Print
Email
Del.icio.us
Digg it
Barks With Bite Blog - Awards Watch Blog
We here at MovieRetriever.com have (please forgive the pun) a bone to pick with the film industry. The disturbing trend of remaking or recycling classic or popular films and/or properties into vehicles designed to appeal solely to a target demographic has really got us annoyed (witness this week's release of the much hyped remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still for example). More often than not (and let’s be honest, it’s usually the former), this practice is done for profit and it has to stop. The number of remakes that Hollywood is producing seems to be increasing as their quality exponentially decreases.
1. Register for MovieRetriever.com
2. Subscribe to the RSS feed for the MovieRetriever blogs
3. Visit the MovieRetriever Gear Store
Generally speaking, the better an original film is, the greater the chance the remake will, to be blunt, suck. But, as with any rule, there are always exceptions and these are usually the remakes that succeed in adding something substantial to the title they are reworking. When compared to the film it was based on, remakes tend to follow a few basic guidelines or rules. The reason most remakes exist nowadays usually has something to due with name recognition and the possibility of an existing fan base that can be exploited through the nostalgia factor. Take for example the all too painful practice of remaking old crappy (though not necessarily always bad) TV shows into shiny crappy movies (Wild Wild West comes to mind here). There also seems to be this logic that if you call something a reimagining rather than a remake it suggests that you’re improving the film in some way. Sadly, this is usually not the case. You need look no further than Tim Burton’s misguided “reimagining” of Planet of the Apes to see what a gifted filmmaker can get himself into when he uses this crutch to excuse his film’s shortcomings.
Apart from improved special effects, the unsuccessful remakes (of which there are far more than successful ones) don’t transfer the subtext of their predecessors all that well. While original films (most notably in specific genres) may be filled with cultural commentary or serious discussion of other social concerns, remakes tend to be made more as popcorn entertainment than anything else. These issues are often removed from remakes which tend to become little more than action films. An excellent recent example of failures in this regard would be films such as Rollerball which took a socially conscious (and often disturbing) 1970s sci-fi film and turned it into a boring action movie with the lame message than violence is bad. Even a relatively successful remake like the recent Dawn of the Dead jettisoned the social commentary of its predecessor for more action and gore to quicken the pace and not lose the audience.
Another aspect that remakes oftentimes falter in is character development. While some filmmakers may believe that audiences will not sit through twenty minutes of exposition to set-up a movie, they’re dead wrong. If it’s done well and the characters are well written and brought to life well, then moviegoers will connect with them and enjoy the movie that much more. Take for example Poseidon, the remake of The Poseidon Adventure, which quickly introduces a slew of annoying characters before immediately putting them in harm’s way instead of taking the more languid pace of the original and providing back stories other than simply identifying them as stereotypes. There was little reason to care about any character in the film and, in fact, may have lead to more of a reason to cheer for their individual deaths.
An unfortunate disparity that is almost certainly at the heart of any decision to proceed with a remake is the curious fact that, while many original films, though they may have been critically acclaimed, are often substantially outperformed at the box by their remakes. To Hollywood, this must seem like justification and provides very little incentive to stop the remake machine. On the other hand, it may be less more of an indictment of mainstream audiences and the rampant consumerism that too often seems to dictate the creation of art than anything else.
So, without any further blustering on our part, here’s a quick look at five remakes that suck and five that don’t. While we couldn’t list every remake here, we tried to come up with those that best exemplified what could go wrong with a remake and what could go right. They’re by no means the absolute best or worst greatest remakes ever made they’re just our favorites or the ones that really piss us off. We’ve also included some short lists of remakes that just didn’t make either list but we wanted to bring to your attention.
REMAKES THAT SUCK
1. Psycho (1960) Psycho (1998)
vs.
Gus Van Sant used the clout gained after winning an Oscar for Good Will Hunting (1997) to mount his dream project – a shot-for-shot remake of Alfred Hitchcock’s classic film. As far as dream projects go, this one is pretty lame. While the performances are admirable this film beautifully illustrates the greatest sin a remake can commit – tackling a superb film. Why not remake a lesser quality Hitchcock film like Family Plot (1976) or Topaz (1969)? Why go for what is considered one of his finest works? We may never find out exactly what went through Van Sant’s head as he persevered through the project to create the worst remake ever. Thankfully he’s since returned to his roots and has been producing, character-driven films since.
