The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
After seeing how badly Total Recall turned out, I was trying to think of a good movie remake and I just couldn't think of that many.
I can think of plenty of terrible or just plain pointless ones; Bedazzled, Psycho, carrie, The Omen and many more.
A few good ones come to mind; The Birdcage, Always, Ben Hur, Brewsters Millions, The Magnificent Seven, Flash Gordon.
So I was wondering, why bother at all if the original is any good?
There are several types of remake; foreign films remade for an English market (The Ring, Vanilla Sky, Dark Water, REC), modern remakes of really old films (Sabrina, Ben Hur), different takes on the same theme or alternate versions that are not sequels (Planet of the Apes, I Am Legend).
Any that you can think of?
I can think of plenty of terrible or just plain pointless ones; Bedazzled, Psycho, carrie, The Omen and many more.
A few good ones come to mind; The Birdcage, Always, Ben Hur, Brewsters Millions, The Magnificent Seven, Flash Gordon.
So I was wondering, why bother at all if the original is any good?
There are several types of remake; foreign films remade for an English market (The Ring, Vanilla Sky, Dark Water, REC), modern remakes of really old films (Sabrina, Ben Hur), different takes on the same theme or alternate versions that are not sequels (Planet of the Apes, I Am Legend).
Any that you can think of?
Page:
pete_21 wrote:
pb wrote:
chasfh wrote:
[i]... And then there's "The Wolfman"...
Also a very respectable stab at a remake. A slightly more up to date version of what was always one of my favourite classic horrors, I thoroughly enjoyed it and have watched it several times.
I also really appreciated the subtle nods to the original, and the fact that they kept the image of the Wolfman himself from the original film, even though they redid him with a great deal of CGI.
Incidentally, am I alone in the opinion that the "remake/ prequel" of "The Thing" was just an appaling, despicable, disgraceful travesty, an example of film- making ineptitude, and that it should not in any way be associated with the classic and undoubtedly awesome and ground-breaking original?
I watched the 2011 film last night, and lament the fact that I'll never get those 98 minutes back.
Awful, awful, awful.....
You mean the 2nd remake. The 1982 Carpenter film was a remake already.[/i]
Yes, I refer to John Carpenter's The Thing, and not to "The Thing From Another World", the 1950's schlock horror designed to instil fear in "all good Americans" at the time..
Considering that the 2011 film was intended as a "fore-runner" to the 1982 film, I (obviously wrongly) assumed that this was self- evident.
chasfh wrote:
[i]... And then there's "The Wolfman"...
Also a very respectable stab at a remake. A slightly more up to date version of what was always one of my favourite classic horrors, I thoroughly enjoyed it and have watched it several times.
I also really appreciated the subtle nods to the original, and the fact that they kept the image of the Wolfman himself from the original film, even though they redid him with a great deal of CGI.
Incidentally, am I alone in the opinion that the "remake/ prequel" of "The Thing" was just an appaling, despicable, disgraceful travesty, an example of film- making ineptitude, and that it should not in any way be associated with the classic and undoubtedly awesome and ground-breaking original?
I watched the 2011 film last night, and lament the fact that I'll never get those 98 minutes back.
Awful, awful, awful.....
You mean the 2nd remake. The 1982 Carpenter film was a remake already.[/i]
Yes, I refer to John Carpenter's The Thing, and not to "The Thing From Another World", the 1950's schlock horror designed to instil fear in "all good Americans" at the time..
Considering that the 2011 film was intended as a "fore-runner" to the 1982 film, I (obviously wrongly) assumed that this was self- evident.
chasfh wrote:
... And then there's "The Wolfman"...
Also a very respectable stab at a remake. A slightly more up to date version of what was always one of my favourite classic horrors, I thoroughly enjoyed it and have watched it several times.
I also really appreciated the subtle nods to the original, and the fact that they kept the image of the Wolfman himself from the original film, even though they redid him with a great deal of CGI.
Incidentally, am I alone in the opinion that the "remake/ prequel" of "The Thing" was just an appaling, despicable, disgraceful travesty, an example of film- making ineptitude, and that it should not in any way be associated with the classic and undoubtedly awesome and ground-breaking original?
I watched the 2011 film last night, and lament the fact that I'll never get those 98 minutes back.
Awful, awful, awful.....
You mean the 2nd remake. The 1982 Carpenter film was a remake already.
... And then there's "The Wolfman"...
Also a very respectable stab at a remake. A slightly more up to date version of what was always one of my favourite classic horrors, I thoroughly enjoyed it and have watched it several times.
I also really appreciated the subtle nods to the original, and the fact that they kept the image of the Wolfman himself from the original film, even though they redid him with a great deal of CGI.
