50 Worst Remakes of all Time...

[PeruvianSkies]

here is my compiled list of some of the worst, most useless, most obnoxious, most embarrassing, and pointless wastes of celluloid known to man. These are the types of films that we would all be better off without.

1. PSYCHO
2. MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE
3. TRUTH ABOUT CHARLIE (remake of CHARADE)
4. THE LADYKILLERS
5. PLANET OF THE APES
6. THE HAUNTING
7. HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL
8. THE FOG
9. THE WIZ
10. THE ISLAND OF DR. MOREAU
11. THE LONGEST YARD
12. ROLLERBALL
13. GODZILLA
14. THE DUKES OF HAZZARD
15. THE AVENGERS
16. CHARLIES ANGELS
17. SCOOBY DOO
18. YOU'VE GOT MAIL (remake of SHOP AROUND THE CORNER)
19. THE TIME MACHINE
20. BEDAZZLED
21. VANILLA SKY (remake of OPEN YOUR EYES
22. THE BLOB
23. THE PREACHERS WIFE (remake of THE BISHOPS WIFE)
24. BLACK CHRISTMAS
25. ALL THE KINGS MEN
26. STARSKY AND HUTCH
27. THE VANISHING
28. A PERFECT MURDER (remake of DIAL M FOR MURDER)
29. POINT OF NO RETURN (remake of LA FEMME NIKITA)
30. THE ITALIAN JOB
31. 13 GHOSTS
32. ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13
33. CITY OF ANGELS (remake of WINGS OF DESIRE)
34. MR. DEEDS
35. THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR
36. SABRINA
37. LOLITA
38. AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS
39. GET CARTER
40. WALKING TALL
41. GONE IN 60 SECONDS
42. THE OMEN
43. HOUSE OF WAX
44. ALFIE
45. CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY
46. THE STEPFORD WIVES
47. THE WICKER MAN
48. POSEIDON
49. THE JACKAL (remake of DAY OF THE JACKAL)
50. TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE

[Dusty Chalk]

Aw...I liked the remake of Ladykillers.

Stepford Wives wasn't bad.

The remake of Vanishing was effin' brilliant -- you're just plain wrong about that one. The problem with the remake is it ended up being a totally different movie. I liked the introduction of the new character -- I like strong women.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory wasn't bad.

Avengers should have been #2.

But yeah -- Psycho is far and away number one.

And I agree with you on most of those others. That I've seen.

[Worf101]

There's a couple three on here I actually liked:

1."The Blob" was a new take that was livable, primarily due to the special effects.

2. "Charlie and the Choclate Factory" bears little resemblance to the original and I liked it.

3. "House of Wax" was as good to me if not superior to the original, the melting house of wax was way cool.

4. "Assault on Precint 13" was also quite different from the original with crooked cops replacing armed radicals.

Just my 2 cents...

Da Worfster

[musicman1999]

Agree with Dusty,Vanishing was a great flick,also i liked Thomas Crown and the Jackal.Many of the rest i have not seen because i just knew they had to be bad,but the ones i did see i must agree.

bill

[PeruvianSkies]

My 50 Worst list was based on a few criteria that I had...such as....was the remake necessary and could it retranslate what it's original could not. In that event I came up with the list, which most are remakes of classics films, which is always a big NO NO. If you can't make it better than don't bother is my feeling on the matter. I do not however have a problem with a re-working of a film, such as SEVEN SAMURAI being made into a western called THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN. In this case the original storyline is kept fairly in tact with a new genre added and perhaps some differences in the characters in order to find a new audience and re-translate the original material. For this reason I can understand the complaints about having THE VANISHING on there because it was remade for English-speaking audiences.

THE LADYKILLERS was by far one of the biggest torture tests I have ever had to sit through during a screening and I wanted to walk out so bad. The biggest problem with this film is that it completely undermines the original film, which is one of Peter Seller's and Alec Guiness's greatest films. I am a huge fan of The Coen Brothers, but this is their biggest failure of a film.

I can also understand the support for THE BLOB, which in many ways like WAR OF THE WORLDS actually benefitted from the advancements in technology to support the storyline. Let's keep this thread goin'!!!

