Every Masterpiece Has Its Cheap Copy | Top 10 Worst Movie Remake Ever.
Have you ever been excited about a movie remake, only to be disappointed. You asked yourself, why does this movie even exist. You were so disappointed that after watching the movie, you definitely wanted your money back. We've all been there.
In this blog, we're counting down the top 10 worst movie remake of all time.
What do you think is the worst movie remake ever? let us know in the comments.
Let's begin our countdown with Number 10,
from Pulse (2001).
Another Hollywood's failed attempt to adapt J- Horror, the film used grotesque images to cover up the flaws in the plot and some suspense that failed to make the audience suspenseful. The satire message of the use of technology didn't convey well, making it an below average flick.
Number 9,
from Psycho (1960).
Perhaps the most literal remake ever made, director Gus Van Sant delivers a shot-by-shot remake of Psycho. It's not an exact copy, but it's fairly close. Vince Vaughn, Anne Heche, Julianne Moore, and Viggo Mortensen form a solid cast, but their performances are a little odd and unnatural. Something about the filmmaking style clashes with the modern setting, and the film seems somewhat self-aware of what it's doing. Still, the storytelling still works and creates a compelling mystery with interesting characters. While Gus Van Sant's remake doesn't recapture the brilliance of the original Psycho, the power and allure of the material still comes through.
Number 8,
The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008)
.jpg)
from The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951).
.jpg)
Is this remake worthy of the 1951 original classic? That's a mix bag answer of yes and no. On one hand it is a technically skillful effort displaying talents at the top of their game. Even the cast are in it with strong performance. The visual fx are well handled and convincing. Overall it doesn't insult the integrity of the source material. It does fall prey to the typical popcorn tradition of blowing stuff up real good and having some famous places get demolished. I suppose it is obligatory.... and it does look real good. On the other hand though the script doesn't take the source material to new heights either. They changed the moral focus from nuclear war to the environment, but the moral agenda is all righteous pestering and preaching all at face value. They don't really do much digging to get a deeper understanding of both parties human and alien. The environment issue is not black & white, but the script treats it as such. Bottom line is that we have a technically well made film with fine performances that gave the film the heart that its script could not provide on its own. It is overall an entertaining film with action and fx aplenty. Just don't expect a well thought out story with a deep moral message from it's weak script.
Number 7,
.jpg)
from One Missed Call (2005).
.png)
It's tolerable. Almost the Japanese movie scene for scene, aside from the liberties they took creating more strange creatures. I don't know how it seems other reviewers say it's the worst US remake when it is practically the same movie. When I started watching this movie I totally lost all hope for it. It starts with a Japanese style house in the US, aside from Dave Spector making a cameo in the movie, I don't recall seeing any other Japanese related content, but the house seemed like the movie was trying to remind us, "this story was originally from Japan". But I did quite enjoy the end of the scene, something a little more unexpected happens which you might expect to see at the end of a movie to be cliché.
Number 6,
The Truth About Charlie (2002)
.jpg)
from Charade (1963).
.png)
While slightly more disjointed than the movie on which it was based, it still plays through well enough to hold my interest. The acting was quite possibly not up to the same level as Charade, but it worked well enough. I found Tim Robbins & Mark Wahlberg to be adequate in the respective roles of Walter Mathau & Cary Grant for this particular rendition. Thandie Newton, while thankfully not the air-head portrayed by Audrey Hepburn, was almost too strong of a character to believe that she needed help from anyone getting out of the situation she found herself in. If you watch it expecting Charade, you will be disappointed. If you watch it as a movie influenced by the movie Charade, it's a good waste of 104 minutes, & a bowl of popcorn.
Number 5,
.jpg)
from Swept Away (1975).
