An annoying feature in modern film is the obsession with rehashing everything. Some films work really nicely with a new coat of paint, but there are also those that just spit on their predecessors. These are those films that only exist to make a quick buck out of a respected name.
#10 Conan the Barbarian (2011) (3/10) Original: 7/10
Is this allowed to be on here? It's not a remake as such, but it did relaunch the franchise of the same name, then subsequently ruin it. For that reason it qualifies for this list, and that's good, because I will enjoy moaning about this terrible, terrible film. I don't know what happened to the original 'Conan' film, but I would of like to have seen some aspects of the original in this version. I don't think director Marcus Nispel ever once saw the original as he completely missed the mark when it came to the titular role that was once occupied by Arnold Schwarzenegger. The once feared barbarian has now been reduced to a poor man's Khal Drogo, and that's not okay with me, especially when it's concerned over a huge role in cinema.
The acting isn't the worst part, that achievement has to go to the directing which takes many pages out of the Michael Bay book of cliches; a book that's about seven million pages long. Instead of a more traditional and intelligent swords and sandals flick, we get a rather nice looking film that lacks any solid content. The acting may be poor, but the lad can hardly help it when the script makes him look like an average thug rather than a fierce warlord. The composition is just hopeless, with the whole plot hinging on a few poorly produced action sequences that the director hopes will distract the viewer from the irrelevant plot and pathetic storytelling. It's a stupid film that I'm glad bombed upon release. It's a lesson that not all terrible films can becomes successful because they're attached to big names, especially when those films feel like a tedious documentary.
#9 Red Dawn (2012) (2/10) Original: 4/10
Don't get me wrong, this is an awful film, but then the original wasn't very good either. However, what the original was is determined by when it was released. The only reason it was effective was because it was a product of its time, and the reworked version fails at getting across that sense of 1980's Cold War paranoia. It almost tries the same tactics as the original, but sticking them on a North Korean invasion just doesn't work, not only because it's poorly explained in the film, but also because in reality it seems like an unlikely event. America has over ten times the population of North Korea, and that's the only thing that sets up this pathetic invasion storyline. If I had watched this before I made my list of worst war films then this should have been included.
Once you get past the terrible premise then you have to criticise the shoddy acting. The stars in this film made their names in Australian soap operas, which becomes apparent very quickly. That was always a pretty dumb move; it would be like replacing Sylvester Stallone with Kylie Minogue in 'Rambo', it just doesn't work. And neither does the rest of the film. A crappy script and a stupid plot mean the attention to detail is unbelievable. There's one scene where the protagonist's cell phone still works after being hit with an EMP. It's points like this that make it seem that not much art and passion went into making this, just the love of money. Overall it's a bucket of political shit that the director tips over the audience. A pointless slaughterhouse to condemn a nation for not being like America. Thank god for some CCR playing in the background, that saved me from madness during the worst moments
#8 Total Recall (2012) (5/10) Original: 8/10
I can't comprehend how you can possibly take a film as good as the original and still manage to screw up the reboot. What was the director thinking? Taking an already polished film and sucking all the life out of it. The original is a classic of the genre and an iconic Schwarzenegger performance; just reading the plot background is enough to make me go weak at the knees. So it was a great disappointment to me when this came out and decided to screw all over that amazing ending and pacing from the original. I hate to say it, but this is just boring. It takes a brilliant idea and mashes it up to the point where it becomes a paste of dullness. It tries to be intellectual and sophisticated, but the audience ends up with a film that's trying to be a lot more intelligent than it actually is.
It's a shame because the foundations were there. The plot centered around lost memories and personalities still has the potential to produce another great script with its futuristic setting, and so I still don't understand how it went this badly wrong. I'd like to put a large fault on to the cast, as the very average Colin Farrell is nothing compared to Schwarzenegger with a totally nonchalant performance. Couple that with the atrocious Jessica Biel and you have actors that end up looking completely lost. Nobody looks like they give a shit, and the feeling of emotion and passion in the original has been replaced by a pointless commercial whore of a film that's both unnecessary and boring.
#7 Charlie & The Chocolate Factory (2005) (5/10) Original: 8/10
At least with this one there was a call to remake it. The original bombed upon release and so it was only fitting for veteran director Tim Burton to give it a new lease of life. Surely with him at the helm and a star-studded cast that included the likes of Johnny Depp it couldn't go wrong, unless of course it inevitably did. I understand why Burton made the creative decisions he did, but some are just inexcusable. Depp's portrayal of chocolatier and professional weirdo Willy Wonka was chief among those problems. A truly bizarre performance that manages to capture none of Wonka's original charm and wonder. Gene Wilder's original performance is a masterpiece compared to Depp's, who at some points feels like more of a asshole than an inspirational person. This new script blackmails the poor, helpless Charlie Bucket into choosing between his family and the factory, which is just a dick move in what should be an inspirational story. Some of the scenes are so creepy that it makes me wonder whether Depp was actually prosecuted for grooming the cast.
