Hollywood LOVES to remake films, especially foreign ones. The immediate (and sadly, largely true) assumption is that Americans won’t bother to read subtitles. For this reason we now get a remake for The Dinner Game – a French comedy with a goofy hero that was quite successful back in 1998 – I wonder what took them so long…
We like goofy heroes, and we really loved the original Dinner Game. But when it comes to remakes, it’s a whole different story. So in hopes that Hollywood (and all of us) might learn from past mistakes, here’s a cautionary list of the 5 worst remakes of the 2000s.
You would think that if a movie has done well with critics and audiences, made a decent amount of money, and won awards, there won’t be any need to spoil it. Right? Wrong!!!
This is what happens when you give Madonna – the woman who hasn’t made a single good film in her life - the leading role in the remake of a beloved European classic.
The Lina Wertmulleroriginal from 1974 attracted controversy, but there is no arguing about its importance and artistic quality. The remake, however, starred at the Razzies: It won 5 awards and was nominated as the worst film (and Madonna as the worst actress) of the decade. And it gets only 5% positive reviews at Rotten Tomatoes.
A film does not have to be a masterpiece in order to be ruined in a remake.
The Poseidon Adventure, a simple, thrilling summer adventure, was no masterpiece, but it did win an Oscar for special effects and had good actors like Gene Hackman and Shelley Winters. With a past record of successfully making exciting disaster films, Wolfgang Petersen nonetheless managed to make Poseidon so irritating and worthless that I could not wait for the passengers to DROWN ALREADY! Unfortunately some of them did manage to survive…
The original comedy drama from 1939 was witty, sharp and stylish. It is considered one of the high points of the classic studio-system era, and was selected for preservation by the U.S. National Film Registry.
Peter Sellers in his unforgettable role as inspector Jacques Clouseau really made this film – it was funny, exciting and witty. When Steve Martin was chosen to fill his big shoes, it seemed not such a bad choice, considering Martin’s comic talent and excellent roles in films like Father of the Bride, Parenthood and The Jerk. Unfortunately, it turned out that Martin’s best days were behind him. Combining this with a failed script made the movie was a critical failure. Financially, however, it did quite well and even got a sequel – which sadly was even worse than the remake.
Seriously, how hard can it be to act in a horror flick? All you have to do is look vulnerable and scream… but Hilton managed to fail even with that and at the Razzie awards she was elected as worst actress of the decade for her role in this film.
The remake bears very little resemblance to the original 1953 version, which was eerie and chilling with the help of horror legend Vincent Price.
It seems that the only thing directors and producers do these days is remake movies/TV series from the 80s or continue movie series that started in the 80s. Just to name a few examples: This week The A-Team and The Karate Kid are released, and in the near future we will also see Wall Street 2, Predators, Red Dawn and Tron: Legacy hit our screens. Is it a good thing? How are the titles from the 2000s in comparison to their ancestors from the 80s? We’ll try to answer these burning questions and more below…
MacGyver: This clever hit TV series couldn’t be ignored by anyone was alive and reasonably consciousness in the mid 80s. Special secret agent MacGyver (Richard Dean Anderson) used his brain in place of a gun, and relied on his knowledge of science to save himself and others. MacGyver could literally design lifesaving tools from a gum and paper clips… no wonder it gained a beloved cult favorite status.
MacGruber: Counting on the popularity of the series, this is a spoof comedy, led by Will Forte’s bumbling secret agent whose lack of skill and abundance of personal problems serve as a detriment to him - and those around him.
Winner: MacGyver, easily.
This is an example of a really ridiculous effort to build on the 80s magic. MacGruber’s big failure is, among others, the-far fetched expectation that 35- to 40-year-olds will enjoy a spoof of a series they watched when they were 10! Next time, don’t wait 20 years to make the spoof…
1984: One of the most popular TV shows of the 80s, it helped define the fashion and music of the period while maintaining high-quality police drama standards. Miami Vice is a fascinating cultural document of the 1980s as well as a stylized and exciting cop show.
2006: This rough movie follows the violent, dangerous adventures of Crockett and Tubbs, with Miami at the center of a global drug trade. Both men continually struggle with personal demons to stay on the right side of the law.
Winner: The TV series (and actually, anyone who simply didn’t go to see the movie).
In line with the introspective, gloomy wave of 2000s remakes/sequels, this remake simply eliminated all that was exciting, fun - even campy – in the original series.
1980: The film won an Oscar for Best Original Score and Song. The 80s TV series that followed was a huge hit. Both had loveable casts and inspired music-and-dance numbers that seem to burst forth spontaneously out of sheer irrepressible emotion. In those days, everybody hummed the main theme song, tried to dance like Leroy, loved Mr. Shorofsky and recited Debbi Allen’s memorable line: “You want fame? Well, fame costs. And right here is where you start paying … in sweat.”
2009: This modernization of the classic musical from 1980 more or less does the same, and allows students at the New York School of Performing Arts to take center stage.
Winner: The 80s movie obviously.
The 2009 movie was bad and redundant. As with MacGruber, producers failed to notice reality (in more than one sense): with so many reality shows, like American Idol or So You Think You Can Dance, the charm of an art school that takes common, even hard-case youngsters and make them stars, is a bit outdated. High School Musical movies and Glee knew how to adapt.
1988: This offbeat, cult music comedy from John Waters actually takes place in the 60s. Energetic, overweight teen Tracy Turnblad wants to get on a hip local TV dance program. Her lively dance moves and bubbly personality are met with unexpected popularity, and she finds herself fighting against discrimination by black dancers, and also against angry, scheming, fellow dancer Amber and her pushy mother.
2007: While less out-there than Waters’ original, the film is still quirky, largely thanks to another John, this time Travolta, playing Tracy’s overweight mother. The creators also smartly updated the original, by making the remake a musical. The result was a great success.
Winner: A draw.
Each title had its uniqueness and style. This is how you make a 80s remake. One reservation though: maybe the fact that both movies are period titles, dealing with the 60s, helped fight the 80s remake spell.
1984: “Don’t fall asleep” was the mantra of a small town group of teenagers, terrorized by a mysterious, hellish character who entered their dreams and systematically slaughtered them in their sleep. This excellent, surprisingly surrealistic genre entry became a successful franchise. Everybody remembers (and maybe even dreams about) the slashing razor-fingered hand of the tormented Freddy Krueger.
2010: In the revival of the franchise, we once again meet slasher film legend Freddy Krueger, once again haunting the dreams of the teenagers of Springwood.
Winner: The original.
The remake was just insulting. Why didn’t the producers learn from the failed attempts to revive Halloween and Friday the 13th?
First Blood: After being arrested for a crime he did not commit, a Green Beret survivor of the Vietnam War begins having terrible nightmares. This gripping, classic one-man-army movie was the beginning of the popular Rambo Franchise, and raised the question: Why didn’t Rambo win in Vietnam on his own to begin with?
Rambo: Rambo is drawn back into the action when a group of idealists gets captured by the Burmese army. What follows is Rambo fighting genocide with genocide, turning men into hamburger meat with machine guns, bombs, machetes, and, the most deadly weapon of all, his bare hands.
Winner: First Blood.
Because it is the one that started it all, an explosive movie that keeps you on the edge of your seat until the last, powerful frame. And we also need to thank the original, as it was the inspiration for the sweet tribute – Son of Rambow. That said, Rambo wasn’t a bad action movie on its own. Luckily, it didn’t deal with Vietnam or the Gulf war.
1984: The Autobots and Decepticons, during the great Cybertronian War, crash landed on earth. Millions of years later, geological activity revives the warring factions. And so…
Oh well, who really cares about this mumbo jumbo, it was all about the shape-shifting robots fighting each other, and everybody wanted these toys back in the 80s.
2007: The movie is simply a massive giant-robot showdown. Thankfully, it had Megan Fox in it. Unfortunately, this time around there weren’t any shape shifting Megan Fox toys…
Winner: The 1984 series. Shia LeBeouf, we do not accept your apology for the quality of the 2007 movie. If Wall Street 2 is really good, we might consider forgiving.
The Terminator: One of the tightest, tensest sci-fi films ever made, this is a landmark in its genre. The low-budget masterpiece was the breakthrough film for super director James Cameron, who created one of the finest action films of the 80s, and one of the finest cinematic time paradoxes ever. Arnold Schwarzenegger will forever be known as the heartless killing machine, and of course for “I’ll be back.”
Terminator Salvation: We really wanted it to be back, but not like that!! I intended to write few words about this 4th insultment, er, installment, but since it was so bad, I repressed all memory to the extent that I could write the synopsis of The Sound of Music here, and I wouldn’t know if it was right …
Winner: Terminator Salvation (is the loser). The winner is The Terminator.
James – we are in serious need of salvation! So before making another Avatar, pleeeease make a 5th and final worthy ending. You just have to.
Raiders of the Lost Ark: The Allies discover the Nazis are planning to use the Lost Ark of the Covenant as a weapon, and enlist the help of Doctor Indiana Jones, a seemingly mumbling archeologist, to locate the biblical treasure. Jones must escape evil Nazis, a nest of venomous snakes - not to mention the wrath of God. Steven Spielberg delivered groundbreaking special effects and a fabulous sense of humor, and the movie was the beginning of an extremely successful franchise, enjoyable for the whole family.
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull: Indy tries to return to his life as a professor of archaeology, but soon finds himself fighting scheming Russians back in the 50s. As with Terminator Salvation, it doesn’t really matter what the plot of this movie is.
Winner: The winner by a knockout is the 1981 movie.
Even Spielberg makes mistakes. Unfortunately, he doesn’t apologize for them. Shia LeBeouf, on the other hand, is making a career from apologizing for films that shouldn’t have been made. Once again, we’re not forgiving.
Die Hard: Hans Gruber, a sophisticated robber posing as a terrorist, storms the Takagi Corporation’s Christmas party at the Nakatomi skyscraper, intending to pull off a multi-million dollar from the company’s vault. John McClane, a cop from NY visiting his estranged, career-driven wife, is the one who’s going to stop him. Die Hard is a groundbreaking action flick, fresh and captivating to this very day.
Live Free or Die Hard: Thomas Gabriel is an evil mastermind determined to bring anarchy and chaos to the United States on Independence Day. He should have known that kidnapping McClane’s daughter, Lucy, was the wrong move….
Winner: Die Hard
The 4th installment was a very effective action flick, but you just can’t compete with the quality of the original movie. It’s like the Michael Jordan of movies. Yippie ki-yay, m***f*** - that was one hell of a one-man-army thrill ride.
Conclusion: The winning decade is, of course, the 80s.
The original is almost always better than its successors. But that doesn’t mean 80s remakes and sequels won’t continue. If Hollywood decided to redo the 80s, it’s either because audiences want them to, or because there are too many Hollywood execs in their 30s and 40s with hyper-nostalgia.
I don’t know what about you, but despite the conclusive results, I’m looking forward to seeing The A-Team, The Karate Kid and even Wall Street – the 2000s versions. I’m pretty sure they won’t be as good as their ancestors, but growing up in the 80s is like an incurable disease, I guess: You can’t get enough of it…
As we’ve noted once or twice before, movies based on original scripts are becoming a rare breed. It’s a good guess that any movie released today is based on something: a novel, a TV series, a true story…
But what happens when a movie is the result of several incarnations? From book to TV series to musical play to movie… In this post, we’ll try to find order in the remake madness by comparing the different versions in order to decide which is best.
The most recent of these movie incarnations is the current reinvention of the 1980 hit Fame.
It all began with the musical film about a bunch of teenagers at a prestigious high school of performing arts. It was surprisingly successful, earning six Academy Award nominations, two wins, and the love of critics and viewers alike.
Following hot on its heels was the TV series Fame (1982-1987). Very popular in its first seasons, it won several Emmy and Golden Globe awards. Most of the characters from the 1980 film reappeared, so there was a sense of continuity for fans.
The new 2009 version is not exactly a remake of the original movie or the TV series. The setting at a high school for performing arts remains, but the characters are entirely new. The trailer feels more like High School Musical. Think questionable mix of naïve 80s storytelling with contemporary hip music score. Hmm…
Will this movie become a cult hit like its predecessor or be remembered as a tacky remake of a teen classic? So far, as the results from the box office and critics pour in, the latter looks more likely. Over on Pop Vox, Jennie Yabroff compares it to watching American Idol on the big screen - only worse.
The first version of Hairspray is one of John Waters‘ most well-known films. The story is more or less the same as in the newer version, only it’s not a musical. The movie was not a great success when first released, but quickly became a cult classic on VHS.
Ten years later, an idea was raised to turn the plot of the film into a stage musical. After some turmoil, the musical opened in 2002 and was an immediate success both financially and critically: Raking in Tony Awards, running for over six years and spanning several international productions.
The success of the musical did not go unnoticed by Hollywood studios, who decided to create a new film combining both the 1988 movie (keeping the campy feel and with John Travolta playing a mother!) and the stage version (a musical). The formula seemed to work: along with 4 new songs written especially for the film, Hairspray was released with great success, though it’s early to define it as a cult classic.
So which version is best? In the box office arena there is a definite winner: The 2007 version grossed over $200 million. But on the critical side, the 1988 version gets the upper hand by a little: 97% of good reviews vs. 91% for the 2007 version on RottenTomatoes.
A definite case of artistic freedom stands before us.
Pride and Prejudice is one of Jane Austen’s best novels and a timeless classic. Over the years, it’s been adapted in dozens of movies, TV series, miniseries etc.
The most notable is the BBC adaptation in 1995, which still stands as one of the greatest Austen adaptations (and raised Colin Firth to stardom).
But perhaps the most outrageous and original adaptation of the classic novel is the 2004 Bollywood-style Bride and Prejudice. In this adaptation, Lalita (the Indian parallel to Elizabeth Bennet) meets rich businessman Will Darcy and an immediate love-hate relationship is born. The classic plot is enriched with catchy songs like “No life without wife” and “My lips are waiting.” Conservative Austen fans would probably be appalled, but the Bollywood version is a funny, feel good experience, if you are willing to take a fresh look at a favorite classic.
The first mention of Sweeney Todd was in 1846 in a magazine that featured cheap, sensational fiction. In early versions of the story Todd is portrayed as a gruesome, cold-blooded killer. The first version that gave Todd a more humane side is Christopher Bond’s play from 1973, in which Todd is a wrongfully imprisoned barber who returns to London after 15 years of banishment. Todd as a vengeance-seeker was more relatable than as a killer without a cause.
The famous musical play by Stephen Sondheim is based on the 1973 play, adding an orchestral-operatic score to the story of vengeance and obsession. The original production won many awards, including 8 Tonys, and has been produced around the world many times since.
Director Tim Burton, who saw the original Sondheim musical as a student, dreamed of adapting it to the big screen. In 2006 his dream was fulfilled… Burton’s version is based quite rigidly on the play, with all of the songs except some background music taken directly from it.
Which version is best? It’s hard to compare the different mediums here – each version wins in its own field. Sondheim’s version is highly praised to this day, and Burton’s version is considered the best cinematic adaptation of the story and one of Burton’s finest films overall.
The Producers (1968), Mel Brooks‘ first attempt as a director, is a surprisingly successful staging of a musical about Hitler. The responses to this wild showbiz farce were naturally very mixed: some thought it outrageous to treat such issues in a comical way, while others felt it was extremely funny and brave. Like many works of art that were ahead of their time, the acceptance and praise of this film grew over the years until it achieved classic status.
In 2001 a musical play adaptation was produced on Broadway. Unusually, in this adaptation Brooks himself was responsible for the song lyrics and some of the music, preserving the sense of humor. The main difference between the two versions is that the 1968 movie was a much darker comedy in comparison to the more upbeat, light stage musical.
The play won no less than twelve Tonys, paving the way for a movie version of the musical. Theoretically, there was no reason why this film shouldn’t succeed. The two leading stars from the Broadway play also star in the film (Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick) along with several smaller roles and even the director of the play. Plus, it had highly successful and acclaimed origins. But theories and reality don’t always match, and The Producers (2005) turned out to be a financial flop with mixed reviews (51% positive reviews at RottenTomatoes vs. 93% for the 1968 version). However, we can’t blame the producers for trying…
The original Little Shop of Horrors (1960) was a low-budget horror-comedy B Movie by one of the most productive B Movie directors, Roger Corman. Over the years the film developed a cult following, partly due to a small role by the young Jack Nicholson, which was heavily promoted in the VHS release of the film.
The cult following resulted in the decision to produce a Broadway musical based on the film. This version maintained the basic tone of dark humor, but with several changes: the masochistic dental patient character was eliminated, and at the end everyone gets eaten by the plant.
In 1986, the musical version was adapted back to film. It follows the plot of the play quite closely, except for bringing back the manic dental patient - if only Bill Murray’s acting was always so superb - and the ending. Unlike the grim ending of the stage musical, in the musical movie version (spoiler ahead!) Seymour saves Audrey and they live happily ever after… This change came after extremely negative reviews from test audiences, and gives the entire film gets a lighter, brighter tone.
Today both films are critically well-received and loved by audiences.
Here’s a case of original material that was taken in an opposite direction in its later incarnations.
The 1936 version was a morality tale produced by a church group. It features high-school students lured to try marijuana, who subsequently descend into manslaughter, rape, suicide and other proportional deeds…
It was rediscovered in the 70s as an unintentional comedy and in 1998 was adapted as a stage musical in Los Angeles, as a humorous parody of the original. The show was later performed Off-Broadway, after going through substantial rewrites.
Despite the fact that the stage musical did not gain much attention and closed quite quickly, the cable network Showtime decided to adapt it as a straight-to-TV movie musical. The result was the extremely funny, campy and irreverent Reefer Madness (2005), which became an ironic favorite for stoners to watch while getting high. The tunes are catchy, the humor is quirky, the costumes are magnificent – it’s a true cult favorite that will make you hum “Listen to Jesus, Jimmy” for days.
A jukebox musical is a risky proposition: The creators really like the songs of an artist or band, so they try to think of a story that can reasonably hold them all together. (As opposed to “regular” musicals where the plot is conceived before or alongside the music - though that’s not a guarantee it won’t be as ridiculous…)
The 1999 stage musical of Mamma Mia! really revived this genre, by performing some of the most beloved songs of the 20th century – by ABBA. And the plot? Well, it’s not that important.
The musical was an enormous success with audiences, and is currently 13th in the list of longest-running Broadway shows, right after classics like The Phantom of the Opera, Cats and Grease.
Such success could not go ignored by Hollywood, and in 2008 a cinematic version was released. The all-star cast, including Meryl Streep, Pierce Brosnan, Colin Firth and Julie Walters, sing and dance to the popular tunes. Unlike the similar Producers’ case, ABBA’s magic touch did the work. Like its stage inspiration, the movie was very profitable, if not critically acclaimed - becoming the highest grossing movie musical of all time worldwide.
The numbers are hard to ignore, and so a sequel is already planned. Will it include the same songs? Will ABBA finally reunite for the occasion?? And do we even want that to happen???
2.
Chicago (1926 play) → Chicago (1975 musical play) → Chicago (2002)
The story of Chicago began when a journalist/playwright covered two real-life murder trials. She emphasized the sensational aspects of the cases, claiming the murdering women were corrupted by men and liquor. Later she turned this report into a play, which even received a silent film version in 1927.
After her death, rights for the play were acquired by Bob Fosse, who choreographed the musical play in 1975. Songs were written to fit the Brechtian atmosphere of glamorized crimes and criminal celebrities.
The musical was not extremely successful, but in 1996 a renewed production gained much attention and covered its initial costs faster than any other musical in history. It eventually ran over five thousand times before closing down.
In 2002 a film was released, influenced by both the 1975 and 1996 musical plays, especially by the vaudeville look of the songs, which in the movie are presented as Roxie Hart’s fantasies. The film was very successful both financially and critically. It won 6 Academy Awards, including Best Picture, and grossed over $300 million worldwide.
1.
8 1\2 (1963) → Nine (1982 musical play) → Nine (2009)
Everyone knows the Fellini classic 8 1\2. It is considered one of the best films in cinematic history.
But how many of us know there is a musical play based upon this film? The stage musical Nine takes the story of the famous film, adds music to it, and creates a whole new take on the story. Strange as it sounds, the musical became quite successful and received five Tonys. Several revivals of the musical have been enacted since.
This November we’ll get the cinematic version of the musical, with Rob Marshall’s Nine. Marshall has already successfully adapted material that has gone through several incarnations. Will he repeat the phenomenal success of Chicago and take over the Academy Awards ceremony? Or will it be a pretentious flop? By the look of the trailer and with an amazing all-star cast that includes Daniel Day-Lewis, Penelope Cruz, Judi Dench, Nicole Kidman, Kate Hudson, Sophia Loren and many others, the result is sure to be glamorous…
Filmmakers are always on the look-out for good stories. Producers are always on the look-out for financial success. Sometimes the opposing sides go for a lazy compromise: remake! Why not redo a proven success, only bigger and better?
In the last decade it’s been especially popular to update movies from the 50s, 60s and 70s, usually with elements of sci-fi, horror and fantasy. The problem is that the remakes are usually much worse than the originals. Only a few manage to rise to the original’s level, let alone surpass it.
So for those of you who feel nauseated at the sound of the word “Remake” and for those of you who’ve already bought your tickets to The Day the Earth Stood Still, we’ll try to determine once and for all which are better – originals or remakes!
Tim Burton’s much anticipated version of this movie (yep, even he got tempted…) proves that sometimes it’s better not to fix what’s not broken. While the original version is highly acclaimed by critics and even got into IMDb’s top 250, Burton’s version got bad reviews and even “won” the Razzie award for worst remake of the year. After such a bad critical reaction, the studio abandoned the idea of making a sequel, even though the movie was a financial success.
