I Hate Remakes, Discuss the remakes you detest or like

I can't understand why Hollywood goes back to the well time and again. Rather then come up with original concepts they choose to remake pictures which were done earlier and, for the most part, much better. Three examples instantly come to mind:

Sabrina--did the studios really think that Harrison Ford, et al, would hold a candle at all to Bogart, Audrey Hepburn, William Holden and the writing and direction of Billy Wilder? The original was light, humorous and charming; the remake was wooden, heavy handed and forced. Leave the classics alone!

The Haunting--Robert Wise created a faithful adaptation of Shirley Jackson's "The Haunting of Hill House" wth great star turns by Julie Harris and Claire Bloom. The original is one of the most chilling stories ever filmed with nary a monster or ghost in sight. With the new millenium comes the "in-your-face" special f/x extravaganza which doesn't scare; in fact it bores. You wonder if the creative people behind the remake even understand suspense or horror? They certainly never read the book.

The Jackal--Fred Zinnerman's taut drama of a mercenary assasin paid to kill Charles DeGaulle in 1960's France, Day of the Jackal, adapted from the book of the same name by master suspense author Fredrick Forsyth, gets turned into a present day Bruce Willis action picture. So bad, it can hardly be described.

Now to be fair, I can think of one remake I really liked. Body Heat is essentially a remake of Billy Wilder's Double Indemnity and, because of a nice plot twist at the end (which the origninal could not do because of the pervasive Hayes Code) and superior performances by William Hurt and Kathleen Turner, may even surpass the original.

Let's hear what you think, re: remakes pro and con.

This "remake" is an absolute disgrace.

Yeah verily Kanamit. Terribly insulting to even moderately intelligent audiences. Shirley Jackson did a double flip in her grave.

This "remake" is an absolute disgrace.

Yeah, but.....BUT....Catherine Zeta-Jones was looking so hot in that movie. I refer to the night I rented that as "The Day I Questioned My Sexuality".

Jay Leno put it best. "Why do they take a good old movie and make it bad? Why don't they take a bad old movie and make it good?" Far from being an ignorant or stupid remark, it's a very intelligent one. Think of how many stories could have been great onscreen, but something was lost in translation, and rather than make it again because "the first one sucked" they take something which couldn't possibly be improved on and halfway wreck it! Sequels are almost as bad as remakes! If that weren't enough, think of all the great stories just languishing to be filmed which haven't been. It boggles the mind that "The Little White Horse," by Elizabeth Goudge, has not been filmed. You'd think J. K. Rowling saying it was her favorite book alone would be enough to send filmmakers running for the cameras!

By the way, I hadn't seen or heard the older versions of "The War of the Worlds" all the way through, but it hadn't been make by Spielberg and his was great!

It's be a lot easier for me to remember remakes I actually like.

Night of the Living Dead
Dawn of the Dead
The Bad News Bears
Freaky Friday
Night and the City
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
Walking Tall
I, The Jury
The Longest Yard
Lolita

Remakes exist only because of a shortage of ideas in Hollywood. I have a strong aversion to remaking anything, with one exception: films that weren't honest the first time they were made. As an example, I read that a remake of The Picture of Dorian Gray is to come out later this year. The original 1945 film, made under the repressive Motion Picture Production Code, was completely foreign to Oscar Wilde's novel. I certainly hope the remake will be true to Wilde's conception.

Yes this is one of the big three that Hollywood depends on. The other two being sequels and comic book character movies.

I remember watching previews once and all the of the movies were at least one of the above. I bet some of our writers out there have some original ideas they would love adapted to a screen play including me.

Some I won't even dignify by going. Namely "Psycho."

For that matter, has "Frankenstein" ever been made anything like the book?

How about "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde"?

Which "Dracula" is truest to Bram Stoker's novel? (I read the book and watched a BUNCH of the movies before losing patience.)

Although there is only one "The Wizard of Oz," I kind of appreciated the Muppet version as it had things from the book which never found their way into the motion picture. Also it was an updated version, not a ripoff remake.

Don't even get me started on remakes.

We have TV remakes....yuck!
There are movie remakes...even yuckier!
Let's not forget the ever popualr song remakes....Yowsers!

I was asked a friend of mine what makes most remakes as bad as they are (referring to all 3 I just mentioned), and his reply was....That most people who are part of the remake do not pay homage to the original. They are stuck on the fact that it now belongs to "them" that fogets all about the original.

If more writers, directors, producer and singers would be more respectful to the original then those of us who loved the first one might take a look or listen to the remake, but most just blow off the thing that got them there.

When viewing or listening to a remake, it should drag you in, not make you run in the other direction.

My 2 cents!

For some reason none of the dramatic versions of Jekyll & Hyde has ever used Stevenson's ending where Hyde, unable to turn back into the doctor and trapped in the laboratory commits suicide. Guess it doesn't pack much dramatic wallop.

I'm not a big fan of the Paramount 1932 version (even though Fredrick March won the Oscar for the starring role) and even less thrilled with the Spencer Tracy/MGM remake in 1941(you can purchase both on a single bargain priced DVD now). IMO the best J&H was from the mid-60's in a made for TV flick starring Jack Palance, directed and produced by Dan Curtis, who was the creative force behind Dark Shadows. It has only recently become available on DVD under the the title The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. I happen to love this version, even though it deviates from the novel (as do all the others) and would recommend it highly.

You forgot adaptations of old TV series. I can't think of two worse movies then The Avengers and Wild, Wild West

You forgot adaptations of old TV series. I can't think of two worse movies then The Avengers and Wild, Wild West

I'll mention 'The Honeymooners' and 'Bewitched'.
I didn't see either of them, nor did I have any desire to.
I am unaware if 'Bewitched' is technically a 'remake' or 'adaptation', but it still didn't look appealing. As for 'The Honeymooners', I loved the TV show, but find it ridiculous that an attempt was made to make it into a movie.

Now I didn't see either of the "new" The Longest Yard or The Bad News Bears. The thing is figuring out why Hollywood would choose to remake these particular pictures. Both of the originals had cute but largely forgettable plots and their box office sucess was largely as a result of the appeal of the starring cast at the time (Burt Reynolds in the former, Walter Mathau and Tatum O'Neal in the latter). Both flicks are generally available at the local Blockbuster, so why would anyone go to the theater and pay big bucks on essentially the same movie? Did Hollywood really believe Adam Sandler or Billy Bob Thorton have enough star power to make money in these ventures? Apparently not judging by the fairly quick demise and modest receipts of both movies at first run theaters.

I'm not an Adam Sandler or Billy Bob Thornton fan. So I wouldn't bother. But I betcha it is the fans of these two who go.

Here's the rating for Bad News Bears and why: PG-13 - for rude behavior, language throughout, some sexuality and thematic elements

Not a movie you take the young ones to. Defeats the purpose.

Longest Yard - PG-13 - for crude and sexual humor, violence, language and drug references

Funny thing is the 1974 version was rated R!

Jack Palance was also in what's said to be one of the best films of "Dracula." I believe I have seen part, but not all of it.

While renting a DVD on Saturday just learned that a remake was made of the 1974 minor classic "Where the Red Fern Grows." This was an extremely good version of a wonderful book which stayed in print for many years. I wonder what is the purpose of this remake and whether it's anything like the original, let alone the book!

Okay, here are urls for two of the most uncalled-for remakes ever to hit the silver screen--or any screen--perhaps something should have hit THEM! They are travesties of the books on which they are based and of questionable value as films in their own right.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110826/ "The Phoenix and the Magic Carpet" (1995)

E. Nesbit's book "The Phoenix and the Carpet" was made as a BBC miniseries twice, once in 1976 and once in 1997. Either they were deemed inaccessible to American audiences, or they plain su¢ked, as to my knowledge they've never been aired in the U. S. or been made available on video in a form playable in the U. S. or Canada. (If anyone knows different, please tell!) I am now thinking of purchasing a DVD burner but if I do I want one that also comes with a player which will record and play in the PAL format as well as the other. Can anyone recommend such a machine? If so, perhaps I can obtain copies of these someplace and see if this movie has ever been made right!

