That's a tough one, really it is. On the plus side, some stories demand to be retold, especially if the original failed to reach its potential. Some movies are just really old. Some movies are timeless and the filmmakers got it right the first time, therefore rendering a remake a pointless slap in the face for those who made the original. Remakes can be a lot of fun, generate revenue, and potentially introduce younger generations to the old franchises. Then again, the older movies are fun too, are often better, and they can just as easily be overlooked by younger generations. For example, I met people who thought that the remade versions of Psycho and Evil Dead were the originals and that's a shame because I thought both were garbage.

Remakes are inferior by definition. Their existence depends on the efforts that went into another film entirely. Their purpose? To make money and try to generate a fan base, recapturing the old magic that made the original so special. In that case they also depend on the merits of the original. In short, they tend to be derivative. The only times they work are when they add to or surpass what has been done before. The best example of derivative filmmaking is Gus Van Sant's remake of Psycho. Aside from a couple of superficial changes in dialogue and imagery, it is a shot-for-shot, line-for-line copy of Hitchcock's masterpiece. It would have been an achievement if it was a student-made homage instead of the major Hollywood production that it was. At least it proved that Vince Vaughn could do more than weird comedies (my favorite of his movies is Dodgeball).

Some remakes are godawful. Without John Carpenter's skill in creating a brooding atmosphere or the support of the original cast, the newer version of The Fog is forgettable and lacking in subtlety. Black Xmas without Olivia Hussey or Margot Kidder? Nope. The newer version is forgettable and lurid. Prom Night was predictable (honestly, I thought the original sucked too but at least it had Jamie Lee Curtis). The Wicker Man, starring Nicolas Cage earned the honor of being one of the worst movies of all time. To me, Evil Dead was a frustrating mess. The original trilogy was tongue-in-cheek but even Ash waited a few hours before strapping a chainsaw to his dismembered arm. His counterpart in the remake waited just a few minutes. It would have worked better if the remake had a sense of humor to speak of, unless you count the fact that the protagonists are as obtuse as can be.

Some remakes are watchable but probably not worth the effort to have been made. Child's Play was well done but by making Chucky a smart device gone wrong instead of a doll becoming possessed by a dead serial killer through voodoo takes a lot away from what made Chucky such a cool memorable villain. On the plus side, Mark Hamill did Chucky's voice. Rob Zombie's Halloween movies are interesting but sleazier than I prefer. If anything, I have a hard time sympathizing with the characters. Nightmare on Elm St was lackluster but not awful. Fright Night was fun but marred by the appearance of some doucebagish teenagers that still irritate me to this day. I prefer the Peter Vincent character to be a washout actor instead of a Las Vegas showman anyway. A positive point about Friday the 13th is that it combines plotlines from the original and some of its sequels so that the story isn't as paper thin as the movies normally are. It is still rife with characters so cliched that it makes you hope that Jason kills them faster than he already is.

I'm not completely down on remakes. There are some that are well made and manage to stay true to the originals. John Carpenter's The Thing is a masterpiece of body and cosmic horror. I actually liked Let Me In better than the original Swedish version. The Wolfman was cool. Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead are both great. Poltergeist wasn't as good as the original but I enjoyed it. The 90s Mummy was goofy fun, having thrown in some Indiana Jones pulpiness into the mix.

One of the troubling pieces of movie news lately is the talk of a Princess Bride remake, another unnecessary idea. Thankfully, some celebrities have piped up and said this was a bad idea. I think whoever is throwing this remake idea around should find another charming fantasy novel that hasn't been optioned yet and adapt that into a movie.

My remarks are just remarks based on personal taste. From what I've seen, remakes are often diluted or over-compensated by throwing in excessive gore and nudity. Whatever elements are used, they tend to make the movie more trendy than timeless. Remaking a classic is an example of trying to capture lightning in a bottle. Most of the time, the makers of the originals were not aware that they were making a classic or setting a standard in the first place. Anyways, if you stuck around long enough through my grumblings, I thank you for your patience.

Written by Nicholas Montelongo

219 Comments

Linear

Add Comment

Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
Standard emoticons like :-) and ;-) are converted to images.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA