Which (horror)remakes DO you like?

[Gerald]

There's a lot of grumbling and complaining about remakes, and it's understandable. A lot of them aren't really necessary and seem made just for the sake of it.
If I can choose I probably rather have something new (or an adaptation of a good novel), but I'm not as opposed to remakes as many. I'm always curious to see what another director might make of it.
And there HAVE been remakes that were able to add something to the original: The Thing, Cat People and House of Wax. I'm not so curious about these 'classic' remakes, as most everyone will like these, but more about the remakes of about the last 20 years, roughly since The Haunting (1999), which I think was the first of the remake wave that continues to today.

Here's a reminder, although this list isn't complete - it doesn't mention tv-remakes and I think some aren't remakes (or maybe I just don't know the original. Is Knock Knock a remake?):

Category:Horror film remakes - Wikipedia

I'll go alphabetically:

Coma - A mini-series that felt pretty throwaway at first, but I still keep thinking about it. The first part is a little slow, but the second part is quite good and tense. What helps is some major names in supporting roles: Geena Davis, James Woods, Ellen Burstyn, Richard Dreyfuss. But the lead actress (Lauren Ambrose) who I don't know from anything else was good as well, although she doesn't have such a distinctive face as Geneviève Bujold of course. I think it works for me, because hospitals are such natural settings for tv anyway with so many shows about them. It does have a very abrupt ending - for some reason they didn't even show the end titles here. But certainly compared to the Rosemary Baby's tv mini-series, which I didn't like at all, this was much better.

The Fog - I'm in the minority here, because it's generally loathed. I liked the actors, especially Selma Blair and Maggie Grace (she was my favourite actress on Lost), and that it was fairly close to the original - just expanded a little on it. I think it still has enough atmospheric scenes and liked that you get to see more aboard the Elizabeth Dane, although that also humanizes the lepers more and make them less scary perhaps.

Friday the 13th - It was more of a reboot probably. I liked the idea of the tunnels Jason uses to get around and generally it was a fun return to the atmosphere of the early Friday the 13ths (before he went to Manhattan and outer space).

The Grudge - There's a big difference between the theatrical version and director's cut, it's only a couple of minutes - but these make all the difference. I saw it in the theatre at a premiere attended by Sarah Michelle Gellar, but it disappointed somewhat, yet the director's cut was a big improvement.

House of Wax (2005) - The main new idea is silly (the house is actually made of wax), but on the whole I think it was fun. The film looks very good and takes it time building things up without becoming slow.

The Last House on the Left - Technically a huge improvement over the original, it lacks that really sick atmosphere, but instead becomes a satisfying and tense thriller.

Let me in - About equal with its original, certainly for emotional impact, although I like the setting of the original a bit more. And that one had also a scene with loads of cats that didn't make the remake.

Poltergeist - Again in the minority. It adds only one new ingredient really (a drone with a camera that can fly into the spirit realm), but still I quite like it. I though it was just such a nice family and the use of 3D (the drone) added more than usual. Not as good as the original, but about on par with its sequels.

Silent House - Have not seen the original, but I did like the one-take thing - I suppose real time does help to put you a little more into the action (similar with Hitchcock's Rope). And the first film I saw with Elizabeth Olsen who's really good and always chooses dark roles like this.

Sisters - I've only seen it because it was on demand here, there isn't a dvd sadly. This was a pretty good remake of De Palma's film. The thing I never liked about De Palma's film is the sequence toward the end in black and white - maybe because that feels more amateurish than the rest of the film. Here it was done differently and more to my taste.

Sorority Row - This one I like a LOT. I really like the comedy which is quite understated (some people don't catch it all) and well delivered by the cast. And of course it has Carrie Fisher as the house mother who tries to shoot the killer in a great scene. Also the plot is rather solid.

The Wolfman - Also loved this one. In colour it feels more Hammer than Universal, but that isn't a bad thing. You can tell there were some script problems probably: especially Gwen's (Emily Blunt) role doesn't feel worked out wel. But on the whole I just loved the look and feel of it. It also proves you can be both atmospheric AND very gory in a horrorfilm - doesn't have to necessarily be either one or the other.

Funnily a remake that is generally regarded as one of the best ones, Zack Snyder's Dawn of the Dead, I didn't like at all. First I felt since it was based on Romero the zombies shouldn't run, but secondly because they skipped the whole tv-station/housing project/helicopter part and go straight to the mall, you don't feel the scope of the zombie-apocalypse. It also feels too cartoonish often to me - despite the subject there is a certain realism about the original - the result of it being filmed on actual locations in a non-Hollywoodmanner I think.

So, those were mine, what are yours?

 

[DiO'Bolic]

The Thing and The Fly were probably the best remakes I've seen.