If a reasonably acceptable version exists, the 1995 theatrical film (which I do have on video) is not it. It is a modern American update of the Edwardian children's story. It is not called Five Children and anything as the film features only three children. The older brother has the name of the younger brother (in the book), and the younger brother has the name of someone else who was not in the book at all, causing massive confusion for any viewer who has read the book a mere 10 times or so (I estimate I may have read it over 40.) It has ridiculously bad (laughably bad if you're prone to laugh at such things, but I didn't get many laughs from this) special effects. It's obvious the entire budget, and probably entire reason for the film, was spent on a trip to Tobago, which doubled for the sunny southern shore. The Phoenix looked like a yellow baby chick caught in some horrible nuclear experiment. Sir Peter Ustinov on his last legs lends a bit of dignity. His voice work (he plays the ghost of the grandfather and does the voice of the Phoenix) is the most redeeming feature of this film. Dee Wallace Stone is on hand as the clueless mother. In "E. T.," two boys and a girl hide a space alien and a flying bicycle from her; this time it's a Phoenix and a flying carpet.

The film does contain one point of interest which I wonder whether even the most rabid Harry Potter fans have noted. Okay, I tried to sell this story to the tabloids. They wouldn't touch it, so here it is for free. Since E. Nesbit is J. K. Rowling's favorite author, her works second only unto Elizabeth Goudge's "The Little White Horse," she undoubtedly saw this flick when it came out. Now fast forward the film (believe me, you won't miss much) to the part which takes place in a cave on the island. This part has absolutely NOTHING to do with Nesbit's book and will be known ONLY to the relatively few who viewed the movie. See if the showdown between a Phoenix and a giant serpent to save the life of a young boy to whom the Phoenix is devoted has any little resemblance to a certain incident in "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets," which with good reason certainly puts this film to shame!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0366450/ "Five Children and It" (2004)

This is also a remake, of a mostly remarkably well-done BBC miniseries made in 1991. In that one, the special effects are somewhat low-budget but earnest, the acting adequate, and the script 85%-95% faithful to Nesbit's work, so one, at least an optimistic one, might think surely with a theatrical budget, they could do better...?

This one just came out on DVD. Since my sister's husband is reading the book to their son, I thought I'd rent it for my sister, Mom, and I, to watch while my sister was visiting. I thought nothing could possibly be worse than "The Phoenix and the Magic Carpet," but in a competition for obnoxiousness this one would give that one such a run for its money one would surely be hard-pressed to name a winner. The sad thing is, to begin with, the special effects were so well-done they obviously had the money to do it right and wilfully chose not to, rather than being pressed into it as perhaps earlier filmmakers were. This budget went on a creepy mansion nothing like the country house in the book, including a mad scientist's greenhouse. There was also a train and vintage (1917--they changed the time period to WWI, losing the story's Edwardian appeal--) automobiles to be found nowhere in the pages of the book.

There was nothing wrong with the cast. Cyril was a bit older than I'd have pictured, and not as cute as the boy in the 1991 miniseries, but his looks and personality were good. I liked the girls who played Anthea and Jane better than those in any of the other films. Celebrated child actor Freddie Highmore came closest to fitting my vision of Robert than the boys in any of the other films, and running circles around them both in terms of acting ability and cuteness. Much has been made of the talents of this child actor, who appeared in the new "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" (which I haven't seen--but sounds like another unecessary remake, grumble grumble) and "Finding Neverland," which I haven't seen but would like to, and he does possess a certain appeal. The baby was absolutely adorable. But none of them could come near saving the movie from a perfectly wretched script.

My mom at least approved of the opening narration of "The Phoenix and the Magic Carpet," drawn directly from Nesbit's book, and didn't start muttering until at least partway into the movie, which also used large portions of dialogue and action from Nesbit. The characters and situations in the Phoenix movie were quite recognizably drawn from Nesbit's. Not so in "Five Children and It," during which Mom was already snapping, "They've got their nerve," before the opening narration was completed! Despite the British cast, story events were rendered so differently as to be almost unrecognizable. Instead of "based on the book by E. Nesbit," whose name appeared in teeny tiny print, the credit should have read, "loosely based on a few pages of the book by E. Nesbit." Kenneth Branagh, as a mad scientist uncle, not in the book, who makes the ghost grandfather, also not in the book, look quite reasonable by comparison, and a boy portraying his son, the obnoxious cousin Horace, were unnecessary uses of screen time. This film at least had a few genuine laughs, but they couldn't have trashed the town as badly as they did Nesbit's poor book! The movie was interesting to watch, in that every deviation from the story made the film less original rather than more so. There were so many "cinema touches" shoving it into the pack of films out there rather than elevating it from them. Of the two, this is probably still the better film, but such a shambles of the book as to be far more distressing to Nesbit's readers. What they did to the poor old Psammead is such a shame as to not bear repeating, so, as Nesbit would say, I will draw a veil over that unpleasant scene without even describing it. It appears in mercifully few scenes, as most of the film is devoted the children's adventures.

To no one's regret, we were interrupted and had to shut the movie off less than an hour in. My sister really loved Freddie and talked about getting the movie to finish watching it later. I found it a shame that Freddie, talented as he is, did not have the opportunity to appear in a halfway decent movie here. I don't know if Mom can stand the torture of watching the rest. I probably will because I rented it, but would not be likely ever to again. If I bought it just to have for the collection, it would have to be for under $5, preferably WAY under! It made the recent remake of "A Little Princess" (also set during WWI, go figure!) look quite literal in comparison, although someone, preferably under the age of 15 and with no acquaintance with Nesbit's works, might like this movie.

You forgot adaptations of old TV series. I can't think of two worse movies then The Avengers and Wild, Wild West

I'll mention 'The Honeymooners' and 'Bewitched'.
I didn't see either of them, nor did I have any desire to.
I am unaware if 'Bewitched' is technically a 'remake' or 'adaptation', but it still didn't look appealing. As for 'The Honeymooners', I loved the TV show, but find it ridiculous that an attempt was made to make it into a movie.

Yeah remakes of TV shows into movies is another one Hollywood has done way too much of. The only movies based on TV shows I think I ever liked were The Fugitive and The Untouchables and I guess Naked Gun too, which is based on Police Squad!, except only the first movie and the beginning of the 3rd one come even close to being as funny as the TV show, which was released on VHS a while back and will hopefully come out on DVD someday.

Beavis and Butthead Do America and The Spongebob Squarepants Movie were both funny. I guess cartoon TV shows are the exception to the rule. But The Flintstones live action movie sucked. I have to admit to liking the sequel, Viva Rock Vegas. It was so completely cheesy, but it was entertaining. And John Taylor was in it, playing a prehistoric Keith Richards. What could be better?

I refuse to see the remake of The House on Haunted Hill. I heard they gave it the ol' Hollywood slasher treatment. No thanks. Too many people make the mistake of thinking that better special effects automatically improve the quality of a movie. No amount of special effects could pack the same punch as Vincent Price's mere presence.

This was also a Dan Curtis production. If one can ignore the bad videotape production (if you remember Dark Shadows you know what I mean) Palance gives a good performance as the dark Count. Overall it is not as good as the Jekyll and Hyde and hardly a faithful adaptation of the Stoker novel. Rather it is a rehash of the Universal/Lugosi version.

Not only the slasher treatment but the big budget CGI treatment. Oh yeah, I liked Beavis and Butthead Do America too.

