Advertisement
Anticipating the worst from Diane English’s new remake of The Women is not just typical low expectations regarding remakes in general. My dread is specifically based on dissatisfaction with remakes and updates of films from the 1930s, arguably the best decade in cinema (it is certainly my favorite). While I may recognize and appreciate some favorable redos, such as DePalma’s Scarface (of which I’ve never really been a fan), Mazursky’s Down and Out in Beverly Hills and the multiple repeats from Hitchcock, I am more often disappointed with attempts to recreate ‘30s classics, even when I approach them with already low standards.
Worst, for me, doesn’t necessarily have to do with the quality of the film alone, especially when related to remakes and updates. The titles and versions I’ve selected are hardly the worst in terms of craft or production value — you’ll note there are no Dracula movies on this list — and a few would almost be acceptable if they were more unique or solitary works.
10. Return to Oz (1985)
I begin with a film that is not a remake in any form but tone. Yet I still see it as a kind of response to and update of the far more popular classic The Wizard of Oz (1939), which was viewed by some as not faithful enough to the source literature of L. Frank Baum. It was a bit of a guilty pleasure for me growing up, but I lost regard for the film after suffering through a professor’s defensive screening of it on the last day of a film history course. Sure, it’s truer to Baum and the illustrations of W.W. Denslow and John R. Neill, but as MGM’s beautiful 1939 interpretation shows, it’s better to be imaginative than loyal when translating works between mediums.
9. The Front Page (1974)
Billy Wilder’s version of the Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur play, which was first adapted to film in 1931, is plenty hilarious thanks to stars Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau, as well as to a slew of terrific character actors, including Vincent Gardenia, Charles Durning, Austin Pendleton and Dick O’Neill. Also, the film’s homosexual innuendo is an interesting way of acknowledging Howard Hawks’ 1940 gender altering redo, His Girl Friday. I’d definitely choose Wilder’s film over the subsequent big screen version, the 1988 update Switching Channels, but compared to earlier adaptations and to Wilder’s earlier work, the ’74 Front Page is still quite a dissatisfying effort. My biggest problems are with the film’s artificial look, particularly its use of costumes that look more appropriate for a costume party than a period film, the gaudiness of the dialogue, especially the double entendres, and the miscasting of both Carol Burnett and Susan Sarandon (though my annoyance with the women in the film provide further acceptance of the gay undertones).
8. The Distinguished Gentleman (1992)
This loose and uncredited reworking of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) could have been a worthy update had it included more laughs and more of a bite. The concept of placing a small-time con man in the big-time con of politics is ripe for good comedy and satire, plus it makes me think of the respectable crook/crooked respectability angle of Lubitsch’s Trouble in Paradise. Too bad the script was unsatisfactory (not surprising given it came partly from the screenwriter behind Leonard Part 6) and star Eddie Murphy was at the awkward moment of his career when he somehow lost his usual talent for comedy.
7. Flash Gordon (1980)
I have to admit that I do actually love this movie. Well, to be fair, I only really love Queen’s score, Brian Blessed’s voice and Max Von Sydow’s makeup. The rest I just like. Anyway, despite my guilty pleasure in watching the thing on television throughout my childhood, it’s neither a good movie nor a successful update. It doesn’t really do the ‘30s Flash Gordon serials justice by being either a big-budget improvement or a tonally and narratively faithful throwback (comparatively, Star Wars succeeded at doing both).
6. The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996)
Disney’s idea to animate Victor Hugo’s novel was of questionable taste, but the studio’s need to so closely imitate William Dieterle’s 1939 adaptation was of questionable creative judgment. When I watch Disney’s Robin Hood, I’m not reminded of how much better Michael Curtiz’s 1938 version is; similarly, I’m able to appreciate the animated Beauty and the Beast and Alice and Wonderland without thinking of previous adaptations. Especially given the controversial lewdness and the simplification of the story, Disney’s version of Hunchback seems an insult to the source novel, Dieterle’s film and Charles Laughton’s characterization.
5. Meet Joe Black (1998)
I’m a hypocrite to criticize anyone’s inability to be concise, but a three-hour remake of a 78-minute film (1934’s Death Takes a Holiday) displays a level of excess that even my meandering can’t compare to. Don’t get me wrong, though; I’m no hater of long films. But if you can make a long story short, it’s preferred that you do so.
4. The Mummy (1999)
There’s no problem with reimagining a classic horror film as a blockbuster action movie, but taking something so iconically frightening as Boris Karloff’s Imhotep (in the ‘32 version) and updating the look with laughably cartoonish CGI is unfortunate. I know I’m on the other side of the fence from the moviegoers who made this a hit, but I would have actually enjoyed it more if the villain were depicted as a guy wrapped in bandages.
3. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1994)
Of course, CG may have been better than this. In fact, the only thing worse than Robert De Niro as the Creature would have been a hand-drawn animated Frankenberry in the role.
2. King Kong (2005)
Technically, the 1976 remake with Jeff Bridges is a worse film, but that version at least took some interesting liberties in updating the 1933 classic. Peter Jackson’s intention seemed to be only to faithfully recreate the original with better special effects. And given the fact that many of the CG sequences are embarrassingly awful, I have to say this film was a more monumental failure in terms of purpose and promise. Jackson gave me yet another reason for questioning the point of filmmakers remaking their favorite films.
1. Mr. Deeds (2002)
Other than the minor way in which this comedy updates the conservative message of Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (1936), there is really no reason for Capra’s film to have been remade, especially with such broad, immature comedy from Adam Sandler. While the original Mr. Deeds completely speaks to and of its time, this includes no topicality, no compelling historical or contemporary relevancy and no lasting cultural significance.
Kevin Buist
FLAME + CITRON Review
Christopher Campbell
Happy Halloween Links. Today in Film...
Brandon Harris
5 80s Literary Adaptations Worse Than...
Kevin Kelly
John Krasinski, Brief Interviews With...
Karina Longworth
SpoutBlog, Now Available in Book Form
Paul Moore
October 31, Karina’s Last Day
Lauren Wissot
Sasha Grey Interview
We’ve had a bit of trouble getting this episode to go through the iTunes feed, so we hope this re-post will fix the problem. The original post, with episode description and embedded player, is here.
filmcouch-114
In my feeble opinion, Meet Joe Black is the most underrated masterpiece of the 90’s.
Good list. Proof that people shouldn’t remake perfect movies. I must admit I don’t find the remake of KING KONG that bad. I think it’s more of a missed opportunity than it is a flat-out bad film. Besides, the first time I saw it I was over the moon. The second time was a big mistake, for all the flaws came through.
A pretty poor list all around. King Kong (2005), the Return to Oz, and Hunchback weren’t all that bad. Deeds, Mummy and Joe Black are too obviously awful to merit much thought either way.
Plus, I actually think Branaugh’s Frankenstein is underrated. Yes it isn’t nearly as great as the original, but it is a fairly workmanlike adaptation of the novel, which means it can’t be all that awful. It’s not great cinema and it doesn’t do anything ground breaking, but as a faithful adaptation it has its merits.
It’s unfair to cast a shadow over THE WOMEN before it opens, but so dead on about MEET JOE BLACK. Martin Brest was a smart concise director starting with his debut GOING IN STYLE, starring George Burns,Art Carney and Lee Strasberg as three unpleasent alta cochers who rob a bank, and of course the original BEVERLY HILLS COP and MIDNIGHT RUN.
However, it seems that Universal gave him control that gave him too much freedom and resulted waaaaaaaaay too long movies such as SCENT OF A WOMAN. Would have been charming at 100 minutes but wore out it’s welcome at 2-1/2. MJB was his follow up and even more of a time suck.
You’re dead wrong about #3 and #7. I think that because neither the remake of King Kong nor the remake of Flash Gordon took themselves seriously, it gave both of them real playfulness, thus replicating some sense of Nostalgia.
As for MJB, you’re right. I don’t think anybody has noticed, but Martin Brest is a horrible, horrible filmmaker.
I AGREE….BUT I AM SURE YOU COULD LIST THE 10 WORST ORIGINAL MOVIES OF THE PAST 10 YEARS AND THEY WOULD NOT BE ANY BETTER THAN YOUR LIST….
THAT’S WHY I WATCH LUBITSCH, STURGES , LAURA(PREMINGER)
AND WILDER….
You forgot to mention the woeful effect by Kevin Coster with Robin Hood: Prince of thieves. It will never stand in the same league as The Adventures of Robin Hood with Errol Flynn.
I’m surprised you forgot this one.
dude you r a freakin idiot. if you love the 30s so much just stop watching movies made now. then you canbe happy in your desire to be overly nostalgic pansy. the 30s are not the best decade in movies. stop living in the past. let alone a decade you werent even born in. so how could you feel so “passionate” about movies older than your true sensibilities. stop being a poser and like your era of movies
How can you say that Peter Jackson had no intentions other than updating the special effects?! Obviously, the ‘33 version is untoppable, but Jackson’s version takes the time to truly make us care about Carl Denham, Ann Darrow and Kong himself. The emotional depth and passion of Jackson’s “Kong” is what I find so endearing. The CGI is excessive, yes, but awful? Look at any Michael Bay movie, and say that again with a straight face.
This list is kind of pointless. Despite the fact that this is a highly subjective list (I won’t agrue, but, please, putting King Kong just because you don’t like the director, it’s kind of childish…), it seems that it’s just a random list of remakes, no matter why they have been done or even when they have been done, that you found funny to criticize, even if the critic is not even that elaborated.
Sorry for my english, I’m French
Bashing remakes wow thats original !!!, pretty lame list aswell
your an idiot, now name 10 remakes of films from the 30’s that u liked, none because those r the only ones, bellend
that must be the most pretencious list ever! you make some big claims in there. were you intentionally trying to piss people off
King Kong?!? The list was doing fine throughout most of it (with the exception of Return to Oz, which I adored as a kid back in the 80’s) but you lost me with King Kong (2005) which was one the most visually stunning cinematic acheivments I have yet to see!
King Kong destroys your credibility. Time period must of course be taken into account, but I didn’t count one embarassing CGI moment in Kong, whereas I couldn’t begin to count the embarassing animatronic moments in the original. (at least 20 times we see the same shot of an obvious Kong puppet gnashing his teeth) And in terms of script and filmmaking? Forget about it. Jackson’s leaves a smoking hole where the 30’s version once was. And acting? There wasn’t a single good performance in the 30’s Kong, whereas there were several in the 2005 version.
Now the original gets points for being a great work of innovation and imagination, but don’t call it a great film. It’s not. The acting is wooden, the writing stupid, and Jackson’s far superior and better nuanced version never had a chance because it was competing with a film that exists in the imaginations of Kong fans.
Kong ‘05… bad movie? … bad CGI?!?!
Wh-what?… what?…
The King Kong of 2005 was more than terrible, it doesn’t really have any that bad points. I basicly retells the same story, without adding anything to it but still doubling the length of it. And the worst thing is the credit Jackson gets for it, which he by the way wouldn’t have gotten at all unless he had directed the LotR movies.
“Return to Oz” was never intended as a remake of “The Wizard of Oz”! It is another one of the 12 books that Baum wrote about the characters that live in the Land of Oz. So your basic premise in judging it is faulty.
Meet Joe Black is long and slow. But it is a significantly more satisfying movie than Death Takes a Holiday. Meet Joe Black has its flaws but I fail to understand how it can qualify as a worst remake when it is a vast improvement over the original film.
Peter jacksons king kong shits all over that old museum piece, yes the black and white king kong was an important film (especialy as a landmark for special effects) but the 2005 version is just far more magnificent and exilerating. As for saying the effects are awful, FUCK YOU!! what film were you watching?!
You lost me at King Kong. Yeah, there was a lot of over-the-top special effects and action (though even those were generally well-done), but Jackson actually bothered to tell a real story with it. Naomi Watts and Jack Black were both stellar, Kong was a surprisingly affecting character, and the film was generally very well done.
Except for the dated effects, I think Return to Oz is underrated. It’s more faithful to the books than Wizard of Oz was. The wheelers are still as scary as when I was a kid.
‘Flash Gordon’ was not meant to be based on the films, but on the comic strips…
What about Lost Horizon?
I agree with your list completely. The reason why remakes are such a success is because the majority of the audience has no idea that they are not original in their ideas. Even if the audience was aware that these films were remakes, I know few people these days who would be interested in watching a movie from the 1930s and that’s a shame.
Can’t say I agree with ‘The Front Page’ being particularly inferior to ‘His Girl Friday’. I do agree that it is a very ’stagey’ adaptation but it is incredibly faithful to the original play - something I’d normally have a problem with, but don’t here - and the casting of Lemmon and Matthau works superbly. The problem I had with HGF is the abundance of overlapping dialogue which, in big chunks, comes across as little more than a noise. Perhaps it was the crap quality VHS I watched it on though…
I know It was released in 1940, but THE SHOP AROUND THE CORNER is so much better than YOU’VE GOT MAIL.
Frank Capra movies are generally terrible and overly sentimental. Of course you have two of the worst on your list. Couple that with the deplorable Wizard of Oz and this list comes off as just surface level whining. I’ll agree though, that modern remakes of bad old movies do tend to be unsatisfying.
Andy, why would I be assumed to prefer Bay over Jackson? Both use a lot of excessive and unpolished CG effects that my eyes would rather do without.
limeymcfrog: The dinosaur stampede is definitely an embarrassing mess of unfinished effects. And don’t dare call Willis O’Brien’s animatronics embarrassing. The level of realism may be lower by today’s standards (the ape changes in scale constantly), but you can actually see a passion for the work back then, while today’s effects seem the output of overpaid, less active technicians, who cut corners in areas they think we won’t notice, or care about.
Nice list! I’d like to see it a little longer…say the 50 worst remakes. Maybe we could get AFI to sponsor the list for the next “AFI WTF List.” We could put a few horror film remakes on it. Some Kurosawa (it counts because the remakes are done in america). We could even have Roger Corman host the show!
Really? Have you guys even SEEN bad CGI? Bay arguably puts out the best CGI in a business. His storytelling has a lot to be desired, but for all Transformers’ flaws I think it would be flat-out wrong to criticize the CGI. It would not have looked more real if he’d built actual sentient robots in disguse.
As far as King Kong, the Brontosaurus chase in the ravine kills me, and parts with those giant insects. But for the most part I’d argue that the CGI was pretty good in that one.
Don’t get me wrong, I Am Legend, Indy 4, the first Harry Potter, and several other movies have downright atrocious CGI, but that’s probably one of the ONLY criticisms where I’ll defend Michael Bay.
Negative posters notice: It is a list of bad remakes - not a personal shot to your beloved LOTR franchise toy boy PJ. Relax and go watch “Bad Taste.” And to say that PJ’s 3 + HOUR movie went in-depth into the characters so you could actually understand Kong’s emotion is retarded! Again I say 3 + HOURS. If it takes you 3 hours of CGI effects to understand emotion you have ADHD. PJ’s films are not epic the are redundant. You want emotion go watch Chaplin’s “The Kid.”
To all you 2005 Kong lovers out there, that movie was infinitely dull and much of the added plot stupid (Kong ‘ice-skating’ anyone?), and the CG, while good outlasted its welcome by minutes at a time in each sequence (and there’s an extended version! No thanks!). After seeing this in the theatre, my 10 year old and I sat down and watched the original and even HE prefered that one over the new. Out of the mouths of babes!
By the way, the 30’s was so much greater a decade for movies and not because I’m a pretentious poser (as one writer said) but because generally most of what shows up in the multiplex these days is unmitigated crap.
I can agree with you, but I’ll point out a few things, too.
I haven’t actually seen the original versions of many of these films. I’m sure that Hollywood took itself more seriously in the ’30s. In a good way as compared to the studio quotes of today. They are often some derivitive of “we’ll turn a profit before it’s over.”
I enjoyed Mr. Deeds. I own it on DVD. I know it’s silly and juvenile, but it has it’s own innocence in that way. And for that reason I can watch it when I want to escape the topicality or relevance issues of the cinema. The good guys win. Even if they didn’t know there was something worth fighting for.
As for The Mummy and King Kong…I enjoyed the Mummy remake more than Kong’s big screen return.
I disagree about “King Kong” having “embarrassingly awful” special effects. I’m not sure why you think so. They were actually some of the best CGI effects I have seen… ever (remembering, of course, that CGI effects are not always as good as traditional effects). The action was unbelievable in two ways: 1) “Wow! Crazy cool! Unbelievable!” and 2) “Wow! That could never happen! That’s unbelievable.” But throughout the CGI effects were perfectly done, and more importantly perfectly executed. Even three years later there’s yet to be another film that surpasses it. “Transformers” came pretty close, but the only film that can really compare is the LOTR trilogy, also directed by Jackson.
I can see, however, if you had a beef with the length. It’s odd that the 1933 is only 100 minutes, while the 2005 remake is 187 minutes. I personally didn’t mind the length, but some might.
P.S. Speaking of great special effects, if you want to see the best non-CGI effects in the last decade, see “The Fall.”
Interesting list, but I would say that some of the comparisons are unfair or invalid. The Mummy (1999) shares only the title with The Mummy (1932). You might as well compare it to the Anne Rice novel by the same name. The first Mummy movie was scary and iconic, the newer one is a fun action adventure flick (and a great amusement park ride, so I’ve heard).
Again, the comparison between the two Frankenstein’s is unfair - Branagh’s is quite different from nearly ALL preceding film versions, but it is much closer to the novel (in dialectic and tone). It is not a remake of an earlier film, but an adaptation directly from the book.
All I can say about “Hunchback” and “Return to Oz” is that they are both way too creepy to be considered kids’ movies!
Thanks for generating all of this great discussion….
How in the hell can you say that Jackson’s King Kong is worse than the 1976 film? And HOW DARE YOU SAY that the effects are terrible as well!!!!!! Those are hands down some of the best effects I have ever seen and probably will ever see for a long while.
Did you even see the fucking film?
The performance that was generated from the entirely CG ape was extraordinary!
And beside all of that, the entire film was balls-to-the-wall exciting and fun. I will admit that it ran a bit too long - but so fucking what!!!!!
I would rather sit through three hours of Peter Jackson cinema any day than five minutes of a Michael Bay atrocity.
(And Return to Oz and the Distinguished Gentelman? - That is all you could come up with? I think you need some better list topics)
CHAD,
You’re absolutely right. MEET JOE BLACK is a MASTERPIECE. Don’t get the lazy critics on that one. At least give props to Thomas Newman’s score, one of the greatest in the last twenty years.
You are 100% correct about the King KOng remake 2005. It is a bad film. Too bad the only people that seem to like it are LOTR fanboys who will salivate on anything that Peter Jackson does.
Overall, I’d say this whole list is a bit of a stretch anyway. A lot of these movies are jokes and had little reason or potential to actually recreate anything the originals ever did. The inclusions of KING KONG, THE MUMMY and THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME - all good movies, some underrated - don’t have any merit, given their critical and financial success. But it’s all subjective, huh?
I really wish Branagh’s FRANKENSTEIN had worked as well as Coppola’s great BRAM STOKER’S DRACULA. It had a lot going for it, and a Frankenstein adaptation would still be great.
I would add the 1950s remake of the 1930s LAW AND ORDER. The original is a Western classic, tloosely based on the Earp-Tombstone story.. Starred Walter Huston and was co-written by son John Huston. The 1950s version, starring Ronald Reagan, probably isn’t a bad movie in its own right but it has almost nothing in common with the original except the title. One might argue that it isn’t a remake but simply a different take on the novel SAINT JOHNSON by W. R. Burnett (who also gave us LITTLE CAESAR and HIGH SIERRA), using an important sub-plot eliminated from the earlier movie. But it’s hopelessly bland whereas the original was tough and gritty with a gunfight-at-the-OK-Corral climax that was ahead of its time in terms of violence and body-count. The first version is like the great 1930s gangster movies (only emphasizing the lawmen rather than the criminals), while the second version is like some Saturday-matinee kids’ western (except for the presence of the sexy Dorothy Malone).
I would’ve chucked the Flash Gordons for a comparison between the ‘31 Lugosi ‘Dracula’ and the ‘91 Coppola ‘Dracula.’
Frankenstein looks like a thoughtfully constructed update compared to that piece of crazy.
Besides…old Flash Gordon, new Flash Gordon, they’re both pretty campy.
Darsh,
You are so right about the score for MJB - an absolute masterpiece. Just unbelievable. The film is enjoyable enough, and has some fabulous sets and Anthony Hopkins, unfortunately Brad Pitt makes me cringe in almost every scene. He can’t decide whether he is omnipotent, clueless, evil, suave, or naive. Or maybe an alien.
I’m really going to have to disagree with you about Peter Jackson’s King Kong. I thought it was a fantastic film, and the CG far from laughable. Naomi Watts turned in a great performance, and Kong himself is a great deal more empathizable and less creepy than in the original.
Tell me, what have any of the Kong praisers here said that makes them “LOTR fanboys who will salivate on anything that Peter Jackson does”?
I haven’t noticed anything that would give that statement merit.
And you can’t compare most remakes with the original counterpart. Regardless of which one someone may individually prefer, that doesn’t mean that the original is better. It doesn’t mean the remake is better either though. They are different movies, each with their own pros and cons.
Also, to compare films from two different eras of moviemaking based on their effects is unfair. In the past, they did their best with what they had available to them. If there were computers and digital effects in the 1930s, I’m sure they would have been used in the original Kong & OZ (the only two films from the list that I have seen both versions of).
I’ll admit, most of the time, I prefer more modern movies. That’s not to say that they are better, that’s just one man’s opinion.
You and i will have to disagree about the Oz films - i bsolutely despise the Garner film, and, as an Oz reader, find “Return” superior in every way.
Otherwise, on the ones i have seen, i agree fully, and on the others, i’d be willing to bet that i would.
Of course, i’m not all that impressed with the original “King Kong”, except in terms of “Wow - this is incredible for its day!”
I wondered about the non-inclusion of one particular stinker, but, checking, i find that “Here Comes Mr Jordan” was 1941. had it been from the 30s, it would definitely merit a place on this list - “Heavcen Can Wait” sucks dead moose.
Through a straw.
Mostly spot on, but three of your choices, Return to Oz, The Hunchback of Notre Dame and King Kong, are quite strong movies. Return to Oz was a surprisingly dark and interesting take on the material. Hunchback, while maybe better suited as a broadway musical rather than an animated one, remains one of the most underrated Disney animated movies (in spite of the fact that it’s far more critically lauded than most remember) and Peter Jackson’s King Kong was just fantastic.
I disagree with several of these selections considering half of the movies being criticized aren’t even remakes so much as multiple adaptations of literature.
Frankenstein, Hunchback, Flash Gorgon, Return to OZ (which isn’t even adapting the same book as the 1930’s film) Different people making different adaptations of the same source material doesn’t constitute a “remake”.
If a play is performed in London and then on Broadway you wouldn’t say the Broadway version was a “remake”
No Mat, “your” an idiot (”you’re” for non-idiots). How about “loser” and “looser”, figured those out yet?
hunchback was an amazing movie by disney you fool
and mr.deeds is hilarious
I have to agree with all the King Kong fans. One of the reasons it’s such a great movie is because Ann and Kong have more of a relationship, and she sympathizes with Kong. The “ice-skating” scene really emphasizes this, and gives a chance for an amazing track on the OST. In the 1933 version, pretty much all Ann does is scream. We do see that Kong has fallen for Ann, but it isn’t mutual, and Ann doesn’t see this at all and is afraid of him throughout the whole movie. Watch the 2005 version and the scene just before Kong falls off the Empire State Building and I dare you to tell me that this movie was a “monumental failure”.
BTW- I HAVE the extended edition- and I love it.
Oh and to Whiskerer- King Kong was supposed to be made more than 10 years ago, but the studio cancelled because 2 similar movies- Mighty Joe Young and Godzilla were also coming out. And that’s what makes it much more of an achievement.
Instead of focusing so much on quasi (and as you put it once “uncredited”) remakes and sequels, maybe you should have actually focused more on the straight forward remakes that dared sully the good names of the originals. Remakes like “The Lady Vanishes” from 1979. Return to Oz (and I’m not defending it here) shouldn’t even been included on this list because it isn’t a remake. It’s a sequel. Also, regarding King Kong, could you give an example of this “awful cgi” you speak of? The movie wasn’t great by any means, but the special effects were amazing.
Are you on crack? PJ’s remake of King Kong was amazing. You can’t even begin to compare them because both were made with the most cutting edge film techniques available at the time.
I don’t agree with all your choices here.
The Mummy remake is incredible. It’s a incredible adventure movie in the same vein of Indiana Jones. Sure, it isn’t an horror movie like Karloff’s but it wasn’t meant to. And if we are talking bad Mummy remakes, than we should talk about “The Curse of the Mummy” with Peter Cushing and (guess who?) Christopher Lee.
King Kong 05 is a very good movie. Some of the CGI (the aforementionned dinosaur stampede) is lame, but CGI Kong himself redeem that whole scene. It could not have been more real if Peter Jackson had found a real giant gorilla and filmed it. And most of the acting was spot on.
For the Hunchback of Notre-Dame, you probably never read the original, untranslated book (it’s in French), so stop whining.
I’m curious however: what modern movie do you like???
And what age are you ??? (just to get a picture of who you are so I could better understand your positions.)
I am absolutely shocked that you chose Peter Jackson’s “King Kong” remake over Dino De Laurentiis’ (sp?), especially for the given reason. Until Jackson’s film, I never found CGI an effective techniq
I have no idea what happened there, as I was no where near finished, obviously. As I was saying, I never found CGI an effective technique for creating supposedly physically existing creatures, as it never communicated the sensation of weight or mass. But in Jackson’s film this is not the case. While I don’t find the 1976 version as absymal as most people (once you get past comparisons to the original, the misleading hype and the fraudulent special effects credit, the only real problem is the lack of likable characters), I still consider it much worse than Jackson’s.
The remake of King Kong: crappy cartoon-like CGI, way too much action, too much time spent on lingering soft-focus close-ups of whatsername’s face, miscast Jack Black, and just too long. The original wins on every level.
You King Kong fans are dismal. I actually like many of the things about the remake better than the original, but… I don’t care how “great” the CGI was, there was way too much of it, and it kept taking me out of the movie.
Seriously, for me, personally, I’d rather watch 1930s era animatronics than 3 and a half hours of what is considered good CGI. At least the old Kong had texture and existed on the film.
(P.S. Transformers had the best CGI ever, anybody who denies it is just hating on Bay.)
what about the remake of “Scarface?”
Chris - I’ll give you the dinosaur stampede (only partially agree) if you concede that the dialogue and acting in the original are no less than god awful. Robert Armstrong says his lines like a bored aucioneer, and Wray and Cabot’s scenes are just embarassing. Pearl Harbor had better dialogue. And acting.
If you put he ‘76 Kong on this list, then maybe I’d give it to you, but there is too much great stuff in the ‘05. The bugs, the connection and characterization of Kong and Darrow…
Good call on Mr. Deeds though. One of the worst films I’ve ever seen; remake or not.
Your #1 makes up for it but man are you wrong about King Kong. I’ve seen every version twice. And history aside, the newest is the best. Naomi Watts gave an unreasonable amount of soul to her performance. Certainly the film techniques and styles of the 30s were different making Wray’s performance fundamentally more remote. But for the modern viewer who believes in humanist performances, Watts kills Wray straight up.
You’re also right about #6. The very concept of animating that role (unless say Brad Bird is involved) is awful. Laughton owns that thing.
I haven’t seen Meet Joe Black or Death Takes a Holiday, and from what you wrote, I can’t tell if you’ve seen them either.
The 2005 King Kong sucks! It’s too long, there are too many effects and Jack Black had no business being cast. I can remember looking at my watch every 10 minutes wondering how long I would have to sit and watch the thing. And please that scene in central park on the ice - total Disney. I would suspect those criticizing its choice on list are all under 35.
The 2005 King Kong was great. Snappy dialogue, beautiful music, good acting, much more emotional and exciting content.
And just where, pray tell, did you see these so called awful special effects?
The film Meet Joe Black came when my beloved dog was dying of cancer. It is a masterpiece. I could listen to the soundtrack for 6 1/2 hours. Would need lots of Kleenex, though.
I don’t think you have to reach into the present to find perfectly awful remakes of 30’s classics. I still haven’t gotten over my initial (and last) viewing of the Marlon Brando remake of “Mutiny on the Bounty.”
Ugh.
Attention Ricardo Rodriguez! — if there’s an idiot to be found on these pages, Ricardo, it’s you.
I’m not kidding. Only a retard… and I mean that literally, Ricardo — somebody who is CLINICALLY RETARDED… would be capable of making such stupid remarks as “How could you feel so passionate about movies older than your true sensibilities. stop being a poser and like your era of movies.”
As if the greatest art was all created since last Thursday. As if there is no point in looking at a Van Gough painting, or listening to a Beatles album, or a Beethoven symphony, or reading a work by Mark Twain or William Shakespeare.
Because all of that stuff was created “before you were born”.
According to you, if it isn’t from this generation, it isn’t worth your time, and that is truly moronic.
How many times, Ricardo Rodriguez, have people come up to you and told you that you’re stupid. I bet it happens to you a lot. And again, I’m not even kidding. I can tell without ever having met you that you’re an idiot.
I agree with you whole-heartedly (almost) on these remakes. While Meet Joe Black is a bit excessive, I think there are worse remakes, including the movie Rain with Joan Crawford which has been re-made about 3 or 4 times without any of the style or depth that the first film employed. Probably one of the worst remakes was Kevin Costner’s Robin Hood — the movie itself wasn’t horrible, just Costner as Robin really made this bad. You could also throw in the one with Uma Thurman and Patrick Bergin, too. While the CGI in the King Kong remake had some pretty bad moments, I did find it entertaining and MUCH, MUCH better than the version with Jeff Bridges. And anyone who tries to remake a Capra film is never going to equal the original. Oh and one last one you missed: The Shop around the Corner was made in ‘39, but not released until ‘40 — this was remade as You’ve Got Mail with Tom Hanks…
Hollywood typically slaughters films when they do remakes. You can look at the movies from the silent era all the way through to the early 60’s that have been remade and not handled well in their recreation.
You definitely gave us all something to talk about!
A good list, although I would disagree with some of your selections. I like “Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein” very much especially that truly disturbing finale. However, I did think Robert DeNiro’s creature was disappointing. DeNiro deserves credit for attempting the role, but I wasn’t convinced he was stitched together from corpses.
if a movie is remade, then i think the reason to remake it should be to provide a new view of the material, or perhaps to do the story more justice than the original.i think his list is interesting. however i suffer from not viewing ‘death takes a holiday’ to compare it to ‘meet joe black’ which i did love. i find the return to oz movie alright, but the creatures are so very stiff! “the women” is one of those rare b&w oldies i ‘discovered’ on pbs or somewhere 20 years ago and fell in love with. i HOPE this version is as demure and biting as the original. part of the 30’s versions charm was the restraint that women endured in polite society, played off the horrible situation our heroine was in. i liked the new version of king kong, also. it is marvelous, the ape’s cg is so great. it does not take away from the original, but is it’s own interpretation. a love song to it, so to speak.as for ‘hunchback’ i liked the music, but found it an odd choice to animate.not a kids story to be honest.
I am going to have to agree with several comments said about The Mummy. It can hardly be called a remake of the original (which I do love by the way, it is a classic). Sure it has the same title and some characters but it is far closer to Indiana Jones than anything else, so I think saying it is a “bad update” is a tad unfair.
Other than that I thought King Kong was a pretty good movie, not the greatest, but still good. As for the rest I either haven’t seen them or agree with what was said about them.
You are absurdly off the mark in your appraisal of Peter Jackson’s King Kong. Jackson righted a terrible wrong by allowing us to dispense with the atrocious 1976 Kong, easily one of the very worst major studio releases of that calender year. Jackson’s Kong was a loving and reverent tribute to the ‘33 Kong and aside from the bronto stampede the CG effects were spectacular. Naomi Watts delivered an Oscar caliber performance and Andy Serkis’ motion capture Kong was one of the special effects marvels of the decade. Hey, but don’t take my word for it. Read the reviews. Almost every major reviewer praised it as among the year’s best.. The ‘76 Kong by comparison is the stain on the resumes of Jeff Bridges, Charles Grodin and Jessica Lang. You gotta be smoking something to claim it as superior to Jackson’s.
Actually, “You’ve Got Mail” is not the only remake of “Shop Around the Corner”. There is another remake - the 1940s musical “In the Good Old Summertime”, starring Judy Garland and Van Johnson. All three are based on a play. (source: IMDb and the credits for the movies)
What about movies made in the 1930s and remade in the 40s or 50s?
Some examples include:
-In the Good Old Summertime (mentioned above)
-Little Women
-The Maltese Falcon (how many folks know that the version with Bogart is a remake?)
-The Man Who Knew Too Much (Hitchcock remade HIS OWN MOVIE in the 50s. The original is from the 30s)
I am curious about one thing - if the remake weren’t made, just how interested would folks be in the original versions? I’m just curious.
i have seen all 3 versions of king kong dozs of times the 30s version was great with the effects of the time, then the 70s version had the best effects of the time, then jacksons one also with great effects which were the best of the time, i unlike most love the 70s version the best, i watch movies to have a good time and thats it, if you do that you will enjoy s movies how they are meant to be enjoyed , rather like a crutic watch it to find mistakes, why go to a movie if thats the case?
Ricardo Rodriguez: You are out right a total jackass let alone completely ill-advised on your statement. Just because your not born in that era you can’t have passion for that era only for the era you live in? Dude, you have to be the most stupid little shit on earth. How uneducated are you?
Martin: you say Frank Capra movies are generally terrible? your calling classics such as “It’s A Wonderful LIfe”, “Mr. Smith Goes To Washington”, “His Girl Friday”, “Mr. Deeds Goes To Town”, & many others terrible? Either your some stupid ass teenager who doesn’t know his ass from his face or you don’t know thing one about films. Which is it? either way your stupid to begin with…seriously dude, your blessed idiot. Please don’t ever talk about movies again. Your credibility went right out the door. (Ricardo Rodriguez that goes the same for you too.)
Complainers of King Kong 2005: First off, fansboys having nothing to do about liking King Kong 2005 edition (the majority liked the film). I’m outright laughing at the comments people are saying such as “it has cartoonish/awful effects”, “it’s to long.” “It has to much action” blah blah blah…You people are just complete dumbasses on films. Period! Cartoonish/awful effects? what are you smoking? watch the damn Sci-Fi channel if you want horrific effects seriously. Your very much short-sighted on this matter. It’s to long? here’s an idea, you should broaden you short minded attention spans morons. What you can’t concentrate that long? does it hurt your little minds? Seriously, if you can’t take long movies then save us the trouble & don’t see them because not everyone wants a 90 min. flicks of those stupid spoofs of “Disaster Movies” or “Epic Movies”. I honestly can’t believe someone said it has to much action? are you serious? Talk about the definition of a total ironic dumbass comment.
This article: Personally, I agree with most of it, if not all these remakes are out right bad except for King Kong 2005 (where it does out do all of the previous King Kong films. The original gets credit though for what it did in it’s time.) & The Mummy (new) . The (new) Mummy film is totally different & really can’t compare the old from the new on this particular comparison. It’s like comparing apples & oranges.
The Wizard Of Oz: I can anyone say “The Return To Oz” is better? seriously, this just show why films today have decreased in quality.
I swear some of the most stupid individuals must be on this message board.
One other thing, Michael Bay’s special effects are not by any means bad (I can’t believe some have said that but so be it.) So, please just drop that as well. Transformers (very entertaining popcorn flick) had the best special effects last year. This Michael Bay hate is just getting old on the net. He’s an action director & there is nothing wrong with that. He creates entertaining films.
correction: I meant “How” instead of “I”
The Wizard Of Oz: “I” can anyone say “The Return To Oz” is better? seriously, this just show why films today have decreased in quality.
I have to agree with Juan Carlo that I have issues. Even the 1976 version of Kong has grown on me as placing a lens on the search for fame in the disco generation, and I thought that Jackson made an better than decent homage film in 2005.
Comparing the two “Mummy”s may be like comparing apples and oranges: the earlier was a horror film, the latter was more of an action/adventure film. It gets to the same core of the “Alien” vs. “Aliens” argument: its all a matter of what type of film you like: the original of you prefer horror, the latter if you prefer action, though both accomplish what they set out to do quite well.
While I’m not a huge Eddie Murphy fan, and would not rank “The Distinguished Gentleman” as his best work, I thought it was pretty good for what it wanted to accomplish.
The remake of Frankenstein, while not as easy to watch because it is a far deeper film than the original, is an excellent film. While historically, it may not hold a place in the collective imagination as the first, it is in every other way a superior film.
If these are the worst 1930s remakes, then my take is that Hollywood has done a halfway decent job of doing what they normally screw up.
I agree with a few of your choices, except for Kong and Frankenstein. The reasons for Kong have already been explained by several others. Frankenstein, besides being more of a reinterpretation than a remake, features one of the best Deniro performances of the last 20 years, in my opinion (of course, that’s not really saying much). He brough a level of pathos previously not seen in the creature. The scenes in the farmhouse are heartbreaking. Also, loved his ultimatum to Frankenstein later (”if I can’t have a wedding night, I’ll be with you on yours.”) To say what you said about his performance leads me to believe you either haven’t seen it since you were a kid or you haven’t seen it period.
Otherwise, keep up the good work.
I just want to clarify what I posted earlier.
Earlier I mentioned that some movies from the 30s were remade in the 40s and 50s, and I gave a few examples. I wasn’t suggesting that those remakes were poor. My point was that remakes have been around for a long time now, not just in the past 20 or so years. By the way, the American version of Gaslight (1940s) is a remake of the 1940 British flick by the same name.
Regarding “Shop Around the Corner”, “In the Good Old Summertime”, and “You’ve Got Mail”, I really do feel that “In the Good Old Summertime” is the best of them all.
I’m really surprised no one has yet to mention that horrid Gus Van Sant version of Psycho.
Oh, wait. I’ve jumped a few decades. Never mind.
Jesus. Fucking. Christ. You’re douchebaggery is unrivaled.
Accepting change is not a big deal. King Kong was good honey…..Better check it again. Remakes jsut relive the old stuff…..if they’ve deviated, its called creativity. Agreed that certain stuff are ridiculous, but do not ignore certain good ones…..Check your books carefully. Hopefully…Peter doesnt give a kick in the arse…..
Sorely disappointing list. I saw this linked on IMDb and looked forward to seeing what films made the list. What a let-down. You immediately lost points, right off the bat, with #10 which was in no way a remake or an update. And then it just got worse and worse. The majority of the films on the list were, in fact, updates but not of 1930s films. They were updates of classic books, plays and comics. In most cases, the filmmakers weren’t even thinking of the 1930s versions while making their version, they were thinking of the original source material. The list looks like it’s just an excuse to bring up “The Women” and put “Mr. Deeds” at number 1. The rest was all filler which was merely and afterthought.
The ‘33 version of KING KONG effects weren’t animatronics. Such technic wasn’t created yet. Teey were made in stop-motion. Great movie!
The 2005 version is a masterpiece. A homage to the original. Too long? Too much action? Peter Jackson made real scenes originally written for the ‘33 movie that never made out of the paper.
TRANSFORMERS effects are really great, but I can’t agree that creating believable living creatures is much easier than machines… KONG wins.
P.S.: ‘76 KING KONG is crap!
I’m not talking about the stop motion, that was quite good, espescially considering the time period. I’m talking about the Kong closeups that are quite obviously animatronic or large scale puppetry or something of that ilk. Whatever it is, it’s a complete mess, but still not as much of a mess as the writing or acting.
There seems to bge very little original ideas in film today. Studios seem hell bent on making the fast buck. If sequels or prequels dont do this then there’s always the remake. I would agree with many on this list. They seem to be divided between pre and during CGI. The 1980 Flash Gordon was a camp ballsy fun movie that did not tkae itself seriously (if it did - it would probably end up looking like David Lynch’s Dune). I dispise the modern so called remake. I equally dispise the supposed movie version of the popular TV show (The Flintstones, Thunderbirds, The Avengers, Charlies Angels, and on and on and on). I despair that we will soon see remakes of “Network”, “The Boys From Brazil”, “Capricorn One” and “Marathon Man”. Is anything left to pillage and plunder?
Remakes