Review Awful Remakes?

Doctor Omega

Member: Rank 10

Those times when these idiot remakers got it particularly, dreadfully WRONG!

Name and shame the ones you particularly loathe here! :emoji_alien:

Wait a minute though....

Maybe you enjoyed it!

Explain why here too! :emoji_alien:

Maybe it had some qualities that got overlooked during all the critical mud-slinging?

And don't worry. You are safe and won't be judged.


Last edited:


Member: Rank 3
Not a remake, as both movie versions are individual adaptations of the same book, but I prefer the newer version of "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" over the older one.

Believe me, I do enjoy many aspects of the older movie, but I get a lot more enjoyment from the newer one. Tim Burton was a prime candidate for bringing a Roald Dahl book to life, as both he and Roald Dahl don't shy away from making strange surreal stories, and he made a spectacular film, in my opinion. In the older movie, most of the time it was too light-hearted, and the few times it tried to be strange and surreal (boat ride scene in particular) it made me wonder if the filmmakers were on drugs when they filmed those scenes. The newer movie gets the tone just right, for the most part.

If there's one thing I didn't like about the newer one, it was Johnny Depp's portrayal of Willy Wonka. It wasn't bad. It was actually quite enjoyable. But it was a bit too over the top. In contrast, I think Gene Wilder wasn't over the top enough. So I think neither actor got the character right. There's a Willy Wonka I see in my head when I read the book. A Willy Wonka that is completely different from Gene Wilder and Johnny Depo. And that Willy Wonka in my head is the perfect Willy Wonka.

Doctor Omega

Member: Rank 10
I heard there was no point in watching it, as it's a scene-for-scene recreation of the original.
It is, more or less, but my approach to it is that - in the same way that a song can have a cover version by a different orchestra - so this film is a cover version of the original. And a cover version can happily come and go without damaging the integrity of the original in any way, so I was never angry at the concept of the PSYCHO remake in the first place, more intrigued and curious.

It does bring new things to the table. Colour and some performances are arguably better than the originals and some worse.

But no, I do like it. but still love the original. Anthony Perkins is just totally irreplaceable in that iconic role though i.m.o.

It was either brave or foolish of Vince to try and have a go at it, though his interpretation has it's moments in my opinion.

Heck, I just find it watchable and not the cinematic pariah that it has been labelled as. Just my opinion though. :)


Member: Rank 1
Okay, I don't PREFER it, but I DO like the PSYCHO remake of 1998.

And it has now reached the stage where I may well have watched it more times than the original!

Oh, the shame! :(
I like that one too. Also I enjoyed the new Ghostbusters movie, it's not better than the original but it wasn't horrible. Though I think Kate McKinnon was the best part. Found myself laughing a few times at Chris Hemsworth's himbo character too.

Doctor Omega

Member: Rank 10
Actually, I know that I am not alone with the following one, but I do prefer the 1978 version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers to the original one and find it much more watchable.

I didn't really go on the 1993 or 2007 versions as much though.

Hey, isn't it about time that they remade this film? :)

Alex Vojacek

Staff member
Oh.. don't get me started with The Invasion.
That movie had SUCH A WONDERFUL start... for f@## sake.. why would you ruin it with the vomit stuff and the useless car chase at the end !


Member: Rank 1
Kind of drawing a blank on remakes that I'm supposed to hate but actually love. And I'm not considering movies like Scarface (1983) or the 70's remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers, because those are rare instances of where the remake outshines the original.

I do like Rob Zombie's Halloween remakes. And those get a lot of hate (and probably rightfully so), but nevertheless, I do enjoy them even if I don't care for Zombie's attempt to make Myers more human than Carpenter's.


Member: Rank 8

I love the Rat Pack, and still really love the original flick. But I also know that the original was really only made as a way for all those guys to hang out in Vegas and get paid for it, and it shows. It's slow, with very little pay off by the end. However, I overlook it because of the charisma of the actors and how much fun they seem to be having making it.

The remake is flashy, fast-paced, and by rights, probably shouldn't work. But again, you have a charismatic cast who genuinely seem to be having fun making this film. There is some great, witty dialogue, good chemistry between characters, and it's beautifully shot.


Member: Rank 3
I actually thought that the 2014 updated version of Annie was pretty good. I grew up on the 1999 version, and later saw the 1982 version, which I also enjoyed, and I was sceptical when I saw the trailer for the 2014 version, because Annie is my favorite musical. But then I saw the movie, and I actually really enjoyed it.


Member: Rank 2
The Thing From Another World (1951) only used the basic premise from John W Campbell's Novella. John Carpenter's 1982 remake The Thing was far more faithful.

An excellent script by Bill Lancaster and truly astonishing, ground breaking SFX from Rob Bottin. Unfortunately, due to the gruesome effects, audiences stayed away in the millions.

One of the best sci-fi horrors movies of all time.
Last edited: