Not all horror remakes are bad.

[TomServoFan]

With so much negativity towards them, what about these ones?

The Thing.
The Fly.
The Blob.
Dawn of the Dead.
The Hills Have Eyes.
Last House on The Left.
The Ring.
Peter Jackson's King Kong.
Cat People.
Invasion of the Body Snatchers 1978.

All excellent ones, now Friday The 13th doesn't count as a remake, it's really more of another sequel in the series.

Some decent ones:
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
Halloween.
Night of the Living Dead.
The Amityville Horror.
House on Haunted Hill.
Thi13een Ghosts.

Bad ones:
Psycho.
The Fog.
The Wicker Man.
Etc.

I think the new Elm Street deserves a chance.

[The Zapper]

I don't agree with everything on your lists, but I agree that Elm Street deserves a chance. I actually have some high hopes for it.

[Jared]

The recent Friday the 13th was a remake. I don't understand how one could think otherwise.

[jesse_custer]

I don't have a problem with remakes. I just don't like watching the same fucking movie again or an even shittier one--that's why I don't like Psycho or The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, respectively.

A Nightmare on Elm Street is a silly idea, and it took filmmakers three tries to make a suitable Elm Street film (I am referring to the hilarious Dream Warriors). If the new Freddy is taking a serious turn, I'll keep my expectations low.

[Sean Walsh]

Peter Jackson's King Kong.

Good lord, that deserves to be on the "bad ones" list. Almost utterly pointless and a drawn-out mess. The 10 minute dinosaur fight was (before I saw the trailers for 2012) the most eye-pornographic thing I'd ever seen.

Of course, I liked Rob Zombie's HALLOWEEN so I might be insane.

Re: Last House on the Left and The Wicker Man........I haven't seen the newer ones, but the originals were TERRIBLE. I've heard bad stuff about Wicker (starring Nic Cage....yeah, it probably sucks) but just glimpses of the newer Last House looks leagues better than the original.

[jesse_custer]

I agree that King Kong sucked. And I don't see how it would be horror. Then again, I was terrified by the incredibly boring first hour and the mastubatory T-Rex extravaganza.

[Phil Clark]

A Nightmare on Elm Street is a silly idea, and it took filmmakers three tries to make a suitable Elm Street film (I am referring to the hilarious Dream Warriors). If the new Freddy is taking a serious turn, I'll keep my expectations low.

Your opinion, not necessarily everyone elses. Some say that the first film was the definitive Freddy, and that subsequent films watered him down to a wise cracking joke that would have been just as happy simply scarring the kids as killing them.

I will be guarded with my expectations, but they aren't necessarily low.

[Sean Walsh]

I think, after his turn in WATCHMEN, Jackie Earle Haley's involvement as Freddy Krueger certainly makes this remake a more notable and worthwhile production.

[jesse_custer]

Haley alone will be interesting.

[Legato]

Some of the names on the list I dont really agree with, Peter Jackson's King Kong IMO wasn't as good as the original.

When it comes to the Nightmare on Elm Street remake I dont like the possible idea that Freddy could be innocent of his crimes from what I gather from the trailer. However I like Haley from Watchmen, his performance as Freddy would make the remake a enjoyable film

[The Black Guardian]

With so much negativity towards them, what about these ones?
The Thing
Better than the original. Needed to be made for the excellent special effects, at least.

The Fly
At least as good as the original. And the special effects: (see above).

The Blob
Just bad. Original was bad too.

Dawn of the Dead
The world was not made better by this.

The Hills Have Eyes
Nor this.

Last House on The Left
Nor this.

The Ring
I'll stick with the original.

Peter Jackson's King Kong
Was nowhere as good as the original. Shouldn't have been made. Questionably horror. Sure, a giant ape is kind of scary, but that doesn't make it horror.

Cat People
Horrible.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers 1978
I never cared for the original, but this one I liked and parts of it still haunt my thoughts.

All excellent ones, now Friday The 13th doesn't count as a remake, it's really more of another sequel in the series.
How was it not a remake?

Some decent ones:
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
Halloween.
Night of the Living Dead.
The Amityville Horror.
House on Haunted Hill.
Thi13een Ghosts.
None of these was decent, imo. Sorry.

I think the new Elm Street deserves a chance.
Depends entirely upon whether or not they're going to do something new and interesting.

[JCAll]

The recent Friday the 13th was a remake. I don't understand how one could think otherwise.

People just seem to mentally register The Friday the 13th remake as F13 Part 11. As opposed to the Halloween remake, which does everything it can to set itself apart from the rest of the series.

Anyway, on the subjct of good remaks, I say Children of the Corn. Sure the first half was soul crushingly horrible, but the seond half was excellent. Almost as good as the original and closer to the book. They never showed He Who Walks Behind The Rows though, and that kind of screwed up the climax.

Also, I'm given to undestand that they intend to remake the Fly again. And I have hope for this one, unlike the Blob remake, because I hear th guy in charge of the last Fly remake is involved. Which gives me faith in remake I haven't had since Clive Barker was taken off th Hellraiser remake.

[AdamYJ]

I agree that King Kong sucked. And I don't see how it would be horror. Then again, I was terrified by the incredibly boring first hour and the mastubatory T-Rex extravaganza.

King Kong is more like fantasy adventure.

The thing about "monster" movies is that they can fall into any of three genres. Horror, Sci-Fi or Fantasy. I'd argue that The Fly, The Blob and The Thing From Another World would be more accurately labelled Sci-Fi as well.

My problem with people remaking old monster movies is that people now feel they have to add gore and other disgusting stuff to it. As far as I can see, that stuff is unnecessary.

[Hoss]

I was terrified by the incredibly boring first hour and the mastubatory T-Rex extravaganza.

This film, like Gangs of New York and The Piano, would have benefitted greatly from masturbating T-Rexes.

[Hoss]

Psycho.



Since you guys seem to be obsessed with talking about masturbation, this remake is the perfect example of how thin the line between subtle and overt can be

[jesse_custer]

King Kong is more like fantasy adventure.

The thing about "monster" movies is that they can fall into any of three genres. Horror, Sci-Fi or Fantasy. I'd argue that The Fly, The Blob and The Thing From Another World would be more accurately labelled Sci-Fi as well.

My problem with people remaking old monster movies is that people now feel they have to add gore and other disgusting stuff to it. As far as I can see, that stuff is unnecessary.

I agree about The Fly and the others you mentioned as far as being classified as science fiction, but I can understand their inclusion. Not King Kong's, though (the remake anyway). The Host would probably fit the description of horror, but it's also a drama/comedy. Fucking weird.

This film, like Gangs of New York and The Piano, would have benefitted greatly from masturbating T-Rexes.

Gangs of New York has Daniel Day-Lewis, so it must be forgiven for any faults. The Piano is pretty goddamn boring for an hour or so before becoming utterly depraved, which I enjoy. There are certainly many better and worse movies than these two. Peter Jackson's ape film is worse.

[Monty_Cristo]

People just seem to mentally register The Friday the 13th remake as F13 Part 11. As opposed to the Halloween remake, which does everything it can to set itself apart from the rest of the series.

Anyway, on the subjct of good remaks, I say Children of the Corn. Sure the first half was soul crushingly horrible, but the seond half was excellent. Almost as good as the original and closer to the book. They never showed He Who Walks Behind The Rows though, and that kind of screwed up the climax.

Also, I'm given to undestand that they intend to remake the Fly again. And I have hope for this one, unlike the Blob remake, because I hear th guy in charge of the last Fly remake is involved. Which gives me faith in remake I haven't had since Clive Barker was taken off th Hellraiser remake.

they will never outdo Jeff Goldblum's performance as Seth Brundle.

[Frank]

Yes all remakes are bad. Because that's all they're doing now and the talent that are doing it are subpar video directors. It's this wave of mediocrity.

Don't bring in The Fly and The Thing into this since they're exceptions done by great directors at a time when studios where....real studios. They were making movies, not selling you a product.

[StoneGold]

The recent Friday the 13th was a remake. I don't understand how one could think otherwise.

Honestly, it felt more like what they do with the Godzilla series every couple decades, keep the first movie, ignore all the sequels and start over. I don't know what you call that.

[StoneGold]

Don't bring in The Fly and The Thing into this since they're exceptions done by great directors at a time when studios where....real studios. They were making movies, not selling you a product.

And if you really believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you. Studios have always been about selling product. By the time Universal made The Thing, they already had the Jaws shark scaring tourists at Universal Studios. By the time The Fly came out, Fox had the network. Don't kid yourself into thinking that the stuff that came out when you were a kid was high art with a purpose.

[Frank]

And if you really believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you. Studios have always been about selling product. By the time Universal made The Thing, they already had the Jaws shark scaring tourists at Universal Studios. By the time The Fly came out, Fox had the network. Don't kid yourself into thinking that the stuff that came out when you were a kid was high art with a purpose.

The fact that they had Jaws tourings to make money and entertain people didn't make them be something other than an old school studio still. Sure they would make money, heck Disney had Disney World in the 50s for instances, there was toys and were planning big things but the bottom line was fun and creativity. Walt was all about making this the greatest experience for everybody, he was a visionary. Making money and be creative I have no problem with. They can go hand-in-hand. What we have right now is not that. Because the source, the spark is not creativity, that's the main difference of how it used to be done. Now it starts from a corporation, not from creative types. It's accountants running the movie studios, it's about charts and demographics. It's not about bringing the fans to the wildest ride we're gonna have. It's about cold numbers. And it's the same thing with the music industry too. There's no place for creative freedom.

After that they wonder why the music and movies are suffering at the box office and so forth and they blame the internet. But no it's just that people are not inspired to go see the same regurgitated crap. In music you will never see another Beatles or another David Bowie even because of how the corporate structure is designed.

[jesse_custer]

StoneGold is right. The studios are about money, period. The director, on the other hand, can be more artistically inclined, especially if he or she has final cut privilege. David Cronenberg has a good bit of sway as a creative force (I'm not sure if he has final cut privilege), but when test audiences reacted very negatively to a scene in The Fly where Goldblum kills a baboon-cat and chews off an extra appendage, the scene was cut. So depending on the context, great directors like Cronenberg, Sam Peckinpah, and so forth can and have been overruled by others, which is a shame.

[Fatguy]

I thought the Dawn of the Dead remake was much, MUCH better than I was expecting. The original is one of my all time favorites so I was sure I would hate the remake. Also, I enjoyed the Friday the 13th remake. I thought it was fun.

Also, The Hills Have Eyes was ok, I enjoyed Shimizu's American remake of his own movie the Grudge. I liked Sorority Row, although it falls into the "So bad it's good" category so I dont know if that counts....

Other than that, they tend to be terrible. Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Fog, Amityville Horror, Black Christmas, Halloween, pretty much every horror movie remake from Asian cinema, etc....all terrible.

[Alex]

With so much negativity towards them, what about these ones?

The Hills Have Eyes.

Peter Jackson's King Kong.



Halloween.

.
Those were still bad.
King Kong was really really bad.
The Hills Have Eyes was more predicatable then the average slasher flick, and was also bad.
And Halloween added a bunch of bad, unneeded, uninteresting back story.

So, thats why there is so much negativity. A lot of these remakes are unneeded, and most are bad.

(The ones i didn't coment on doesn't mean i thought they were good, i didn't see a lot of them or didn't like the originals.)

[JohnPopa]

In the end, it's probably better to view the classics of our era as the classics from other eras -- as iconic stories meant to be rediscovered and reimagined time after time. That doesn't mean all the new versions will be good, of course, but great horror becomes myth as much as anything and I don't see the point in suggesting that because something's filmed that it becomes utterly set in stone.

Surely, there's more to be remade than the things who's source material has fallen out of copyright, no?

If we're going to assert, as many horror fans including myself do, that Freddy Krueger and Michael Meyers deserve to be in a pantheon of great monsters with Dracula and Frankenstein, then we're also going to have to accept that they'll be reimagined over time.

Of course many people are content to watch the original Universal "Dracula" and loathe the rest but why pull the plug on Hammer Films simply because of a moral outrage over making another Dracula or Frankenstein movie?

[Monty_Cristo]

the Wolfman ought to be good. but i will definately wait and see before judging.

[Tobias March]

There should be a statue of limitations on the length of time between remakes. Highlander and Nightmare on Elm Street? Really? I'm not that old.

Plus Van Sant's Psycho I choose to view was a pretentious art installation that cinema owners were tricked into showing.

[Legato]

the Wolfman ought to be good. but i will definately wait and see before judging.

My expectations on the Wolfman movie is high considering who is incharge of the movie.

[Monty_Cristo]

My expectations on the Wolfman movie is high considering who is incharge of the movie.

i've gotta admit that he does sort of look like lon chaney jr; mopey-faced. i just hope that this doesn't start the Twilight-ization of werewolves. :biggrin:

[Captain_Video]

StoneGold is right. The studios are about money, period. The director, on the other hand, can be more artistically inclined, especially if he or she has final cut privilege. David Cronenberg has a good bit of sway as a creative force (I'm not sure if he has final cut privilege), but when test audiences reacted very negatively to a scene in The Fly where Goldblum kills a baboon-cat and chews off an extra appendage, the scene was cut. So depending on the context, great directors like Cronenberg, Sam Peckinpah, and so forth can and have been overruled by others, which is a shame.

To be fair the Monkey-Cat sequence if included in The Fly, would have killed all the momentum and would have just been really, really wierd, the scene really doesn't fit in the movie.

I am not a fan of test screenings but often a Director can be indulgent and a test screening "can" on rare occasions point this out.

I think the adage of pick your battles is best, know the point you are trying to make and then if a punch comes along you roll with it and get back on track.

On the subject of Remakes, I don't really like them, however it seems to be important for each generation to have their interpretation of classic stories, so I am now at a point of "Well, it won't be as good as the original, but why not see what todays film-makers make of the concept".

This generation never got the chance to see the Texas Chainsaw Massacre in the time of its initial infamy, it seems they want their own version, like wearing Mum or Dad's coat on a night out, or retro clothes, its their own version of an idealised past, all souped up and modernised, it misses the point, but they have a good time....remakes will not destroy anything I have come to realise.

There is plenty of great original horror out there and many more sequels, so the remakes, sort of don't matter really, just keeping the franchises alive.

Of course the fact the films ARE getting better, at last, after what seems like a long slump is a big factor in my more laid back view of remakes, as long as there are good alternatives to see, they can keep the remakes coming and let the kids have their diet coke version of Freddy, or Jason.

Kids trying on Mum and Dad's shoes.

[Legato]

i've gotta admit that he does sort of look like lon chaney jr; mopey-faced. i just hope that this doesn't start the Twilight-ization of werewolves. :biggrin:

When I was watching the movie Zombieland the trailers that was showing before the movie came on was New Moon and The Wolfman. The general reaction concerning the Wolfman movie was pretty positive. Some of the people in the movie theater even commented that it has potential to be scary.

On New Moon I heard some groaning and laughter, especially during some of the dramatic scenes.

What The Wolfman has going for it is that it atleast have people in the movie that can actually act.

[Fatguy]

The Wolfman movie looks fantastic. I definitely have high hopes.

[AdamYJ]

the Wolfman ought to be good. but i will definately wait and see before judging.

I've decided that if it's good or not won't really matter for me in the long run. Why? Because I still have my original Wolf Man DVD. If it's good, then that's great. If it's not, then that's unfortunate. However, I can still watch the classic version anytime.

[Legato]

I've decided that if it's good or not won't really matter for me in the long run. Why? Because I still have my original Wolf Man DVD. If it's good, then that's great. If it's not, then that's unfortunate. However, I can still watch the classic version anytime.

I feel the same way when it comes to the Elm Street Remake. No matter how it does in theaters, at the end of the day, I still say the original will always be superior and Englund will always be Freddy.

[art of martial arts]

I feel the same way when it comes to the Elm Street Remake. No matter how it does in theaters, at the end of the day, I still say the original will always be superior and Englund will always be Freddy.

QFT. The fact that Wes Craven alone isn't involved is enough to get the feeling that this remake will suck. Sadly I'm still going to go see it :frown: .

[invisiboy]

Why are so many people hating on the Peter Jackson remake of King Kong? Jack Black's "acting" aside, I thought it was great. Was it a horror movie? No, but it was a solid film.

Now, the 1977 version, that sucked.

[jesse_custer]

Why are so many people hating on the Peter Jackson remake of King Kong?

Because it's a boring, mastubatory piece of shit with bad acting, dialogue, and direction.

[HectorP]

I was mostly a 90s kid so I can't be too hard on that decade's Body Snatchers, it was creepy enough to me.

[Simbob4000]

I think, after his turn in WATCHMEN, Jackie Earle Haley's involvement as Freddy Krueger certainly makes this remake a more notable and worthwhile production.

After his turn in Watchmen? That movie was shit, and he was doing more interesting things in other movies.

[Monty_Cristo]

i still think they should remake Slaughter High. but it's because it had an awesome soudtrack. i want to hear an updated version of the theme song. and the next time they do a remake of one of those 80s slashers, i think they should try to make it look like the 80s (hairstyles, clothing, etc). that might make it somewhat scarier.

[supamike]

Wasnt a fan of the last house on the left.The hills have eyes wasnt that bad.

[mailedbypostman1]

The Thing.
You do know they're making a remake of it too?

[Simbob4000]

Yes all remakes are bad. Because that's all they're doing now and the talent that are doing it are subpar video directors. It's this wave of mediocrity.

Don't bring in The Fly and The Thing into this since they're exceptions done by great directors at a time when studios where....real studios. They were making movies, not selling you a product.

What? HAHAHAHA...oh, no, no, no, no, no...studios stopped being "real studios" when the families that owned them stopped running them. And that was before stuff like The Fly and The Thing ever came out.

[Simbob4000]

You do know they're making a remake of it too?

It's being made by Cronenberg.

[Gilda Dent]

All excellent ones, now Friday The 13th doesn't count as a remake, it's really more of another sequel in the series.

Sure it's a remake. The plot has been extensively reworked, using elements from the first three originals as needed, with the bulk of the newest version coming from Part 2. They use a technique that's become somewhat common lately - doing a soft reboot by relegating the origin story, which everyone already knows anyway, to a quick opening sequence to set up the bulk of the story and get directly into the action. The My Bloody Valentine remake did the same thing.

The reimagined Friday the 13th is, IMO, better than any of the series that came before it, at least of those that I've seen. This isn't to say that it's good - better than the original series is a pretty low hurdle to clear - but as far as dead teenager movies go, it delivered what one expects about as well as it could be expected. It was actually kinda fun to see someone stand up to Jason and slug it out with him rather than running, hiding, and screaming until everyone but the final girl is dead.

I doubt if I'll see the Nightmare remake in the theater, but I'll definitely be giving it a look-see on DVD.

[Romero]

Finally saw the Dawn of the Dead remake on Hulu. It was alright. The legless zombie climbing overhead made me laugh a bunch.

However, I thought it was, traditionally, ANYONE who died would zombify, regardless of how they died?

[Nyssane]

i still think they should remake Slaughter High. but it's because it had an awesome soudtrack. i want to hear an updated version of the theme song. and the next time they do a remake of one of those 80s slashers, i think they should try to make it look like the 80s (hairstyles, clothing, etc). that might make it somewhat scarier.

Be still my heart, Monty. When I think I can't love you any more, you come out with your Slaughter High love. :biggrin: SH's a classic!

[TomServoFan]

What do you think of the Hills Have Eyes remakes everyone? excellent one that outdoes the original.

And what about these modern times horror flicks like Scream, Saw, Hostel, Grindhouse, Martyrs, Inside, and others?

[Phil Clark]

I have a bad feeling that we will eventually see "Saw 100: Jigsaws really really really final revenge, really". :eek:

[mgs]

Your opinion, not necessarily everyone elses. Some say that the first film was the definitive Freddy, and that subsequent films watered him down to a wise cracking joke that would have been just as happy simply scarring the kids as killing them.

true, but without them, w wouldn't have gotten the fabulous Simpson's annual Horror episode! :wink:

Haley alone will be interesting.
didn't they say the same of Watchmen?

[Monty_Cristo]

Be still my heart, Monty. When I think I can't love you any more, you come out with your Slaughter High love. :biggrin: SH's a classic!

it's one of those i own bootleg because of nostalgia and appreciation of entertainingly bad acting (i felt bad for Caroline Munro). the original House on Sorority Row is the other. it has a similar feel to it.

[Monty_Cristo]

What do you think of the Hills Have Eyes remakes everyone? excellent one that outdoes the original.

And what about these modern times horror flicks like Scream, Saw, Hostel, Grindhouse, Martyrs, Inside, and others?

i'm torn on it. i hated the original Hills Have Eyes movie. and i happen to own and not really like the remake and it's sequel (strangely). it's just not my type of movie i guess. unfortunately i didn't realize this until after watching all of the Wrong Turn and Texas Chainsaw Massacre movies. the Hills Have Eyes remake was well done for what it was, though. Aaron Stanford gave a great performance. i wasn't bored by it. the deformed hill people were dangerous enough.

on another note, i really liked the movie 'The Cottage' with Andy Serkis.

[Monty_Cristo]

separate from this issue of old movie being remade...i miss tom savini-like special effects. i know they are pricey but i'll take'em over cgi 9 times out of 10.