[Dusty Chalk]

Remakes should never be necessary, so any remake is going to qualify with that criteria. Could you explain that a little bit more? I'm not sure I understand.

Need to see the original Ladykillers again, it's been long enough that I don't remember it. I effectively went in to the new one blind, and I loved its black comedy.

Can't wait to see the remake of The Hitcher. The original was intense.

[PeruvianSkies]

Sometimes there can be some excusable examples of a movie being remade in order to re-translate the material in order to find a new audience. Movies like the classic PSYCHO are unnecessary because the movie isn't 'lost' on people. It's as powerful today as it was 46+ years ago. However, there are very few people who might sit through the orginal KING KONG (1933). I remember people saying after the Peter Jackson film came out....why on earth are there dinosaurs in the film....well, obvioiusly they never saw the original. Sometimes (but very rarely) is a remake as good as the original. One of my favorite remakes though is THE INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS directed by Philip Kaufman. Kaufman obviously knew the material well enough to do the original film justice. There are few filmmakers that have such a great understanding of the original content to remake the film with any justice. Usually it's the studio pushing for a remake in order to capitalize on it and make money, so they hire any hack director around and try to make money money money.

Also, as I already mentioned in my previous post that sometimes a movie can be re-worked as the case with so many Westerns, which are usually modeled after Japanese films, such as SEVEN SAMURAI, YOJIMBO (A FISTFUL OF DOLLARS), or John Woo's THE KILLER, which is a remake of LE SAMOURAI.

[PeruvianSkies]

In 2001 remakes PLANET OF THE APES, in 2002 remakes CHARADE as a film called TRUTH ABOUT CHARLIE, in 2003 remakes THE ITALIAN JOB, in 2005 remakes SONS OF KATIE ELDER with a urban feel called FOUR BROTHERS, in 2006 remakes INTERNAL AFFAIRS with Martin Scorsese's THE DEPARTED.

That's 5 remakes in a period of 6 years. Not exactly a good thing. This guys lucky to still have a career, luckily not all of them were bombs.

What's his next role? Playing Charles Foster Kane?

[Dusty Chalk]

The Big Hit wasn't a remake (was it?). Three Kings wasn't a remake. I'm not arguing with your facts -- they are correct -- I'm just saying that's not the only thing the guy does. Hopefully he'll go back to more cutting edge rolls. 'cause I liked those two. A lot.

I would focus more on directors -- it's their fault. Any actor is lucky to get a good role these days. And some alternate between good roles and paying roles.

I gave the recent Peter Jackson remake of King Kong a thumbs down. I mean, I'm glad I saw it, but I can't recommend it. The dinosaur stampede just took too long, and that one sequence was just too gross. It had redeeming qualities -- I really liked the treatment of Naomi Watts' character -- made it seem more like a movie from the 30's. And the overwhelmingness of things that huge was much more oppressively conveyed. But ultimately it just made me want to go back and rewatch the original.

[PeruvianSkies]

Correct. Not every film that Mark Wahlberg has been in is a remake, even in between remakes. However, he was on a roll doing more interesting work prior to those...like THE YARDS and BOOGIE NIGHTS.

I also was not especially impressed with the recent KING KONG, but it's hard to argue the fact that the ape was far more believable and that the special effects enabled you to believe the entire story far more. This does not mean that it's warranted or more compelling and if it would have been summarized into a 2 hour film it would have been far superior, but I guess when you just made 3 films that were 3+ hours and made a huge profit from it...they'll let you do whatever you want.

[Dusty Chalk]

I haven't seen War of the Worlds yet ... consensus?

[emorphien]

I also was not especially impressed with the recent KING KONG, but it's hard to argue the fact that the ape was far more believable and that the special effects enabled you to believe the entire story far more. This does not mean that it's warranted or more compelling and if it would have been summarized into a 2 hour film it would have been far superior, but I guess when you just made 3 films that were 3+ hours and made a huge profit from it...they'll let you do whatever you want.
If his next film is 3+ hours I will know that he is insane and that I'll probably write off his future movies.

[icarus]

2. "Charlie and the Choclate Factory" bears little resemblance to the original and I liked it.


