Remakin' me crazy

The chatter around the latest Carrie remake got me thinking. Actually, so did the Steel Magnolia remake. I feel like there is always a contingent of people, if not the majority, who seem to get really bent out of shape about the very notion of remaking a movie.

I'd like to argue that the remake is an esteemed tradition, a comforting constant in the ever-changing world of film.

Did you know that the first movie remake was 1903's The Great Train Robbery? I don't even know if that is true, but I read it when I Googled it. More than a hundred years ago, moviemakes were pilfering from films that came before them. When the silent era gave way to talkies, movies not ten years old were remade.

Sometimes a good movie gets turned into another good movie. 1939's Love Affair was nominated for six Oscar and is always cited when people gives evidence to the notion that 1939 was the best year ever for movies. 1957's An Affair to Remember was nominated for four, though they were all technical. That said, I'd say the remake is arguably the one that's most revered. The titles aside, these movies are not really vastly different at all. There are a few differences, but it's more or less the same movie.

Sometimes a good movie that was a remake of a good movie gets made into a crappy movie. 1994's Love Affair is also pretty much the same movie as the first two, and despite the fact that I saw it something like an embarrassing three times in the cinema, it's not a very good movie.

(Fun Fact - When I was younger I used dream of starring in a movie remake with two men in the leads. The best part is that I could play Terry McKay without changing the name at all, not even the spelling!)

Now there are terrible remakes as well. Again, from 1939, The Women still holds up and is very very funny. 2008's remake was just gross and horrible. There's even a 1956 musical version.

I tried to find some sources for the most remade movie, but I couldn't really find anything conclusive. If anyone has some trivia to share, please chime in.

There are remakes that are drastically different and there are remakes that hew pretty closely and then there's Gus Van Sant's Psycho.

I love remakes, especially when they compliment the original so perfectly, like 1998's remake of 1961's The Parent Trap.

What are everyone else's thoughts? What are your favorite remakes? Least favorite?

Updated On: 10/19/12 at 01:03 AM

Often when remakes are announced when it is the filmmaker, a good filmmaker, mainly attached rather than the actor/actress, I get more interested. I also think when it is a genre film modern technology can either hurt it or help it. Carpenter's The Thing got to do what Hawks and Christian Nyby couldn't do with the source material at the time based on lack of technology while the current remake in the guise of reboot that came out last year had good performances and tension, but the worst part by far was the CGI.

Admittedly there are some remakes I refuse to see because of my strong attachment to the originals (Black Christmas, House of Wax, Total Recall).

Favorites:
Fincher's The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Herzog's Nosferatu, Ali: Fear Eats the Soul, Cronenberg's The Fly, Sirk's Imitation of Life, Miike's 13 Assassins, Herzog's Nosferatu, The Magnificent Seven, A Fistful of Dollars, John Carpenter's The Thing, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Parent Trap, and The Little Princess.

If we are getting very specific: Some Like it Hot, Airplane!, and The Maltese Falcon (yep, they are remakes)

Least Favorites:
Psycho, The Haunting, Funny Games US (the original is well-made cinematic punishment enough and it is Haneke doing a Gus van Sant Psycho on himself), The Planet of the Apes, Poseidon, Roller Ball, Straw Dogs (see Funny Games US), Friday the 13th, Sleuth, Halloween, Godzilla, The Vanishing, The Wicker Man (its own category), The Day the Earth Stood Still, The Pink Panther, Flubber, The Ladykillers, The Stepfather, The Omen, Night of the Living Dead, Guess Who, The Stepford Wives, The Time Machine, Lost in Space, Bewitched, The Grinch, A Nightmare on Elm Street, and Cape Fear (and I know plenty of people like it/love it).

Yeah, a different adaptation of the same material vs. remake is a bit tough. With literary classics, it is understandable, but then it is just used as a crutch doing adaptations of popular fiction. I remember a couple of times studios claiming the new versions are closer to the book and then I see shot for shot takes on the previous film and get a little angry.

As Phyllis pointed out some remakes are classics. Ben Hur has been made several times, each time a success. And it always works because people respond to the story.

I don't consider the Tarzan movies to be remakes. They're generally all original story lines based on the iconic character. Tarzan is more of a franchise, like James Bond or Sherlock Holmes.

---

favorite remakes: Henry V (1989), Gaslight (1944)

hon. mention: A Star is Born (1954). Based on A Star is Born (1937) which itself bears uncommon similarities to What Price Hollywood? (1932).

Worst remake: Swept Away (2002)

Second Least favorite remake: A Star if Born (1976).

dishonorable mentions: The Women (200, Vanilla Sky (2001)

selected fine remakes: Pride and Prejudice (2005), The Departed (2006), The Vanishing (1993), Richard III (1995), The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999),

selected bad remakes: The Stepford Wives (2004), The Day the Earth Stood Still (200, Psycho (199, The Haunting (1999), Clash of the Titans (2010)

Agreed about remakes not necessarily being the work of the devil, but oftentimes simply a new adaptation of specific material. When it works, as in Huston's film of THE MALTESE FALCON or Wyler's BEN-HUR, it works amazingly well. When it doesn't, well...

It can be fun to compare the assorted versions. Try watching the earlier versions of Hammett's THE MALTESE FALCON sometime. I'm thinking particularly of the original version, with Ricardo Cortez as Sam Spade. You'll find yourself with a lot to think about afterwards, especially the way that the original Cortez version uses a lot of the same dialogue, taken damn near word for word from the novel, that Huston's version uses, but to significantly lesser effect.

I'll mention another remake that in my opinion damn near eclipses the original -- Hitchcock's THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH.

---

Add "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" to the naughty list. What a piece of candy-covered sh*t

The Winona Ryder/Susan Sarandon remake of Little Women is one of my very favorite movies, and easily my favorite remake.

---

Reginald, that Spanish language DRACULA is really interesting, isn't it? It really changed my mind about Lugosi's performance, which I'd come to see as being terribly phony and stagy, and after seeing that Spanish version my respect for Lugosi's Dracula just sky-rocketed. Lugosi's got a lot more dignity than the poor slob in the other version who you just know would be twirling his mustaches if he had any.

---

Romantico, as people have been pointing out, there were versions prior to the famous/classic ones of Wizard of Oz, Maltese Falcon, A Christmas Carol . . .

You really hate them? Period?

Updated On: 10/19/12 at 10:41 AM

I confess I never made it to the ending.


Edit: I didn't meant that to sound snotty. I was watching on video and really didn't care for it, so I never finished it. Maybe I should give it another shot.

Updated On: 10/19/12 at 11:20 AM

Burton's Charlie was closer to the book, save for the subplot about his dentist father. But I do prefer the original movie. Gene over Johnny anytime, and the Oompa Loompas are better in the original.

I loved You've Got Mail, in the way that it modernized the story. The remake of Flight of the Phoenix was good, as well. The Ring introduced me to Japanese horror movies.

My favorite remake is Affair to Remember, even though I love the original (Irene!)

My least favorite remake is Rear Window, which I think exploited the fact that Christopher was already wheelchair-bound.