Seeing @BootBoy84’s post about the Munsters got me thinking… what movies have been made that, in your opinion, should never, EVER be touched by Hollywood and remade? This can be for any reason really; problematic content that was okay at the time but wouldn’t be now (i.e. Gone With The Wind or Blazing Saddles), can’t be improved upon (for my money, this would include epics like Bridge on the River Kwai, Clash of the Titans (the remake they did just PROVES that it should’ve never been touched), Jason and the Argonauts, Lawrence of Arabia, etc), or whatever reason you have for it.
Hit me, ladies and gentlemen.
One Cut of the Dead.
It’s one of those impossibly brilliant and utterly satisfying lightning-in-a-bottle movies (and I wish I could discuss it in greater detail, but it’s extremely spoiler-sensitive), and I shudder to think of Michel Hazanavicius remaking that.
The Third Man.
Although they probably did remake it and I’m just unaware because they’re philistines.
Even though remakes can be annoying, I’m more interested in the “Stop Franchising/Sequel-ing!!” portion of the program at this time.
This right here.
No more “Cinematic Universes”
They shouldn’t have remade Solaris. Most Kubrick films - A Clockwork Orange, The Shining, 2001 - could never be improved upon. Likewise, most Cronenberg films are so idiosyncratically him - Videodrome, Dead Ringers, Naked Lunch - that remakes would be pointless. And after the brilliance of Kaufman’s Invasion of the Body Snatchers and Carpenter’s The Thing, I don’t believe we ever need another take on those.
They’re basically big spread-out carpets of weeds. They shut out light and suck up nourishment to prevent anything small but interesting from growing large enough to be seen. (Except that in real life kudzu and clover can at least serve as goat chow. Franchises aren’t even good for that.)
I’m more of an “it depends” kind of person.
Remember when they remade Total Recall? They shouldn’t have done that. I assume they shouldn’t have anyway, because I refused to watch it.
Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
I can totally see some idiot thinking they needed to redo that with fancy sets and costumes. They’d probably have actual horses. And they’d have, like, Russell Crowe play Arthur.
I want to see this, but only if all the characters are played by horses and their mouths are done up Clutch Cargo style.
I refused to watch that one as well, until my girlfriend convinced me to give it a try. Got about five minutes in and gave up. I suspect this was a completely different script that they decided to staple the “Total Recall” brand onto, because I didn’t recognise much in those few minutes that sounded like the original.
Technically both of those are already remakes, but I take your point.
A remake of The Warriors was under discussion for quite a long time. Happily, it seems to have fallen by the wayside.
So, for all you cinemaphiles: is Sorcerer a true remake of The Wages Of Fear, or is it more like a Blow Up vs. Blow Out situation?
Yes, they are remakes which should have put an end to any future remakes. They didn’t, but they should have.
I consider it more of a case of the latter. Also like the latter, it’s the inferior of the two.
I had a film guy tell me he thought that Sorcerer “destroyed” Wages. Go figure.
Ha ha. No. And use of that verb in that context is bonus wrong.
His must-see list of “Sunny Noir” was good overall, at least the ones I managed to find. (It was trickier in the early Oughts than it might be now.) But I never got around to that one.