Incidentally, am I alone in the opinion that the "remake/ prequel" of "The Thing" was just an appaling, despicable, disgraceful travesty, an example of film- making ineptitude, and that it should not in any way be associated with the classic and undoubtedly awesome and ground-breaking original?
I watched the 2011 film last night, and lament the fact that I'll never get those 98 minutes back.
Awful, awful, awful.....
You mean the 2nd remake. The 1982 Carpenter film was a remake already.
... And then there's "The Wolfman"...
Also a very respectable stab at a remake. A slightly more up to date version of what was always one of my favourite classic horrors, I thoroughly enjoyed it and have watched it several times.
I also really appreciated the subtle nods to the original, and the fact that they kept the image of the Wolfman himself from the original film, even though they redid him with a great deal of CGI.
Incidentally, am I alone in the opinion that the "remake/ prequel" of "The Thing" was just an appaling, despicable, disgraceful travesty, an example of film- making ineptitude, and that it should not in any way be associated with the classic and undoubtedly awesome and ground-breaking original?
I watched the 2011 film last night, and lament the fact that I'll never get those 98 minutes back.
Awful, awful, awful.....
Also a very respectable stab at a remake. A slightly more up to date version of what was always one of my favourite classic horrors, I thoroughly enjoyed it and have watched it several times.
I also really appreciated the subtle nods to the original, and the fact that they kept the image of the Wolfman himself from the original film, even though they redid him with a great deal of CGI.
Incidentally, am I alone in the opinion that the "remake/ prequel" of "The Thing" was just an appaling, despicable, disgraceful travesty, an example of film- making ineptitude, and that it should not in any way be associated with the classic and undoubtedly awesome and ground-breaking original?
I watched the 2011 film last night, and lament the fact that I'll never get those 98 minutes back.
Awful, awful, awful.....
A good remake, eh?....
I can think of one.
Nosferatu. Remade by Werner Herzog in the seventies, the original was a 1922 silent film. Both are equally as scary, equally as valid as films in their own right, and equally worthy of a mention.
Unless of course you don't like yer Vampyres to be bald- headed, bat- eared and goofy- toothed.
No sparkly, carefully made- up "teenage" vampires here...
I can think of one.
Nosferatu. Remade by Werner Herzog in the seventies, the original was a 1922 silent film. Both are equally as scary, equally as valid as films in their own right, and equally worthy of a mention.
Unless of course you don't like yer Vampyres to be bald- headed, bat- eared and goofy- toothed.
No sparkly, carefully made- up "teenage" vampires here...
Nin, the pool scene was definitely done better in the Swedish original so that's 2 things I think we have agreed on (probably ever!) :)
As for DOTD, Romero's comic inferences to zombies walking aimlessly around shopping malls worked very well and is still relevant today, ever noticed all of the poor boyfriends and husbands being dragged around Next on a Sunday afternoon?,......he had a point! I didn't have a problem with Snyder updating the film for the MTV generation of turbo zombie fans as I think he did it reasonably well. A straight scene for scene remake of Romero's classic would have been awful and would never have worked. Don't know what the hell he had been smoking when he came up with Sucker Punch though, think he just wanted to make a film with some hot women....
pb, agree Tim Burton's Planet Of The Apes was awful and Charlie wasn't a patch on the original. Ed Wood was amazing though, shame it seems to have been forgotten by most.
EDIT: I know it's not a remake but it's my favourite Tim Burton film by a mile.
As for DOTD, Romero's comic inferences to zombies walking aimlessly around shopping malls worked very well and is still relevant today, ever noticed all of the poor boyfriends and husbands being dragged around Next on a Sunday afternoon?,......he had a point! I didn't have a problem with Snyder updating the film for the MTV generation of turbo zombie fans as I think he did it reasonably well. A straight scene for scene remake of Romero's classic would have been awful and would never have worked. Don't know what the hell he had been smoking when he came up with Sucker Punch though, think he just wanted to make a film with some hot women....
pb, agree Tim Burton's Planet Of The Apes was awful and Charlie wasn't a patch on the original. Ed Wood was amazing though, shame it seems to have been forgotten by most.
EDIT: I know it's not a remake but it's my favourite Tim Burton film by a mile.
pete_21 wrote:
Nin, I'm curious have you read the book of Let The Right One In? I actually thought that Matt Reeves version was a lot closer than John Lindquist's own adaption in quite a few ways (disregarding the obvious change of names, location and jiggling the events timeline about a bit). I loved the book and really liked both film versions, thought certain aspects of the Swedish version were definitely better and in other aspects I preferred the US version. Thought Matt Reeves over did the the CGI in a couple of places which I didn't care for but other than that thought his version was good, Lindquist liked it too.
