Viewing Thread:
"Movie Remakes - are there any good ones?"

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?

bleeding_a wrote:
The Wicker Man

The Wicker Man remake was terrible, although I suspect you probably thought that as well.

Agree with DL though, the original was good, it's dated a bit now though.

Thought of another, Christopher Nolan's Insomnia.

Original, with Edward Woodward, was excellent ... can't beat 1973 horror ;¬)

The Wicker Man

Well, well ... we must start a 'Russell Brand Appreciation Club' pete :¬)

DL wrote:
Two words:

1st word ... Russell
2nd word ... Brand

Two actions:

1st action ... two fingers
2nd action ... down the throat

;¬)

Another fan I see! ;)

I can't stand the man and I really don't get why he is being put in mainstream Hollywood films (do Americans actually like him?). There are so many talented British comic actors that could be used, I really don't see his appeal.

Apparently though he does an incredible magic trick, I am led to believe that he really can disappear right up his own backside!

Two words:

1st word ... Russell
2nd word ... Brand

Two actions:

1st action ... two fingers
2nd action ... down the throat

;¬)

pb wrote:
And does Casino Royale count as a remake? The original is not based on the book as such.

The Guardian thinks it is so it must be! :P

But yeah, I do get where you're coming from and TBH I don't really have a problem with filmmakers taking old material and doing something slightly different with it. But sadly there are far more fails than successes and we have seen loads of rehashes which have just been totally forgettable (A Nightmare On Elm St, The Grudge, Shutter, Fright Night etc. etc.)

There have been some really good films that were based on material which was not new (Scarface, Little Shop Of Horrors, The Thing etc.) which I think is fine, what I do think is pointless though is when they do things like Quarantine which was basically a shot for shot remake of the original.....just not done very well.

As for Arthur I'll take your word for that but I will never watch it as I can't bear Russell Brand. My mate keeps telling me to watch Get Him To The Greek but I really don't think I could sit through it.

Arthur isn't that bad. Its biggest crime is that Brand is obviously trying to channel Dudley Moore.

And does Casino Royale count as a remake? The original is not based on the book as such.

Thought these were pretty good:

Casino Royale
The Next Three Days
Let Me In
Dawn Of The Dead
3.10 To Yuma

and although not a direct remake A Bugs Life.

Worst remakes I've seen are Steve Martin's Pink Panther & Psycho although I would imagine that Russell Brand's Arthur is truly abysmal but I have desire to put myself through that.

Oh and Scorsese's Infernal Affairs rehash was alright as well, not as good as the original (as is the case with some of my other suggestions) but alright nonetheless.

Butch wrote:

In answer to the question; Dredd was by far better than the 90's version, although nobody went to see it.

I didn't think that was a remake? It's a shame really, I wanted to see it but none of my friends would watch it