The latest movie with Johnny Depp, is actually a lot closer to the original book than the previous one, wihch in my opinion was a catastrophy.

[emorphien]

The latest movie with Johnny Depp, is actually a lot closer to the original book than the previous one, wihch in my opinion was a catastrophy.
I really need to see the new one. I hate the original, it doesn't capture the book at all. But from what I have seen, and knowing how Johnny Depp plays characters, I'm sure the new one is much better.

[PeruvianSkies]

You bring up a good point that I had not previously considered, which is movies from books. Let's face it though...very seldom does a screenplay accurately capture the essence of any book. So my selections here are solely based on comparing the remake to the original and how it was able to work.

Here's another thing...

I am not 100% in disfavor of remakes. I think that sometimes a re-working of a classic can be beneficial, but not all the time. PSYCHO for example is a film that has never diminished in it's accessability over time and therefore shooting a remake shot-by-shot doesn't make sense. There was no need for it. However, let's take SOLARIS for example. Very few American audiences are going to sit through a 3 hour Russian Sci-Fi epic, but Steven Soderbergh's remake starring George Clooney is going to be more accessible to newer audiences. Was it a good remake? Well, at times. It did keep some of the original content together (also this is based on a book) and there are moments where it becomes too Americanized, but more-or-less it was a fairly good remake. Hopefully more people want to see the original because of it.

Sometimes a remake can capture the feel of the original and just have fun with it as well, take for example OCEANS ELEVEN, which is different in nature than the original and combines star power together to make a film that stands on it's own fairly well, the sequel....not so much.

[Worf101]

I haven't seen War of the Worlds yet ... consensus?
Neither is quite faithfull to the book. The George Pal original is closer to being "on the mark" to me. It's full of '50's "Atomic Bomb" arrogance and screaming simpering women. It focuses on a scientist's efforts to combat the invaders. The newer one focuses more on the "family" in that the film follows one divorced parents attempts to get his children to their mother and safety. I found the remake annoying and cloying and sickening right up to and including the typical Speilberg "happy ending". I hate Tom Cruise and felt the film sucked. Aside from the Ferryboat scene and the opening sequence, there's little to recommend this film. You hate the dad, you hate the kids, you wish the Martians had won.

Da Worfster

[markw]

Where the original was an atmospheric paranoid tale of an innocent, scared young boy facing an unbelievable situation virtually alone, save for a sympathetic yet powerless teacher, the remake casts him as the avenging hero, single handedly saving a totally helpless (and clueless) Karen Black, who clings to him like a vine on a 100 year old country house. ... and he's comfortable with that! It was almost an exercise in pedophilia.

Likewise, the cinematography in the original was to die for. Who can forget the eerie scenes where the fence disappears into the sand, trusted strangers suddenly being swallowed by the sand, and the view of the towering policeman at his desk from an ant's POV. ...all perfectly reflecting a kid's perspective.

IMNSHO, the remake was a waste of time.

[noddin0ff]

I haven't seen War of the Worlds yet ... consensus?

Respectfully disagree with Wooch. Although it did kind of screw up the H.G Wells work a bit with the ending and with the things being buried ages earlier....

But, as Sci-fi spectacle, I thought it was great. You're not supposed to like Cruise, and I thought he did a decent job of being an ordinary guy. I think that the theme of the book that works is - Earth is attacked by overwhelmingly superior force and there's really no hope. Then by lucky chance of biology we're saved and get to live another day to get our act together. I think Speilberg again falls short of wholly getting any emotional depth out of the ‘salvation’, smiley happy people and all, but that’s true for all his movies.

In that sense, I think the film worked excellently. Crank the subwoofer and there is no hope.

[PeruvianSkies]

I would also concur that the remake of WAR OF THE WORLDS had some merit. Technically it was sound and the effects were good as with almost any Spielberg film, but I also enjoyed the character of Cruise, who was ordinary, somewhat cocky, and out of touch with his kids. The ending was a decent touch and I also enjoyed the overall look of the film with a somewhat washed out appearance with a grainy resemblance, which has been Spielberg's favorite 'look' lately, see MINORITY REPORT for example, but here I felt that it actually worked better.