is that he is referring to the Matt Damon version being better than the old version with Richard Chamberlain, and that you mean the remake from last year was not as good as the Matt Damon version. Is that right? I would also agree with both of those assessments.

oic. I wasnt aware the Matt Damon Version was a remake. Thanks for clearing that up or me . :)

[Females&Shemales]

I'm in the anti-remake group, but ironically, I'm one of the few people who enjoyed the remakes to Get Carter, Halloween, Clash Of The Titans, and Total Recall. RoboCop also looks good.

[serial138]

I loved the remake of Total Recall, but they should have named it differently. If all you are going to take from a movie is one part of the story (memory loss in this case) then you aren't really remaking the film, you're just slapping the name on something else for quick recognition. Clash of the Titans did the same thing, although it wasn't very good and it was based on a not so good original. I still love the original though.

[speedking59]

in my opinion, the US version of Insomnia sucks big time in comparison to the Norwegian original.

[Ecstatic]

Best remake ever imho was Howard Hawks' 1940 film His Girl Friday starring Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell remake of the 1931 movie The Front Page (which in turn was based on the broadway show). There have been several subsequent remakes, all of which are pale shadows of Hawks' movie.

[nausicaa]

Fully agree on His Girl Friday - its the example I always use in the remake debate

[misskylee]

The Italian Job the maybe?

[pantybulge69]

i can think of some successful remakes;

king kong 2005,...the fly 1986...oldboy 2013....inglorious basterds 2009...

dawn of the dead 2004...the departed 2006...the blob 1984

the mummy 1999...the nutty professor 1996

planet of the apes 2001...village of the damned 1995....willard 2003

the wolfman 2010

[Stavros]

Curious choices -Oldboy has received some of the worst reviews of Spike Lee's career so far, I don't think anyone cares enough about film to rate The Blob before or after, but I must admit I didn't know Inglourious Basterds was a re-make and had to look it up. I saw the re-make once and can't remember much about it except that most of the characters in it appeared and disappeared along with my interest, but the first version might be worth seeing. Tarantino, like Spike Lee, is one of the most over-rated directors of recent years. Tarantino never got beyond Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, and Spike Lee has only made one watchable film, Inside Man (2006).

Quel maledetto treno blindato (1978) - IMDb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076584/)

[pantybulge69]

Curious choices -Oldboy has received some of the worst reviews of Spike Lee's career so far, I don't think anyone cares enough about film to rate The Blob before or after, but I must admit I didn't know Inglourious Basterds was a re-make and had to look it up. I saw the re-make once and can't remember much about it except that most of the characters in it appeared and disappeared along with my interest, but the first version might be worth seeing. Tarantino, like Spike Lee, is one of the most over-rated directors of recent years. Tarantino never got beyond Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, and Spike Lee has only made one watchable film, Inside Man (2006).

Quel maledetto treno blindato (1978) - IMDb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076584/)

.depends on what is one's like. Cuz i've heard far too many people rave about Tarantino's D'Jango Unchained ,..as well as Kill Bill.
If i depended upon reviews,then there would have been a ton of guilty pleasure movies i would missed out on.
BTW, i enjoyed Spike's Oldboy more than the original.

[MrBlonde]

Thanks! I might just eventually try the book. Ludlum is not a bad writer in his genre.


Well just so you know the Chamberlin version was a TV mini-series. Looong LOOOONG and dull. No action hardly at all that I can remember.

[pantybulge69]

i'm interested to see what the remake of Enter the Dragon is going to look like...
(supposely will re-change the original name)

http://screenrant.com/enter-the-dragon-remake-awaken-the-dragon-rain-2-ross-34467/

[The Piper]

I've never seen a remake that was as good as the original.
Some films like True Grit for example,i won't even view.

[south ov da border]

when I lived in Los Angles during the writer's strike an agent pulled me aside and told me the Hollywood code. One of the things he said was remakes, get ready for them.

I think because of the nostalgia factor remakes never live up to the hype, but I also feel that directors take the short route knowing that people will come just for the brand name and the way Hollywood studios work if a profit is turned then good... and probably a green light for more. If a studio makes 10 films in a year they really only expect 3 or 4 to turn a profit. The rest is a funny money washing...

[SammiValentine]

i liked the new spiderman and suoerman better than the old ones, which surprised me. Proper crazy stuff. nearly over it now.

[Jericho]

I've never seen a remake that was as good as the original.
Some films like True Grit for example,i won't even view.


If you won't even view them, how are you ever going to know if they're as good/better than the original?

[The Piper]

That example could'nt possibly be better than the original,could it?
Are you telling me it is,if so i'll give it a go.

[SammiValentine]

That example could'nt possibly be better than the original,could it?
Are you telling me it is,if so i'll give it a go.

have you seen shooters the liverpool gangster flick??? :D

[The Piper]

Haven't seen it Sammi,i've seen two listed,i suppose i'll have to watch both,and eat humble pie if the second is better.

[SammiValentine]

Haven't seen it Sammi,i've seen two listed,i suppose i'll have to watch both,and eat humble pie if the second is better.

the scouse one is the good one;-)

[The Piper]

the scouse one is the good one;-)

Isn't it always :dancing:

[philipsfrog]

I did like John Carpenters The Thing, The Fly and Girl with the Dragon Tattoo more than the originals

[SammiValentine]

Isn't it always :dancing:

is rice:D

[RallyCola]

in most cases, the original material is often regarded better than the remake. That may be because it is in fact better but also because too often, nostalgia and the idea of originality count too much in the mind of a critic.

Now, what are we willing to call a remake? Is Michael Bay's Transformers a remake of the 80s cartoon? Is Batman Begins a remake of Keaton's 89 batfilm? Is that itself a remake of the Adam West 60s flick? Is an american version (ala The Departed, Vanilla Sky and The Ring) a remake of the foreign film? Is Evil Dead 2 really a remake of the first or do we go with the business story behind the brief retelling? Where do we stop?

To me, given the broadest definition of a remake, which is a movie that is more than just inspired by a previous movie, the most successful remakes...that is movies that I believe are better than the one that inspired them are (in no particular order):

Casino Royale
Scarface
Ocean's 11
Vanilla Sky
3:10 to Yuma
The Departed

I could list The Fly and True Grit but it has been so long since I saw either original that I can't say if the more modern movies are so much better.

[Tara Emory]

For a while I've been pondering that instead of remaking movies that were good to begin with, they really should remake movies that were terrible bombs in the first place.

Did you ever see a movie that had a few things working, and yet they screwed it up, but if they just fixed, this, this that, and that other thing, it would've been great. Or it was a crappy movie that was based on a great book. Those are the ones that would make great remakes. Maybe even moreso if you picked remakes made from _notorious_ cinematic bombs...

[south ov da border]

For a while I've been pondering that instead of remaking movies that were good to begin with, they really should remake movies that were terrible bombs in the first place.

Did you ever see a movie that had a few things working, and yet they screwed it up, but if they just fixed, this, this that, and that other thing, it would've been great. Or it was a crappy movie that was based on a great book. Those are the ones that would make great remakes. Maybe even moreso if you picked remakes made from _notorious_ cinematic bombs...

I like... a short list for them to remake

Strange Days
Howard the Duck

[robertlouis]

I like... a short list for them to remake

Strange Days
Howard the Duck

If by Strange Days you mean the Katherine Bigelow film with Ralph Fiennes and Angela Bassett, no way.

You shouldn't mess with a Bigelow movie. That lady knows exactly what she's doing.

[robertlouis]

For a while I've been pondering that instead of remaking movies that were good to begin with, they really should remake movies that were terrible bombs in the first place.

Did you ever see a movie that had a few things working, and yet they screwed it up, but if they just fixed, this, this that, and that other thing, it would've been great. Or it was a crappy movie that was based on a great book. Those are the ones that would make great remakes. Maybe even moreso if you picked remakes made from _notorious_ cinematic bombs...

:iagree: That, Tara, may be a statement of the bleedin' obvious, but it hits the nail right on the head. Most remakes are anaemic attempts to cash in on a far superior original in the hope that the new generation haven't seen it yet.

[south ov da border]

If by Strange Days you mean the Katherine Bigelow film with Ralph Fiennes and Angela Bassett, no way.

You shouldn't mess with a Bigelow movie. That lady knows exactly what she's doing.

I loved the film--- only reason I was mentioning it is because of it not doing well in the box office. I personally agree with you on it shouldn't be touched but stranger things have happened.

[Stavros]

I think there is a difference between remakes of films in the same language and those which are taken from other sources: the remake of The Ladykillers - one British the other American- didn't work; Kurosawa's Seven Samurai is a vastly superior film to The Magnificent Seven yet the Sturges films is pretty good and has some great performances, especially from Steve McQueen. The Departed, by contrast is a poor copy of Infernal Affairs. Where the remakes succeed, as I think has been said before, is where the technology can take an old story to new levels, which is where we have got with the tedious need to produce Superman, Batman and all that stuff. I think it is telling that the remake of a western, True Grit was problematic, the genre doesn't change much with modern technology -or does it? Can anyone imagine a re-make of The Searchers, or She Wore a Yellow Ribbon? Remaking a John Ford must surely be heresy by any standard...

[robertlouis]

I agree, but what's worse is where the remakers try to weasel their way through by calling it a "re-imagining".

The recent one that really grates with me is the Hollywood rehash of the excellent and subtly unsettling Swedish film about child vampires Let the Right One In, rehashed for the US because they couldn't trust the audience to cope with subtitles. I saw the US version on DVD, and it was in truth a pretty good attempt - but utterly pointless and a huge waste of money when the superior original was immediately available.

[Prospero]

There is an essential flaw in the concept. Revisiting the same source material is fine. There have been at least three stabs at telling the a titanic story for instance, but as someone else said a remake of a BIG commercial success is a business venture not an aesthetic one. And yes good foreign language films are very often re made for the US market (as are TV series like The Bridge or A Killing) because of a widely held perception that a large part of the population can't handle sub titles (and dubbing long since went out of vogue). But sometimes a remake is something so different it succeeds in its own right. I think the Seven Samuari/Magnificent Seven is a case in point.

[robertlouis]

There is an essential flaw in the concept. Revisiting the same source material is fine. There have been at least three stabs at telling the a titanic story for instance, but as someone else said a remake of a BIG commercial success is a business venture not an aesthetic one. And yes good foreign language films are very often re made for the US market (as are TV series like The Bridge or A Killing) because of a widely held perception that a large part of the population can't handle sub titles (and dubbing long since went out of vogue). But sometimes a remake is something so different it succeeds in its own right. I think the Seven Samuari/Magnificent Seven is a case in point.

Interestingly enough Sky remade The Bridge but made the protagonists French and British and set it in the Channel Tunnel - and it was almost good enough to make you forget the original.

But the US version of The Killing was execrable rubbish.

[Prospero]

And sometimes they are so legion they don't count ie Dracula

[robertlouis]

And sometimes they are so legion they don't count ie Dracula

New series of The Bridge has got me gripped already. Thankfully nobody has attempted to remake the wonderfully gritty French policier series Spiral = Engrenages.

[Prospero]

The Bridge... love the way Saga laughs overly loud when she imagines someone has made a joke. And Spiral is a treasure.