*********
2. Planet of the Apes (1968) Planet of the Apes (2001)
vs.
*********
3. Assault on Precinct 13 (1976) Assault on Precinct 13 (2005)
vs.
*********
4. Cheaper by the Dozen (1950) Cheaper by the Dozen (2003)
vs.
*********
5. Sabrina (1954) Sabrina (1995)
vs.
While the remake of the Humphrey Bogart/Audrey Hepburn/William Holden vehicle may seem like the perfect vehicle for director Sydney Pollack whose style has frequently been called “classical” and whose movies have usually featured strong acting performances, this film feels more stale than it aught to. It plays more like a simple update than anything more ambitious. Perhaps Pollack had too much reverence for the source material and just couldn’t make it his own. It’s certainly not as bad as the other remakes on this list, but it still begs the question why would you even bother?
*********
Other remakes that suck
- Charade / The Truth About Charlie (2002) – Mark Wahlberg & Tandie Newton are NOT Cary Grant & Audrey Hepburn and regardless of how talented Jonathan Demme may be, he can’t change that simple fact.
- The Day of the Jackal (1973) / The Jackal (1997) – A riveting thriller is turned into a predictable cat-and-mouse cop drama that would have been more at home on network television than on movie screens.
- La Femme Nikita (1991) / Point of No Return (1993) – Inconsequential remake that proves Luc Besson has better visual sense than John Badham.
- Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner (1967) / Guess Who (2005) – The Spencer Tracy/Sydney Poitier drama is remade as an unwatchable Bernie Mac/Ashton Kutcher Meet the Parents clone.
*********
REMAKES THAT DON’T SUCK
1. Seven Samurai (1954) The Magnificent Seven (1960)
vs.
*********
2. The Fly (1958) The Fly (1986)
vs.
David Cronenberg cleverly reinvents the story of science gone awry as a tale of out of control disease (which has frequently – though erroneously – ascribed to AIDS). Exceptional special effects and splendid performances from Geena Davis and Jeff Goldblum give this film a resonance far greater than the original. Though, like most successful remakes, both films tend to be quite good in their own way. The original is still a classic of the early sci-fi genre.
*********
3. The Thing (1951) The Thing (1982)
vs.
While the Hound has never been accused of being a great lover of John Carpenter, his remake of Howard Hawks’s The Thing from Another World may rival Cronenberg’s Fly as one of the greatest remakes ever produced. Carpenter successfully recreates the isolation and tension of the first film while simultaneously intensifying the film’s narrative by fleshing out the characters more fully and adding the element of shape shifting to the creature’s repertoire. The film becomes less a tale of invasion and more a nightmare of societal destruction from within.
*********
4. Nosferatu (1922) Nosferatu (1979)
vs.
*********
5. Scarface (1931) Scarface (1983)
vs.
Brian De Palma’s hyper-violent version of Howard Hawks gangster classic is every bit as over-the-top and engaging as the original. It certainly doesn’t hurt that both feature exceptional performances from their leading mean (Paul Muni as Tony Camonte in 1931 and Al Pacino as Tony Montana in 1983). While De Palma’s film may not feature as intricate a plot as Hawks’s, it doesn’t play like it was simply replaced with additional violence. It seems natural that Tony M’s world would adhere to his simpler world view. This is a rare instance of a remake that offers a bit less in one area, yet makes up for it in others while not detracting from the quality of the overall work.
*********
Other remakes that don’t suck
- Cape Fear (1961/1991) – While Scorsese’s remake isn’t as good as the original, it rises above the usual remake due to Scorsese manic direction and De Niro’s inspired performance.
- Dial M for Murder (1954) / A Perfect Murder (1998) – An entry that narrowly escapes the “suck” list due to exceptional work from Douglas as an aging overpowering prick of a husband.
- A Night to Remember (1958) / Titanic (1997) – While not a direct remake, it essentially tells the same story and in fact improves upon it a bit by telling the tragedy through the use of the Romeo & Juliet archetype of Jack and Rose.
- Yojimbo (1961) / A Fistful of Dollars (1964) – The best of the “spaghetti” westerns that refrains from aping Kurosawa’s film and instead preserves its emotional resonance.
*********
- Rate movies
- Write your own reviews
- Save movies to your custom lists
- Share lists with the community
Then buy the book now from the MovieRetriever.com Store!