Winner: Planet of the Apes (1968)
Although the original was strongly criticized for its violent, gory content and was even banned in some countries, it’s still considered one of the best and most influential horror films of all time. The remake, however, was not well accepted among the critics, with only 35% fresh reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. Nevertheless, financially the remake was a success and a prequel was made 3 years later. Our bet: watch out for a third installment… Winner: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)
Both films are based on H.G. Wells’ sci-fi novel The Time Machine. But while the original 1960 version got decent reviews (76% at Rotten Tomatoes) and won an Oscar for special effects, the more modern version got a terrible 28% and wasn’t a big box office hit. The fact that the remake’s director, Simon Wells, is H.G. Wells’ great grandson did not prevent this movie’s failure. We guess Wells senior got restless in his grave… Winner: The Time Machine (1960)
7. Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) vs. The Invasion (2007)
Among remakes that were complete flops compared to their predecessors, The Time Machine is almost insignificant compared to this catastrophic remake. Invasion of the Body Snatchers is considered a true masterpiece among critics and general audiences alike. In 1993 it was selected for preservation by the National Film Registry of USA and in 2008 the American Film Institute granted it 9th place in the best sci-fi films made in America ever. The remake, however, was panned by critics and only made back about half its budget. Winner: Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956), big time!
In this case the remake is not as disastrous as others on the list – the 2004 version got fairly good reviews and was one of the only zombie films to gross over $100 million around the world. But all of this is nothing compared to the original version by George A. Romero, which is considered by many to be one of the best horror films ever made. And consider the financial success of the original movie, whose budget was only $650,000. It grossed over $55 million worldwide. There is no doubt as to who is the winner. Winner: Dawn of the Dead (1978)
This is a case of close call between the movies, as both of them generally got positive reviews and similar user ratings on various sites. The original movie won an Oscar for special effects and was 1953’s biggest sci-fi hit. The 2005 version was the biggest financial hit Steven Spielberg had known since Saving Private Ryan (1998) and was the 4th most successful movie of 2005. Winner: We’d have to say it’s a tie.
Yet another horror flick that was remade 30 years later. The original one makes it to the top of scariest movie moments and got generally good reviews. The 2006 remake is treated as nothing more than a mediocre horror film that can’t be compared to the original. Even financially, the remake could not top the box office earnings of the original movie 30 years earlier. Winner: The Omen (1976)
After such a long list of remake failures one cannot help but wonder – is it even possible for a remake to outdo the original? The next movie proves that it’s possible, although not common. The original 1960 film was a very funny and highly acclaimed movie with a small yet unforgettable turn by Jack Nicholson. But the musical version of 1986 is the one we all know and love today – it became a cult hit and got 91% good reviews at Rotten Tomatoes. Interestingly enough, this is also the only remake in the list that was not made during the 21st century. Is it possible filmmakers forgot how to create good remakes over the decades…? Winner: Little Shop of Horrors (1986)
The story of a ship that flips over just calls out for up-to-date special effects. Shouldn’t be too hard, right? Wrong! The original Poseidon was a huge box office hit, the second most profitable film of 1972 after The Godfather. It was nominated for several Oscars, and won 2. Maybe the fact that the actors were considered very good made the difference, because the 2006 remake had impressive special effects but nothing more. The remake was nominated for a Razzie in the worst remake category and barely covered its costs. The producers should have learned from the failure of the original’s sequel… Winner: The Poseidon Adventure (1972)
Examining the list so far, it doesn’t look too promising for the up and coming new remake. Casting Keanu Reeves isn’t encouraging either… We want to apologize to the producers for not offering this detailed study before they decided on spending $100 million with success odds as low as winning a Vegas roulette… This remake will have an especially hard time since the original is highly acclaimed, ranked 7th in Arthur C. Clarke’s List of the Best Science-Fiction Films of All Time, just above 2001: A Space Odyssey. The film was also selected for preservation by the National Film Registry of the United States and appears in IMDb’s top 250 films. Let’s hope that this remake will be a turning point, and mark a new era of high quality remakes that surpass their originals. Winner: Too soon to tell, but you’re welcome to watch and report back!
Unconvinced? Search for yourself on Jinni:
Remake * Sci-fi * Horror * Fantasy * Disaster * Classic * Blockbuster * Boys’ night * Critically acclaimed * 50s * 60s * 70s * Based on a book * Masterpiece * Oscar winner * Musical * Time travel* Androids and robots* Zombie* Space and aliens