.jpg)
This was visually a very pretty movie. The color of the ocean was so BLUE and the white sand beaches were so PRISTINE. The cinematography and tableaus created were so BREATHTAKING that the only pleasure one can derive from this mess is an appreciation of the beaches in Sardinia. But all of that does not make up for a lack of plot or mischaracterizations of the protagonists. Madonna, who gets marooned on an island with a macho Italian stereotypical guy reminded me of a petulant teenager. She related to her husband and Italian macho guy as a naughty teen would. No real depth of anything. The "funny" scenes were merely embarrassing. How could Guy Ritchie make something this bad? It doesn't make any sense after seeing Snatch and Lock, Stock.
Are you enjoying this read. A like would be highly appreciated.
Moving on with Number 4,
The Island of Dr. Moreau (1996)
.jpg)
from The Island of Dr. Moreau (1977).
.jpg)
While the first several minutes are nothing special, they are interesting and well-played enough that you think "The Island of Dr. Moreau" won't be as bad as you remember or as bad as you assumed it would be. But when the film starts taking significant missteps, it fails completely to self-correct, and instead closes its eyes and charges forward. By the end of the movie, you realize: "If only they hadn't done THAT, they wouldn't have progressed into doing THAT, they then wouldn't have taken the movie THERE, and we wouldn't be stuck in the middle of a totally unraveled plot." There was too much money and not enough ideas to let this film marinade in the things that initially went right when production started. All that remains are three decent leads trapped in the middle of a regrettably disposable semi-cult film.
Number 3,
.jpg)
from The Fog (1980).
.jpg)
This film tries to update the less than stellar film from1980. It only succeeded in creating a less than stellar sequel in 2005. The film has little to no nudity, gore, or scares. The plot is terribly told and the one thing that should have been improved from the original. There's a psychic... kinda and plenty of flashbacks to attempt to "tell" the story rather than just having people figure it out. In fact, nobody really figures anything out in this movie and even the viewer is left kinda half knowing what's going on. The film was doomed to be campy from the start but failed to capitalize on any camp which would have at least made the film humorous at times. As it is, you just sit back, and watch. Mindless horror that's not even told well enough to satiate the brain pan.
Number 2,
.jpg)
from The Wicker Man (1974).
.jpg)
Only reason to watch this is if you're into unintentionally (or was it intentional as Neil LaBute has said in the past?) bad comedy suspense re-makes. I suppose you hadn't need seen the 1973 original film (although I highly recommend it as it's a first-class product despite being dated) to enjoy this particular movie. Nicolas Cage screams "foddammit" out of frustration in one scene but it's almost as if we're seeing the actor have a mini-breakdown as he slowly realizes what a terrible movie he's found himself in again. Neil LaBute does have one or two decent scenes thrown in such as really loud blinking noises from his lead actor and also having him dress up as a bear and then promptly knock out a woman with his bear claws. But there's far too much "bad" to outweigh any (un)intentional good including the far too many flashbacks to the opening scene that sets the film into motion and in turn only serves to help pad out the timing. Bad movie lovers rejoice in the idiocy and delicious one-liners but all other movie goers need stay away.
Finally, Number 1,
.jpg)
from Rollerball (1975).
.jpg)
Within the first few minutes of this film you can easily see the direction its taking and that its gonna be bad. With horrible computer generated images and heavy metal playing straight away its all too clear you are in for a modern piece of crapola. The first action sequence has 'Jonathan' flying down San Francisco streets on some kind of skateboard thing, kinda like a toboggan or something. Its pointless, bland, completely uninteresting and makes no difference to the plot, just like the entire film. It is there we find out Chris Klein is our hero, playing the role James Caan did so well, what is totally ridiculous is in no way does Klein look like he could be a powerful 'Rollerball' player. As for the game itself its a horrific mess of over the top unrequired gloss that is completely the opposite from the original material. All the players are decked out in pathetic costumes that look like something from a mardi gras, the women are squeezed into rubber/latex fetish outfits (I quite liked that) and the helmets worn just make you laugh, talk about nonfunctional for the game.
Do you agree with this list?
let us know in the comments.
or Follow us on
Thanks for reading and see you in the next one.
Comments
Post a Comment