Terrible Remakes

Writer: Naseem Randhawa

"The Thing" is an upcoming remake of the original John Carpenter's 1982 film of the same name.

It seemed at one point, way back, original ideas were worth something in Hollywood, and then here we are today, where every movie is weighed for a remake either with new effects (3D or 2D), a new cast, or a new twist ending (which rarely hits the right note). While there may be some movies that are worthy of the new 'facelift' the advanced Hollywood has to offer ("Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes", "Ocean's Eleven" and "Casino Royale"), there are a few truly horrible, nasty, terrible remakes quite obviously remade to milk the cash cow and to ride on the success the first movie brought on (Hello, "The Amazing Spider-Man" due out 2012).

Why the original ruled:
The 1960 black and white Alfred Hitchcock classic had a sinister scare factor to it especially with the timid Antony Perkins playing motel owner Norman Bates. The film relied on its simplicity and its twisted ending which were further enhanced with Hitchcock's trademark cinematography style. The famous 'shower curtain' scene is also one of the most iconic scenes in Hollywood and have been parodied countless of times.

Why the remake sucked:
A colour version and a cast list comprising of famous actors such as Vince Vaughn, Anne Heche, Julianne Moore and Viggo Mortensen, didn't help award-winning director Gus Van Sant in making this direct shot-by-shot remake any better, which was needless to say, a tad bit 'psycho' on his part.

Why the original ruled:
The 1982 film was more often than once dubbed as one of Arnold Schwarzenegger's most iconic roles. Being one of the actor's first ten roles in Hollywood, Arnie shot to fame with "Conan". Although the movie utilised mostly stop-motion effects, it was noted for being the first of its kind that featured uncivilized men at merciless war that was quite, barbaric.

Why the remake sucked:
With a relatively unknown actor helming the lead, even the 3D effects and the stunts choreographed by the "Matrix" team, the movie didn't manage to exceed expectations other than being a total blood-fest, an oiled-muscle worshipping shrine and a display of tawdry clothed women.

Why the original ruled:
Vincent Price. The master of horror himself starred in the 1953 film which was also a remake of its original 1933 feature. However, this scarier approach to the original's horror comedy elements was well received. It was also the first 3D colour feature from a major American studio premiering just two days after the first American 3D feature, a sephia-toned "Man In The Dark".

Why the remake sucked:
Paris Hilton. The remake was reduced to the typical teen slasher film (also starring Jared Padalecki, Chad Michael Murray and Elisha Cuthbert) where the victims were picked of one by one. At least everybody agreed that Hilton's death was the best part.

Why the original ruled:
The 1984 movie starring Ralph Macchio and Noriyuki Morita told a story of an underdog who learnt Karate from a lonely immigrant, to defend himself from bullies and ultimately compete in the "All Valley Karate Tournament". The movie was so well received it spawned 3 sequels and a remake.

Why the remake sucked:
Will Smith's cute little son Jaden Smith played the lead in this remake of the chopstick-wielding 1984 Karate movie. Instead of Daniel-san he is Dre-san. Mr. Miyage is replaced by Mr. Han, and instead of Japan, where Karate originated from, this movie plays homage to China instead for some reason.

Why the original ruled:
The 1951 film came out at a time where alien films were at an all time high ("Invaders From Mars", "It Came From Outer Space", "Invasion Of The Body Snatchers" and "The War Of The Worlds") especially since it was a cold black-and-white film about a alien visitor named Klaatu (Michael Rennie) who tells mankind to change or it will destroy their race.

Why the remake sucked:
This has got to be the most disappointing movie Keanu Reeves have ever starred in. Those of us who have watched the original, imagined the remake to be a much scarier and darker version of an alien invasion, however it ended up being a boring piece of a lullaby that even Reeves' good looks couldn't save.

Why the original ruled:
As a 1984 original that would later spawn 8 movies, it's no doubt that this Wes Craven classic inspired a whole range of other teenage slasher films. It also introduced the concept of a vengeful spirit, Freddy Krueger that can only harm you in your dreams, thus sparking a fear among audiences when they're most vulnerable, in their sleep. Also, did we mention that the movie marks Johnny Depp's debut into Hollywood?

Why the remake sucked:
26-years later and Freddy is still after teenagers? It seems as if this apparent 'reboot' is made to completely milk the franchise of what little horror is left of it. The film starts the same and ends the same, and also reeks of unoriginality, as teenagers are slashed one by one leaving Freddy waving his razor fingers in the air with glee. Does this reboot make us fearful of bedtime? No, we've never slept better.

Why the original ruled:
The original was released at a time where stop-motion effects were at the height of Hollywood (like "Jason And The Argonauts" and the "Sinbad" movies). The film was credited to being a magical fantasy adventure based on Greek mythology, and while its remake looked more like a poor-man's version of the "God Of War" game, this original manages to bring an air of mystical adventure around it.

Why the remake sucked:
Even with big names like Sam Worthington, Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes, it couldn't help the movie from being worthy of the wallowing pits of the mighty Cracken. We don't mind the story being a complete rip-off of the old movie, it just looks too polished with 3D CGI effects compared to the original. The actors were underdeveloped, and we found that Worthington's acting is best suited for him to remain as a Na'avi in Pandora. Even though "Trash Of The Titans" sucked big time, it still managed to gross almost US $500 million worldwide and a sequel is in the works that's due out in 2012.

Why the original ruled:
The TV-series packed up a group of eccentric people who hopped on to bring down the baddies. And although Mr.T and his colossal amount of gold chains didn't manage to distract us from the colossal amount of fun each week brought us, the series was a manly answer to "Charlie's Angels". The series brought on action-adventure to a whole new level and delivered almost 100 episodes for the whole family to enjoy before it ended its run.

Why the remake sucked:
Apparently Mr.T from the original series said he was disappointed with the movie saying, "People die in the film and there's plenty of sex but when we did it, no one got hurt and it was all played for fun and family entertainment. These seem to be elements nobody is interested in anymore," and we think he summed it up nicely. Plus, isn't Bradley Cooper in every movie nowadays?

Why the original ruled:
The minimalist approach to the 2003 Japanese film managed to scare audiences as it added a sense of reality to it. We're introduced to Rika, a social worker who gets cursed upon entering a house that has been plagued by death. Through her story, we also discover the fates of others before her that have stepped into the house, as the muteness of the scenes deliver a scare that will stay with audiences for a long time.

Why the remake sucked:
American movies are never as scary as its Asian counterparts, especially if you have Buffy the vampire slayer, Sarah Michelle Gellar playing the lead role as a timid exchange student who becomes the caretaker of the cursed house. Although directed by the original director of the Japanese franchise, Takashi Shimizu, the movie fell-through with all the typical American clichés including a creepy soundtrack to announce the arrival of the ghost and the obliviousness of the main characters to realise that something is just not right.