Well, we finished "Five Children and It," and yes, bad as it was, there was still considerable room for it to have been worse. Two of the wishes remained recognizable from the book, and they were the exact two everyone would have chosen: the mounds of gold and the wings. The wings were the worst effect in the BBC version, and much better done here, though not nearly so lovely as described in the book, which could certainly have been done had they lost the (Nesbit fans, don't look, and if you do, try not to scream--dinosaur--yes, you heard right--) and other unecessary touches (cousin Horace--a straight ripoff of Sid from "Toy Story," for starters--) and spent the bucks on doing it right. As for the Psammead, he was "real" enough looking in most of his scenes of interaction with the children--enough combination of puppetry and computer animation to look "alive"--it's just that they gave him the TOTALLY wrong look, sound, and personality. Other than that.... I'd just MUCH rather see a well-intended cut-rate version than to see the massive amount time, money, and effort that was blown here to do it wrong! What's more, at the end there were ominous indications of a sequel in the works. Bad, BAAAD news, especially with this being the centenary year of when the stories (really) took place, it would have been such a grand opportunity to do a really GOOD version! Kenneth Branagh's character played a loony professor writing a book called "Difficult Sums for Children," which his publishers decided to make more fun by calling it "Charlie Chicken and Chums" and handing out a free Charlie Chicken with each book. It was a perfect lampoon of the attitude of the filmmakers themselves and their treatment of Nesbit's story.

Okay, unhappy remake: "Lord of the Flies." In fairness, I didn't see the new version, but heard it was doubly unrealistic in using people who were both better-looking AND worse actors!

Happy remake: "Lord of the Rings." The most shining example of why NOT to give up on something that's already been done wrong a couple of times!

For a bad remake, I'm surprised nobody has yet mentioned The Flight Of The Phoenix! An excellent survival drama turned into a cheap adventure movie. Yuck.

Another bad one was Born Yesterday. Hello--WHO thought Don Johnson and Melanie Griffith could do better than William Holden and Judy Holliday?!

I have heard, however, that Susan Sarandon's version of Little Women was good.

Thanks for mentioning Flight of the Phoenix Jayo. The remake was bad, especially when you are trying to replicate, or outdo, one of the all-time great actors, in this case Jimmy Stewart. Stewart was always known for his comedy/light drama roles (It's a Wonderful Life, Mr Smith Goes to Washington, The Philadelphia Story, Harvey) and his westerns (The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence), but he was a fine serious dramatic actor. Witness his work as the lead in three Hitchcock thrillers. Flight of the Phoenix may be, along with Anatomy of a Murder, made a year or two before, the finest example of his dramatic ability.

Of course he was no Dennis Quaid

COUNT DRACULA (1977), a BBC 3 part mini-series (with Louis Jourdan as the Count!) is thought by many to be not only the most faithful adation of the book, but the ultimate Dracula adaption.

I have read the book, but I have not been able to get hold of a copy of COUNT DRACULA (1977), so I don't know if it's as good as they say.

Here are some reviews of it: http://einsiders.com/reviews/videorisks/bbcdracula.php

http://www.sandm.co.uk/mary/sfjournm/Count...nt_dracula.html

http://www.eofftv.com/c/cou/count_dracula_1977_main.htm

http://www.sendit.com/video/item/7100000020036

(Certainly sounds worth looking into.)

I've seen the Louis Jourdan Count Dracula, albeit many years ago and remember it as quite effective. Jourdan made an outstanding Dark Prince.

Now here's the good news. Count Dracula is available on DVD for a mere $15 (less shipping) from http://creepyclassics.com Search the catalog under 'C'. This website is a bonanza for many obscure horror/occult/suspense titles, including the Jack Palance Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde which I've spoken of elsewhere.

Go for it Kathy, and let us know if the flick stands up to the reviews

Thanks for the link mjhbuckeye! However, I have so much on my Wish List, the Count will have to wait his turn.
(I don't do much of a review anyway, so you won't miss anything due to my tight purse strings. )

I would be interested to see a member start a thread on it, though - - - I understand the casting of Jourdan is much debated. I also wonder how many other TZ Cafe members have seen it?

Of course, some of the best movies around, such as "The Wizard of Oz" and "Ben-Hur" are remakes of earlier attempts, but once a thing has been made perfectly it should be left alone and not messed about with again.

