Top 10 Unnecessary Remakes - Movies


DaveSchmidt said:


The original "3:10 to Yuma" has long been one of my favorite westerns. Never got a chance to see the remake, though. I'll have to give it a shot. Russell Crowe is one of the mien guys.

Crowe and Bale are great in it, but Ben Foster is like a wild animal, I love it.


The remake of The Thomas Crown Affair with Pierce Brosnan was far better than the Steve McQueen version.

One movie I can never see being re-done is My Cousin Vinny.

I watched M*A*S*H (movie with Elliot Gould and Don Sutherland) -- is one movie that I actually think could be done much better.




mikescott said:

I watched M*A*S*H (movie with Elliot Gould and Don Sutherland) -- is one movie that I actually think could be done much better.

In the same vein, "Catch-22," too.


True... Catch 22 was horrible.

Also felt Bonfire of the Vanities was a lousy movie and could have been so much better.

And while, Peter Pan with Mary Martin was fun to watch as a kid, I always hoped one day there would be a good remake of Peter Pan. Hook was ok, but just did not like Robin Williams or Julia Roberts in their performances.



mikescott said:

True... Catch 22 was horrible.

Also felt Bonfire of the Vanities was a lousy movie and could have been so much better.

And while, Peter Pan with Mary Martin was fun to watch as a kid, I always hoped one day there would be a good remake of Peter Pan. Hook was ok, but just did not like Robin Williams or Julia Roberts in their performances.

I haven't seen the whole thing, but I enjoyed what I saw of the 2003 Peter Pan, with Jason Isaacs and Olivia Williams.


Speaking of the terrific Ben Foster on Holloween, he's terrific in the criminally underrated and little seen horror movie "30 Days of Night," which was on cable yesterday. It's a vampire movie based on a graphic novel, the premise being that a clan of vampires descends on a remote northern Alaskan town so that they can exploit the extended winter darkness to stay outside and feast on the residents. Foster has a relatively small role as a creepy "Renwick" type character - a human toady to the vampires. He steals it, not that the rest of the performances are shabby. Danny Huston, usually associated with higher minded movie roles, plays the head of the vampire clan and its one of the best, weirdest vampire movie roles ever.

It's bloody, maybe too bloody, but taut, atmospheric and smart.




bub said:

Speaking of the terrific Ben Foster on Holloween, he's terrific in the criminally underrated and little seen horror movie "30 Days of Night," which was on cable yesterday. It's a vampire movie based on a graphic novel, the premise being that a clan of vampires descends on a remote northern Alaskan town so that they can exploit the extended winter darkness to stay outside and feast on the residents. Foster has a relatively small role as a creepy "Renwick" type character - a human toady to the vampires. He steals it, not that the rest of the performances are shabby. Danny Huston, usually associated with higher minded movie roles, plays the head of the vampire clan and its one of the best, weirdest vampire movie roles ever.

It's bloody, maybe too bloody, but taut, atmospheric and smart.


I loved 30 Days of Night, but I never did understand why [SPOILER ALERT] the vampires go on a massive killing spree on day 1. They pretty much destroyed their food supply at the beginning of the movie. Apart from that, it's a well-made film with a strong cast and a great premise.


Just saw Mel Gibson;'s latest pulp fiction. Blood Father. Not a remake per se, but the same as about a hundred other similar revenge movies. Not as good as the Taken series of course. That's the gold standard.

Gibson was terrific I have to say.


SPOILER ALERT They didn't get everybody, as we know, and maybe they assumed they wouldn't. Even if its a flaw, I can forgive it considering how rare smart horror is. The movie is worth it just for Danny Huston's grim aphorisms ("What can be broken must be broken.").


Another lousy remake -- Taking of Pelham 1 2 3.

Remakes that were good... The Fly - first one was ok but special effects improved so much it was easy to make better.

Little shop of Horrors. ok, second one was a musical but first one was just not that good.


Back on theme but also appropriate for Holloween, the 2004 Remake of Dawn of the Dead with Sarah Polly and Ving Rhames was excellent and underrated.

Did anyone mention the Coen Bros. remake of True Grit? Better than the original, which was not too shabby.

A number of remakes have different titles than the original. I know that Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, which I love, is one but I've never seen the original.


King Kong -- I liked the original. Remake was ok... Next remake was way too long.

And Mighty Joe Young. both original and remake were ok.


Didn't love the Coen Brothers remake of " The Lady Killers" but haven't seen the original so can't compare..read good things about it though.... Peter Sellers, Alec Guinness, Herbert Lom... I imagine I will like it..


On the subject of remakes, I am not against them at all. I don't understand why people think thst once a movie (or song) is made that is the end of it..

To me the art is in the interpretation and lyrics and a script are just words on paper and a Director is an artist who has every right to create his own version of a piece of work. Just because a book or script was already made into a movie years before they were born does not mean that material is forever off limits to the creative community.

An artist should be free to explore their own vision of the source material. Directors, like music artists, have their own style and I'm all for seeing how they might bring it to life.


The latest King Kong wasn't awful.



mikescott said:

The remake of The Thomas Crown Affair with Pierce Brosnan was far better than the Steve McQueen version.

One movie I can never see being re-done is My Cousin Vinny.

I watched M*A*S*H (movie with Elliot Gould and Don Sutherland) -- is one movie that I actually think could be done much better.

It's funny how opinons can vary. I think the original 'Thomas Crown Affair' is great, that there was no reason for a remake, and that Pierce Brosnan is a wimp compared to Steve McQeen. On the other hand, to me 'M.A.S.H.' is a near-perfect movie that would very difficult to improve upon.

Different strokes...


I used to feel that way about MASH but when I watched it over the summer again (first time since it came out) I just felt like it was not as good as I remembered.




In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.