 

[Gerald]

The Thing and The Fly were probably the best remakes I've seen.

And of the more recent ones?

 

[DiO'Bolic]

And of the more recent ones?

I’ve seen the originals and the remakes with Kurt Russell and Jeff Goldblum, and thought them far superior to the originals. Haven’t seen any subsequent remakes.

 

[Gerald]

I’ve seen the originals and the remakes with Kurt Russell and Jeff Goldblum, and thought them far superior to the originals. Haven’t seen any subsequent remakes.

I didn't mean further remakes of those two.

What I'm curious about is which remakes of roughly the last twenty years people like - since it became a trend in Hollywood to remake just about everything. Remakes like The Thing or The Fly I know are classics and many people like them.

Actually I forgot to mention The Thing (2001), but I don't feel it's really a remake, it's a prequel. It was just marketed as a remake. I liked it a lot - sure not as great as Carpenter's - but as a companion piece it works, imo.

 

[Holly Gibney]

An excellent question! I'm struggling to think of any great horror remakes, especially if we are concentrating on the modern trend for remakes that we have seen over the last couple of decades. I'm sure there have been some - my problem is that I don't pay nearly as much attention to movies as most people do. Believe it or not, I haven't even been to the cinema this century!

Of the films that you mention in your first post, Gerald, the only one I have seen is The Grudge, starring Sarah Michelle Gellar. I enjoyed it, but but not nearly as much as the Japanese original. However, I couldn't tell you whether the version I saw was the theatrical release or the director's cut, so perhaps it is actually a better film than I realised.

Looking through the Wikipedia article, I notice that someone has remade the Rocky Horror Picture Show! Surely not? Has anybody seen the new version, and what did they make of it?

The only other thing I can add at the moment is that Lauren Ambrose (the actor whose performance you praised in Coma) was one of the main characters in Six Feet Under, and is one of the nicest people you could ever hope to meet! In person, she is modest, genuinely kindhearted and sweet-natured.

 

[danie]

Halloween 1978 is dear to my heart; however, I thought the Zombie remake was actually pretty good. Surprised even myself.

 

[fljoe0]

I think the 1978 Invasion Of The Body Snatchers is a very good remake.


The oddest remake was Gus Van Sant's Psycho. It was basically a shot for shot remake. I didn't understand the point of doing that.

 

[GNTLGNT]

 

[80sFan]

I like the Carrie remake with Chloe Moretz (sp?). Still like the original better, but I thought the newest version was a good fit for this generation.

 

[skimom2]

Funny Games is basically a shot for shot remake of the German original. It's horrifying if, like me, home invasion scares the crap out of you. Other than that, I'm not much of a fan of remakes. The Thing (Carpenter) and The Fly were very well done, but you've ruled those out Let Me In was okay, but the Swedish original was better, I thought. I''ve seen most of the rest you listed (horror junkie with eternal hope that the next one will be good), but none really captured me.

EDIT: Just looked at the wiki page and realized that I'd forgotten a couple Maniac and The Evil Dead were very good!

 

[ghost19]

Halloween 1978 is dear to my heart; however, I thought the Zombie remake was actually pretty good. Surprised even myself.

Agreed. I liked both Rob Zombie sequels. What they lacked in eerie atmosphere, he made up for it with sheer brutality and gore. Casting Tyler Mane as Michael Myers was genius, imho.

 

[Gerald]

Of the films that you mention in your first post, Gerald, the only one I have seen is The Grudge, starring Sarah Michelle Gellar. I enjoyed it, but but not nearly as much as the Japanese original. However, I couldn't tell you whether the version I saw was the theatrical release or the director's cut, so perhaps it is actually a better film than I realised.

Here's the comparison between the two cuts: Grudge, The (Comparison: Theatrical Version - Unrated Director's Cut) - Movie-Censorship.com
I would say the director's cut is just more intense.

Probably the best part is the opening scene with the attic. I saw this on a huge screen and it was one of those moments that sent the whole audience to the ceiling. The opening is so good, that the rest of the film actually lives a little in the shadow of it, it never manages such a shock again.

 

[Gerald]

The oddest remake was Gus Van Sant's Psycho. It was basically a shot for shot remake. I didn't understand the point of doing that.

I think the point was, what would it look like if Hitchcock made it nowadays and in colour. I actually quite enjoyed it, it is not exactly shot by shot, it is more scene by scene. If you look at the shower scene for example, you notice there is now an exterior shot in it. So there are subtle differences.
Also it could show things Hitchcock couldn't, like Norman masturbating while spying on Marion.

I liked the casting (especially Anne Heche felt exactly right), I think everyone was pretty good in it. And there is a Red Hot Chili Pepper in it!
But I can see why people didn't see the point.

 

[Gerald]

I like the Carrie remake with Chloe Moretz (sp?). Still like the original better, but I thought the newest version was a good fit for this generation.

I feel at least Moretz and Moore are very good in it, but the rest of the cast is pretty forgettable. And there are three Carrie adaptations now, but they never film the scene at the church after she leaves the prom.

 

[Gerald]

EDIT: Just looked at the wiki page and realized that I'd forgotten a couple Maniac and The Evil Dead were very good!

Haven't seen Maniac, but The Evil Dead remake did little for me. It wasn't bad, but I found it very average. It's probably too polished looking, the charm of the original is there is a raw feel to it. Also it probably misses the humour - the first doesn't have outright humour like the later two, but somehow you can feel it underneath already - there is something darkly funny about the whole situation - it's no surprise they went for full comedy after that. The remake feels a bit 'dry'. Also I felt once the carnage starts, it doesn't keep continuously going as much as in the original.

 

[fljoe0]

I think the point was, what would it look like if Hitchcock made it nowadays and in colour. I actually quite enjoyed it, it is not exactly shot by shot, it is more scene by scene. If you look at the shower scene for example, you notice there is now an exterior shot in it. So there are subtle differences.
Also it could show things Hitchcock couldn't, like Norman masturbating while spying on Marion.

I liked the casting (especially Anne Heche felt exactly right), I think everyone was pretty good in it. And there is a Red Hot Chili Pepper in it!
But I can see why people didn't see the point.

Which Chili Pepper is in it? Flea?

I saw this way back when it was originally released and didn't understand the point. I might give it another go someday because since I saw this, I have become a fan of the oddness of Gus Van Sant's films. Movies like Paranoid Park, Elephant and Last Days bore people because they are so slow. But if you give these films a chance and pay attention, there's a lot going on between the lines in these films and I think they are very good (many do not share my opinion ). So I would like to watch this again through my fan of Gus Van Sant lens.

 

[Gerald]

Which Chili Pepper is in it? Flea?

Yes, Michael Balzary!
I think the main reason to watch it is the acting, you do get new interpretations of the parts at least. When you think about it, it is kind of surprising it was greenlit, they could have expected these reactions of people not seeing the point. It's hard to see who it was made for, apart maybe for someone like me who enjoys the subtle differences.

 

[Holly Gibney]

For the past twenty-four hours I have been trying to think of horror remakes that were better than the original, and I still haven't come up with anything! There are plenty of remakes that are fairly good and perfectly enjoyable in themselves - in fact, this category is huge - but none (IMO) that surpass the original.

Thinking about it, this is perhaps not surprising. Filmmaking is a very conservative industry. They repeat whatever was successful in the past and are terrified of deviating from it, because of the enormous amounts of money that are on the line. Consequently, anyone who suggested remaking a poor film would have their suggestion shot down very quickly. They take the safer option of remaking classics, because they are guaranteed to draw a large audience, and then they almost inevitably fail to recapture that intangible magic that made the original so good in the first place.

Well, those are my thoughts for today, folks. Two modern remakes that I haven't yet seen but would like to are The Wicker Man and The Ring. Has anybody seen them, and did you enjoy them? How do they measure up to their mighty predecessors?

Exceptions for the "remake never as good as the original" rule might be things like Dracula or Frankenstein, which have been filmed countless times. This feels like cheating a bit, as they are not so much "remaking" the previous film, but rather just making their own independent adaptation of a great book. Still, Christopher Lee was certainly not the first person to play ol' pointy teeth, but his version was probably the best.

 

[Gerald]

Two modern remakes that I haven't yet seen but would like to are The Wicker Man and The Ring. Has anybody seen them, and did you enjoy them? How do they measure up to their mighty predecessors?

The Ring is very good, The Wicker Man is one of the absolute worst if not THE worst - watch at your own peril, but the trailer will give you some idea of how bad it is.

Some of the best remakes have been total re-inventions like The Fly, or The Thing.
Even Cat People has only one scene that really replicates the original: the scene in the swimming pool - and even that is different as Annette O'Toole doesn't wear a top. Apart from that they added a lot of (explicit) eroticism and made the cat people incestuous (wonder if that inspired SK's Sleepwalkers). Also the main characters now work at the zoo, where in the original Irena only visited the zoo. So lots of big changes.

But it seems other times a remake just has to be made very well, like Peter Jackson's King Kong which doesn't do anything radically new (well, maybe the scene on the frozen pond near the end), but is just a technical triumph. Or Let me In which mainly changes the location.
So essentially it just needs to be a good film, close to the original or not.

The thing about classics is you can't plan to make a classic. It's all the right people coming together at the same time having exactly the right ideas. The chances that happens again with a remake are very slim.