I seriously questioned whether "The Secret Garden" or "Little Women" needed remaking and found myself pleasantly surprised. The main thing wrong with "The Secret Garden" was that the choice of actors didn't exactly fit character descriptions in the book; otherwise it was great. Too bad they can't do this well every time out!

One thing remakers need to learn is two wrongs don't make a right. Just because Rex Harrison was wrong for Dr. Dolittle is no justification for Eddie Murphy.

Saw the movie "Stand By Me" yesterday! It is so much better than the story Of course Stephen King's movies usually are

sorry to disagree with you, but.. as much as i love the movie "stand by me" the king story ("the body") was, in my opinion, fantastic. i remember reading the story and actually jumping when.. gordie and vern are still on the train tracks and they hear the train coming and gordie yells "TRAIN!!!"

Larry McMurtry is said to be better-known for the movies of his books than for the books themselves. I haven't actually read any of his, but will at least try as his writing has at least won awards.

The author whose movies I've really enjoyed and been unable to read the books is John Jakes. I really get into the movies, and have the books, but can only pick at them, unable to face reading one cover to cover (unless I was really stranded somewhere with NOTHING else to read!)

Just wanted to add a note that many times "classic" versions of films are themselves remakes. Thus, I love the John Huston/Humphrey Bogart remake of "The Maltese Falcon" (1941), which was done first as "Dangerous Female" (1931, and not a bad movie at all, really), then was done horribly as "Satan Met A Lady" (1936). Though, honestly, if there was an original novel then perhaps the films based on them should be called new adaptations, not remakes of earlier film versions.

I kinda like Brosnan's take on "The Thomas Crown Affair."

I can't think of another remake I even remotely enjoyed, though I haven't seen "Charlie and The Chocolate Factory" yet.

Sir Rhosis

"Moby-Dick" has been made at least three times. It's questionable if it's been done right yet, though I haven't seen the third one.

The latest "Oliver Twist," about the twentieth filmed version of that classic, is said to be the best yet.

You make a good point, SR. I like the 1951 Alastair Sim version of A Christmas Carol better than the older one.

I also happen to like 2004's Phantom of the Opera better than any previous ones.

I like Patrick Stewart aka Captain Picard, but liked the Gregory Peck "Moby Dick" better than his.

Alastair Sim's version is the best one ever!

I saw in a video catalog that it's out on dvd now. I think I have to get it.

Alastair Sim's version is the best one ever!

I saw in a video catalog that it's out on dvd now. I think I have to get it.

I share those sentiments! I still own a VHS copy and watch it every Christmas Eve. My uncle has had it on DVD for maybe 3 years now...I should spring for a copy too.

Comparing the 2004 Phantom of the Opera to the earlier Claude Rains or the silent Lon Chaney version is rather unfair seeing as the recent film was the full blown Andrew Lloyd Webber musical and not a straight dramatic presentation. I liked it too, but it is kind of apples and oranges to compare it to its' predecessors of the same name.

For A Christmas Carol I'll go with Mister MaGoo every time In actuality the best I've seen may be the George C. Scott made for TV version of the mid-80s. The worst may be the one made with Patrick Stewart (that name again) as Scrooge from a few years ago.

While in a holiday mode, the worst remake I may have ever seen was a made for TV thing in which Marlo Thomas played a female "George Bailey" in a remake of It's a Wonderful Life. They didn't call the flick IAWL, and for the life of me I can't remember the name, but it was dreadful, not only because Ms. Thomas can't act her way out of a paper bag, but because of the sacrilege of remaking a great movie---badly. This was before the explosion of the the popularity of IAWL as a Christmas classic. As I remember it played once, never to be seen again.

Would you believe I saw this Marlo Thomas offering before I ever saw "It's a Wonderful Life?" When I finally did I thought, hey I've seen this before! It was with Wayne Rogers.

Here it is "It Happened One Christmas"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076213/

Now as far as Phantom goes I wasn't going for what's fair. Just what I know I like. And maybe I like apples better than oranges.

I needed IMDb to figure this out, but the title is It Happened One Christmas, from 1977. Here's more:

http://imdb.com/title/tt0076213