As an avid fan of the book I would under no circumstances recommend this film to anyone. For that you have to watch the fun, yet almost dark re-imagining of the original. That version keeps to the story a lot more faithfully than this one, and by watching that you won't risk destroying your childhood over the poorly imagined characters. I don't even want to talk about what happened to the ever lovable Oompa-Loompas, but they sum up the new version in a nutshell. Their appearance is both annoying and unnecessary.
#6 Alice In Wonderland (2010) (4/10) Original: 6/10
Oh look who it is; Tim Burton and Johnny Depp are teaming up to ruin yet another classic. This time I'm not going to shovel the blame onto Depp, as his mad hatter role is at least respectable, if a little questionable. Here the blame has to go to director Tim Burton, who again takes unnecessary risks with simple things like the visuals and the script. Everyone seemed to like the visuals except for me, but you can't deny that the sheer amount of CGI is just not necessary, and it takes away the feeling of the story being an enchanted tale. You certainly can't excuse those petty visuals as a substitute for a decent plot. The film just never gets the balance right between good storytelling and quirky scenes, and that leaves it looking quite bizarre on more than one occasion, with no obvious reason as to why. Things just happen for no reason, and that can be summed up during the final scenes when Alice travels to China, which has nothing to do with anything the film has ever explained to you.
The original book may have been bonkers, but it made perfect sense. This ambles along like some drunk bard, never knowing where to go next and spurting out a load of nonsense in the process. Instead of getting a lovely tale about a confused girl, we get an empowering tribute to overproduction from the perspective of a protagonist that's actually quite annoying, and a horrible contrast to the rest of the polished cast. The idea of 'Wonderland' never once crosses my mind as I watched this, and it ends up feeling like a generic fairytale. The original had an excuse for being rather limited. Technology restraints at the time held that film back. But this film should of been the special film that Lewis Carrol's novel deserves, but it just fell flat.
#5 The Wicker Man (2006) (2/10) Original: 7/10
Probably not the best idea in the world to remake a much loved horror classic into a comedy film. I know it wasn't intended to be a comedy film, but unfortunately it was so badly made that its terrible quality is its only merit. That's something quite offensive when you consider that the original was considered one of the greatest British films of all time, and although I think that's an exaggeration, there is simply no excuse for remaking a film this poorly. The only thing the newer version will be remembered for is the hilariously bad acting of Nicholas Cage, who at least put in some effort, unlike the director or anyone else. Cage's acting really does have to be seen to be believed, and some of his scenes are just incredible. The bees sequence is a personal favorite of mine, but you can also look at the random bear costume or punching an old woman in the face for no reason. Overall Cage's acting is worthy of a face-palm; I know he's a bad actor, but this is just taking the piss.
I just don't know what director Neil LaBute was thinking. Did he seriously ever think this was a good film? How anyone can consider this a horror film is just crazy, especially considering it's a film that can't even get the basics right, yet alone conform to a genre. There's so little suspense in the film you can hardly blame people for watching it for comical value. When things happen for no reason in a seemingly random plot it makes the awful acting and dialogue the best thing about the film; not that there was much competition for that distinction. Just an awful, awful film that sums up everything wrong with remakes.
#4 The Invasion (2007) (2/10) Original: 7/10
I included another remake of the original on my best horror films list, but this is the other end of the spectrum. The original plot for this film has been remade four times, with 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' being the best of the lot. That film builds on a fantastic script to produce a genuinely thrilling film with aliens unsuspectingly taking over human bodies, leading to an epic climax that will haunt me for the rest of my life. The only haunting experience I got watching this was the realisation that I will never get that time back. For some reason director Oliver Hirschbiegel decided to replace suspense with holding the audience's hands, which is just suicide in a horror or a thriller. The aliens are so easy to spot in this one that the whole thing becomes a mission to not fall asleep, which is ironically how the aliens reveal themselves to the audience. As for the ending, well I don't even want to talk about that. It seems nobody cared whilst filming, and so I couldn't care less about the whole thing. It's just a budget 'War of the Worlds' with a dull and dreary plot; and that's something that should never happen when remaking such a classic prequel.