I picked it up but it would have been a waste of money, I don't have the patience to read anymore and my eyes are buggered.
My problems with Let Me In are various, it has so many logical problems and issues where changes in the script should have lead to changes in the dialogue. Matt Reeves ruined the ambiguity of Eli, turned Oscar into a psycho, overexplained everything and even managed to ruin the pool scene. I didn't have much hope for the film before I watched it but it was worse than I'd imagined it could be.
pete_21 wrote:
Regarding Dawn Of The Dead, Romero's original was a completely different creation. I'm no fan of Zack Snyder (Sucker Punch was complete trash IMO) but I honestly thought he did a good job with Dawn Of The Dead. I never said his version was superior to Romero's (because it isn't), but as rehashes go it was pretty good IMO.
Sucker Punch was bloody awful, at least we agree on that.
My problem with the DotD remake comes mostly from my love of the original. The remake was just a dumb & lazy zombie film, it had nothing interesting to say and wasn't worthy of the association.
Nin, I'm curious have you read the book of Let The Right One In? I actually thought that Matt Reeves version was a lot closer than John Lindquist's own adaption in quite a few ways (disregarding the obvious change of names, location and jiggling the events timeline about a bit). I loved the book and really liked both film versions, thought certain aspects of the Swedish version were definitely better and in other aspects I preferred the US version. Thought Matt Reeves over did the the CGI in a couple of places which I didn't care for but other than that thought his version was good, Lindquist liked it too.
I picked it up but it would have been a waste of money, I don't have the patience to read anymore and my eyes are buggered.
My problems with Let Me In are various, it has so many logical problems and issues where changes in the script should have lead to changes in the dialogue. Matt Reeves ruined the ambiguity of Eli, turned Oscar into a psycho, overexplained everything and even managed to ruin the pool scene. I didn't have much hope for the film before I watched it but it was worse than I'd imagined it could be.
pete_21 wrote:
Regarding Dawn Of The Dead, Romero's original was a completely different creation. I'm no fan of Zack Snyder (Sucker Punch was complete trash IMO) but I honestly thought he did a good job with Dawn Of The Dead. I never said his version was superior to Romero's (because it isn't), but as rehashes go it was pretty good IMO.
Sucker Punch was bloody awful, at least we agree on that.
My problem with the DotD remake comes mostly from my love of the original. The remake was just a dumb & lazy zombie film, it had nothing interesting to say and wasn't worthy of the association.
Tim Burton has had a few tries at redoing classic stories:
Planet of the Apes, to me, was a mess. His excuse was that it was nearer to the original story, but I've read that a d it's still not close.
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory pales in comparison with the utterly brilliant Willy Wonka and the fabulous Gene Wilder's performance as the man himself.
Planet of the Apes, to me, was a mess. His excuse was that it was nearer to the original story, but I've read that a d it's still not close.
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory pales in comparison with the utterly brilliant Willy Wonka and the fabulous Gene Wilder's performance as the man himself.
Nin, I'm curious have you read the book of Let The Right One In? I actually thought that Matt Reeves version was a lot closer than John Lindquist's own adaption in quite a few ways (disregarding the obvious change of names, location and jiggling the events timeline about a bit). I loved the book and really liked both film versions, thought certain aspects of the Swedish version were definitely better and in other aspects I preferred the US version. Thought Matt Reeves over did the the CGI in a couple of places which I didn't care for but other than that thought his version was good, Lindquist liked it too.
Regarding Dawn Of The Dead, Romero's original was a completely different creation. I'm no fan of Zack Snyder (Sucker Punch was complete trash IMO) but I honestly thought he did a good job with Dawn Of The Dead. I never said his version was superior to Romero's (because it isn't), but as rehashes go it was pretty good IMO.
Wouldn't class either as ''abominations'' but each to their own I suppose.
Regarding Dawn Of The Dead, Romero's original was a completely different creation. I'm no fan of Zack Snyder (Sucker Punch was complete trash IMO) but I honestly thought he did a good job with Dawn Of The Dead. I never said his version was superior to Romero's (because it isn't), but as rehashes go it was pretty good IMO.
Wouldn't class either as ''abominations'' but each to their own I suppose.
pete_21 wrote:
Let Me In
Dawn Of The Dead
Both of those films are abominations in comparison to the originals.
The only remake I can think of that is better than the original film is True Grit.
And no, Casino Royale doesn't count. The original was a comedy spoof.
Let Me In
Dawn Of The Dead
Both of those films are abominations in comparison to the originals.
The only remake I can think of that is better than the original film is True Grit.
And no, Casino Royale doesn't count. The original was a comedy spoof.
Page: