Badmovies.org Forum

It seems that making a remake of a classic sci-fi/horror/fantasy movie now a days is pretty much like playing russian roulette.  But there was a time when it was done tastefully and some people may not even be aware that their favorite films was remade from the original.
  Some of the better ones(my opinion, i could be wrong):

The Thing
The Blob
The Fly
Psycho( not all that great, but damn it was remade frame for frame)

If anyone would like to add remakes to the list (good or bad) it might help some geeks in need to get their asses to the store and check out some decent movies they may have been missing for years.  Thanks

I like the Night of the Living Dead remake and appriciated the twists that were introduced.

Williard was damn good, although I never seen the original one.

Cant think of many others......
Pretty much any comic movie is better than the 70s version.
The Money Pit with Tom Hanks was a damn good remake of Mr. Smith Builds His Dream House.
Uhm, Titanic was a much better film than the old black and white Titanic.
The Ring was damn good, but I have never seen Ringu so.....

Man, it is hard to think of good remakes, stop stretching my mind Hollywood.

I have to disagree with you on Titanic - IF you're refering to the one with Barbara Stanwyck -  unless you are into Leanardo Decapitate whiney crybaby flicks

My favorites -

Philip Kaufman's Invasion of the Body Snatchers [1978]
John Carpenter's The Thing[1982]
David Cronenberg's The Fly[1986]
Chuck Russell's The Blob[1988]
and
Tom Savini's version Night of the Living Dead [1990?]

I also have a soft spot in my heart for Tobe Hooper's maligned remake of Invaders from Mars. [1986]

Evan3 wrote:

.
> The Money Pit with Tom Hanks was a damn good remake of Mr.
> Smith Builds His Dream House.
>

Mr Smith went to Washington....Mr. Blandings built the dream house...and Mr Deeds..went to town

Scaramouche(1952) is hella better than the silent version.
The new Shaft won't win any awards, but It was better than the original.IMO
Alot of recent remakes like The Getaway, The Thomas Crown Affair and The Four Feathers aren't bad they just don't quite measure up tho the originals.



Post Edited (03-31-03 13:50)

Among the good remakes should be The Maltese Falcon , Moby Dick , Frankenstein (1931), Horror of Dracula , The Mummy (1959 - admitedly some might disagree with this one).

Sturgeon's Law (more or less - "90% of every thing is crap") applies to remakes as well as every movie made.  Never really understood grumbling over remakes...
______________________________________________________________________________________________

Agreed on Willard. I also haven't seen the original, but the remake was the most (intended) fun I've had at a wide-release Hollywood movie in years. Generally, the rule of thumb should be that only films that are flawed (in some way other than "It's in black & white") should be remade.

I'd forgotten that The Maltese Falcon was a remake(Actually remade twice once as "Satan Met A Lady") I haven't seen the original or Satan Met a Lady, but I doubt they could top the famous Bogart version.

I like both versions, but I think the color Little Shop of Horrors is better.

 Dr. X, Yyz, Sr. - wrote:

> I have to disagree with you on Titanic - IF you're refering
> to the one with Barbara Stanwyck -  unless you are into
> Leanardo Decapitate whiney crybaby flicks

Ah, Dr. My greatest nemesis, why must you always HAVE to disagree with me.(j/k) Yes, the color Titanic was much superior to the Barbara Stanwyck,  If not only the technology but the story was all encompassing. You had people from all classes of the ship featured (primarily the whiny first class passengers who were all mostly saved). Hell, Kate Winslet more than counterbalanced Leo.

Deej, thanks for correcting me on the house movie, one other question, was the title role played by Jimmy Stewart or Cary Grant?

I understand that The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is going to be re-made, along with The Omega Man..rumored to be stared by Will Smith.
 Let me start by saying that while nothing wrong with Will Smith's abilites as an actor, he would be completely wrong for that role, just wrong. It needs an older, weathered type, Kurt Russel, perhaps
 And I dont care how cool some people would think the Texas Chainsaw Massacre would be as a remake...it doesnt need to be remade.  Everything Tobe Hooper wanted to say in the film was said, it was gritty, dark, gruesome, and most of all, brutal.  There is a 100%  chance that all the things that made the movie what it was would be lost in the transition, and it would wind up just another "I know what you did last summer".  The same theory would apply if someone wanted to make a remake of "the Exorcist"

Remakes I think that could be done:
-The Omega Man( but re-titled it I am Legend)
-West World- endless possiblites there
-Demon in a Glass Hand( From Outer Limits, orginal)
-Creature From the Black Lagoon(but only if there was as little CGI as possible for the Creature)
-And i somehow get the errie feeling that The Clock Work Orange is going to be made into a Tv mini-series(ouch)

Evan3 wrote:


> Deej, thanks for correcting me on the house movie, one other
> question, was the title role played by Jimmy Stewart or Cary
> Grant?

Mr Blandings was played by Cary Grant, and I swear I wasn't trying to be an ass whn I corrected you, I'm just a Movie-Geek and that's what Movie-Geeks do.

Also, I agree with you about the Titanic, I enjoyed Cameron's Titanic much more than I did the 1953 Barbara(b***h from hell)Stanwyk version or
1958's A Night To Remember. I'll even confess to liking Dicaprio's performance.

I really enjoyed John Carpenter's THE THING, but it really isn't nessisarily a remake. Both the original 1951 version and Carpenter's 1982 film are based on the same story "Who Goes There?" with the films slight differences. In the 1951 version, it was based on the story but changed the theme of a shape-shifting alien into that of a Frankenstein-monster like being. Carpenter's film retains the original story with some outraegous gore to spare and a GREAT performance from Kurt Russell. All and all, both versions are acceptable.

However, PSYCHO remake is just terrible to sit through. A shot-by-shot remake that the film is comes across as a rip-off rather than a remake. Terrible, terrible film.

...and I belong to the Corman side in the "Little Shop of Horrors" debate, why not? Mushnick alone is so much better in the original, I could plotz. And Seymour and Audrey, don't get me started, oy!

tsk tsk.... I was thinking just now,....I would LOVE to sit and watch two movies with you one day. One of your choice and one of mine. I think that maybe we would agree more in real life than in "type".

Remakes aren't always a bad idea. I've watched plenty of movies that fell into to the "this COULD have been good" category that I though disserved another shot. However, I think remaking a classic is a bad idea in principle. Casablanca, Sabrina, Psycho among others do not need to be nor should they be remade.

Now Logan’s Run… That should be remade :-)

Funk, E. wrote:
>
> Now Logan’s Run… That should be remade :-)

I don't know if you're serious or if you're being facetious, but I say HELL YEAH!
I'd kill my old granny for a remake of Logan's Run(I'd probably do it for any other reason too). I would also tune in to a new Logan's Run tv series, of course I think Veritas:The Quest is goooooood watchin', so maybe my taste is a bad gauge.

No, I actually think that Logun's Run could, in fact, be remade into an excellent movie. The premise of population control via ageist euthanasia coupled with a computer controlled society that's slowly malfunctioning would make for a great (dare I say it) "hard SciFi" movie.

Who is that adressed to Dr.??? Me or Deej?????

Psycho was a realy cool remake!I dont think they could of done anything to make it any better.The guy that played Norman Bates realy turned me on! know 1 will beat hitchcock hes god

you took the words out of my mouth! i totaly agree texas rules! nothing could be added,changed or taken away from that movie to make it any better only bad would come from it. You seem like a cool guy/girl

Regarding Little Shop of Horrors, I also prefer the original quirky Roger Corman flick, although whenever Steve Martin starts crooning "I am Your Dentist" in the remake I end up howling.  But who could improve on a young Jack Nicholson in the dentist chair, paying for pain and at the brink of drill-induced orgasm?
Most remakes to me are like most of Mariah Carey's stuff--pointless remixes that are targeted at none but a single audience.  If yer a Mariah fan, then you'd buy anything, even the "Glitter" soundtrack; if yer a CGI nutcase, then you have yer pantsful of fx laden material out there these days--The Haunting, 13 Ghosts.  Gimme black and white, blast Ted Turner's colorizing to hell, and pass the beer.



Post Edited (04-03-03 11:21)

ooops. sorry. you Evan :)

All right man, you are on. My movie will be better (hmmm should we watch Deep Blue Sea or Star Trek Insurrection..... jk)

Whatever it ends up being it would be a blast. I talk to the screen regardless of what is on. (and NO I'm not shcitzophrenic) hehehehehe

For Onionhead: if you don't have it already, try to find the soundtrack of the "Little Shop of Horrors" Broadway musical. You'll not only forget Martin, the ending is more in line with the spirit of the original movie. (Frank Oz changed it after test audiences--ugh--whined.)

Here's an unusual case: I've seen both versions of "(The) Hurricane"--not the Denzel Washington/"Hurricane" Carter movie, but the 1937 Dorothy Lamour and 1979 Mia Farrow "forbidden-south-sea-romance" movies--hated both and don't care if it's ever remade again.

Not only is the colour version of "Prisioner of Zenda" better then the silent film version, I thik it is better then the black-and-white version from 1937 (IMHO), even if the colour version from 1952 was a shot-by-shot remake of the 1937 version. Then again, I much prefer Stewart Granger and James Mason in anything, as opposed to Ronald Colman and Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. in anything.

BoyScoutKevin wrote:

> Not only is the colour version of "Prisioner of Zenda" better
> then the silent film version, I thik it is better then the
> black-and-white version from 1937 (IMHO), even if the colour
> version from 1952 was a shot-by-shot remake of the 1937
> version. Then again, I much prefer Stewart Granger and James
> Mason in anything, as opposed to Ronald Colman and Douglas
> Fairbanks, Jr. in anything

Gonna have to disagree with that one. I like both the '37 and the '52 versions, but I think the '37 film is somehow better. Could be because It's the first version I saw.
I also think that Colman and Fairbanks as the hero-villain combo are excellent and that's in addition to the other members of the fine cast. Well,anyway, it's good to find someone else who has seen the films, everyone thinks I'm talking about a video game when I mention them.

I think most people would agree with you, Deej, but, I might like the 1952 version better, because that was the first version I saw. And I sure like Stewart Granger and James Mason much better then Ronald Colman and Douglas Faribanks, Jr.
Though, I have enjoyed the films of the last two as well.
The book upon which all the films were based is a great book, and so is the lesser known sequel to it "Rupert of Hentzau."
Enjoy the films and enjoy the books.

I've read The Prisoner of Zenda(sticking to old books turned into old movies, I'm currently reading Captain Blood) but Rupert of Hentzau has been impossible to find. I imagine it would be an excellent read since the character is so fun. I think the character Rupert of Hentzau as played by Fairbanks and Mason stole the show in both films. I was about 12 when I first saw The Prisoner Of Zenda (1937). And being accustomed to how contemporary films work, I assumed there must have been a sequel since Rupert escaped. Sadly, it was never filmed. It would have been a good one, with either cast!

I have read both books many times. And in some ways, I like the sequel better then the original, though, I won't say more then that in case anyone comes across a copy and wants to read it. I think you would like it, Deej.
As for "Captain Blood," though, I have never read it. It is by Rafael Sabatini, a swashbuckling author of no little renown in his day. Though, now sadly forgotten. Besides "Captain Blood," a number of his other novels were translated to the screen. Among which were "The Sea-Hawk," "Scaramouche," and "The Black Swan." All great films (IMHO)