#3 The Karate Kid (2010) (3/10) Original: 8/10
Oh come on, it's got Jaden Smith in it. That surely must be enough to appear on this list, as does any film that insufferable prick is in. Here you may have a point that he's young and unknowing of just how much of a twat he is, but there's just no excuse for being this terrible all of the time. I especially hate him when he ruins a film that was once a very pleasant viewing. The original was a heartwarming story that was a great example of how a simple film can become something special if you get the basics right. This is anything but that, full of annoying pests, and has a plot that makes me sick to my stomach. Add in a little romantic sub plot with primary school children and you get a film that's both pretentious and stupid. It's almost like it's trying too hard with things like character development and the fight scenes, and so in the end the focus is just all wrong, and the so called hero ends up looking like an arrogant dick.
The only impression I get is that it's just trying to be something it can never be, and that can be summed up with the fight sequences which just don't work in a film like this, or any for that matter. They're so overly done that they actually become quite tiresome, and they miss that sense of realism that the original always had. The previous film had charm, but this feels like a commercial anti bullying advert, trying to hammer home a message that was never really there. Even ripping off previous content isn't going to impress me in the slightest, and if anything the 'jacket on, jacket off' schtick was the nail in the already buried coffin. It shits on its predecessor and it shits on the audience. Just a horrible, horrible film.
#2 Psycho (1998) (2/10) Original: 9/10
Oh god, this is everything I hate about remakes rolled into one massive pile of steaming shit. Why anyone felt the need to do a shot for shot reboot of an almost untouchable classic is just ludicrous, especially when it's done as poorly as this. The original was a product of its time, and so the new version hadn't got a hope of producing even a similar reaction to that of the original. It's just disgusting that a director can be so lazy by just strangling a legendary film license for a quick buck. This is not just a terrible film, but a disgusting piece of art that shits on everything good about cinema. I would be pissed off if some media studies students decided to do that, yet alone a commissioned and experienced production crew under the helm of an award winning director. In fact director Gus Van Sant can shove his previous awards straight up his ass for this travesty.
Nothing can touch the iconic performances of Anthony Perkins and Janet Leigh. Their on screen chemistry was a great part in the success of the original, and so to now see the legendary role of Norman Bates being taken over by the very average Vince Vaughan is laughable at best. He just lumbers around the set with absolutely zero presence in any scenes, which is a plain insult to what was originally a masterfully portrayed character. Replacing Leigh's role is the somehow even worse Anne Heche, who produces one of the worst performances I've ever seen by a lead character. I've seen primary school drama students come up with better expressions than she manages, and that's not including the shower sequence, which thanks to her is now completely ruined. I just don't understand why as a human being you would do this. There was no way they were going to top the original by adding a bit of colour and revamping the cast to a terrible standard. Quite frankly it's just pathetic, a forgery that should always be valued a million times below the Hitchcock classic.
#1 Planet of The Apes (2001) (2/10) Original: 9/10
It was very close between this and 'Psycho'. I think this is actually worse as they've actually bothered to make a film that's completely different, and so it amazes me how it managed to end up so badly wrong. It also marks our third appearance of Tim-fucking-Burton, who's decided to ruin yet another classic film. There's a clear message here to Hollywood executives: Don't hire Tim Burton to do remakes, they're always complete shite. Just please make an original film, stop ruining things I love and turning what was once a powerful political statement into a pile of artificial bullshit. One of the greatest scripts I have ever come across has been shat on by Burton, and instead of Charlton Heston we get Mark Wahlberg as the lead role. Just why? He can't even act in a crappy music video, yet alone lead an iconic film role. This change might work if the purpose was to blow some things up for no reason, but that was never the point of the original. That film was slowly paced and subtle for a reason, but Mark Wahlberg can't act for five minutes without pissing me off, and all this for twenty times the original budget.
I don't even want to mention the action sequences. Of all the films that needs them this wasn't the one. I know Burton wants to showcase the linear talent, and I use that term lightly, of Wahlberg, but you can't just force things into a film that requires a deft touch and precision. Even these fast paced sequences can't save the already sinking ship, and so we're left to the emotionless apes to carry the film. Admittedly the apes do look quite nice, but they just can't carry the whole film when they have to work with paper thin characters. I end up not giving a single shit about any of it, and that pains me to say it as at least Burton tried to make changes, but as per usual they ended up ruining it. This can all be summed up with the climax, which I'm sure everyone knows from the original. In this version it doesn't even make sense. There's no deeper meaning to any of it, and just like the rest of the film it's ambiguous and overproduced crap that tries to distract the audience from the terrible composition. Please Tim Burton, leave classic films alone. Make anything else you want, as long as it's original I don't care. Then at least we won't get any more disasters like this one.
No comments:
Post a Comment