I Watch 'Em So You Don't Have To

Movie Remakes - Great Idea Or Just Taking Our Money For Nothing?

If there's anything I hate it's a remake, particularly if it was a wonderful movie to start with. Now it's true that I've seen movies I've been really fond of only to find out later they were remakes, but the bankruptcy of Hollywood seemed complete when in an article released a while back they listed no less than 50 films that will be remade by the end of 2013. Some are classics, some were just great movies, and the rest shouldn't have been made in the first place. And their list wasn't even complete - I've seen more and more 'announcements' of remakes or reworkings of former movie ideas that just seem... immoral. So when Tim Forston, an actual movie-goer and savvy critic himself, where I am a stay-at-home movie critic, submitted this I couldn't resist. This is great stuff and as usual Tim is spot on. Read away and think: Is a remake really a good idea, even if they DO manage to improve on the original (which is extremely rare)? You decide...

“When a good movie happens, which it might, on a roll of the dice, once in five years, it’s like this total aberration, a freak of nature like the Grand Canyon, they’re ashamed of it. They can’t wait to remake it in another ten years and f*** it up the way it’s supposed to be.”

That joke, from Lanford Wilson’s play Burn This, sometimes seems like a literal truth, as when 2002′s excellent Spider-Man was remade in mediocre fashion in 2012. But most filmmakers I know acknowledge an unwritten Remake Rule, though perhaps it’s breached as often as observed.

If the unwritten rule could be written, it would go something like this: A film may be remade when it represents a great idea that wasn’t fully realized the first time OR when its realization has become so dated as to have lost its appeal to a modern audience. Classics, no matter what the temptation, should not be remade. If you’re so shallow you can’t project yourself back in time to enjoy Casablanca or Gone With the Wind or All About Eve as is, just stay home and watch Jersey Shore because it turns out you’re an idiot. The classic rule can occasionally be negated by dated special effects, but it usually doesn’t work out. The 1933 King Kong does look a little stagy and dinky now, but it’s still a better movie than any version that followed.

All this comes to mind because I saw Total Recall the other day. In my opinion, despite what some critics say, this picture was in need of a remake. The 1990 version has an excellent script but is weighed down by Arnold Schwarzenegger — whom I like but who is asked here to play an ordinary guy, which is absurd. The muscles, enormous head and funny accent make the whole picture seem sort of outsized and cheesy. What could have been a brilliant Blade Runner-style classic if it had starred Harrison Ford becomes instead a good-but-dated action film. This made it seem like the perfect candidate for a remake. Did the remake work? Nah. But given the reviews it got from critics and audience alike, I think it's important to note: The new one doesn’t suck. Fun and dumb, I’d say. Mindless and a little passionless but not boring. If I were ten and had a slow Saturday afternoon to kill, I’d have thought it was really good.

Or maybe not. In the lobby after the show, I overheard two boys talking, maybe ten years old, the film’s perfect target audience. They were discussing eagerly some of the cool moments… from the original 1990 version! Oops. So the movie may not be in violation of the remake rule, but clearly didn’t accomplish what it set out to do. Maybe Lanford Wilson was right, and they were just trying to mess it up.

Thank you once again Tim for a great take on what I've always thought - don't screw with somebody else's idea - even if you think you can do it better. Nobody's going to pay attention to that, and more remakes are coming up, but it feels good to say it.