And it’s not just the masterpieces or foreign films. They’re doing English-American remakes as well. Frank Oz’s Death at a Funeral was a great film – one of the best dark comedies I’ve seen in the last few years. When I read that Screen Gems and Sidney Kimmel Entertainment were re-making it stateside I was so ticked off. And if that wasn’t bad enough, guess who’s writing it for the screen – Chris Rock.
I can only recall the painful memory as I half-heartedly watched his butchered version of Eric Rohmers Love in the Afternoon which he co-wrote and starred in, under the American title I Think I Love My Wife – what a disaster it was.
the one saving grace of foreign language remakes is that at least the original concept, in some form at the very least, will be seen by people too ignorant or simple to see a film with subtitles.
How is the Departed superior to Infernal Affairs when the Departed follows the same story precisely, even mimicking many of the shots of Infernal, and adds a bunch of fucks to make it an hour longer? Ugh times a million, I can’t stand anyone who backs up the legitimacy of American remakes, especially the Departed. They never improve upon the original and the whole thing about aspects of the original being lost in translation is just an excuse for those who don’t want to read subtitles. Of course I’m biased, the only remakes I’ve ever liked have been Cukor’s Gaslight and Herzog’s Nosferatu. However, I’m not against remakes if they improve upon the original through performances or cinematography, etc. But it just seems like Hollywood puts all these films through a filter and reduces them to the most generic version possible, I can’t think of a single remake made by Hollywood in the past 20 or 30 years that has has merit. The only examples I can think of are Tarantino films, but he at least has the decency to remake shitty B-movies that no one else would touch and adds his own touch to it, not that I’m much of a Tarantino fan.
Anyway, I hear they’re remaking Le Cercle Rouge…
When it comes to film, I’ve been labeled as a “snob” by those as close to me as my own wife, but that last post sounds downright elitist. Are you really suggesting that all American film goers need be so passionate about film as to want to watch films from all over the world?
Who says remakes have to improve upon the original? Films can be remade to entertain new audiences who might not otherwise see them. Sometimes, it’s because a particular director might enjoy the original so much, he wants to recreate that enjoyment for other. I think Paul Mazursky’s ‘Down and Out in Beverly Hills’ is a great example. My mother and father loved that film when it came out. But I guess that’s because they didn’t know any better, and they should have hunted down a copy of Renoir’s ‘Boudou Saved From Drowning’ instead!
they’re remaking Le Cercle rouge, with who jim carrey and adam sandler? In god’s name why, oh yeah right MONEY!
What’s wrong with being elitist? It’s just a derogatory term given to those who know more than most other people. If a remake doesn’t improve upon the original or at least attempt something different with the material then it is pointless and just clogs the cinematic arteries, showcasing a director or writer’s unoriginality. If a director enjoys the original film so much, then he should go out and buy the DVD and enjoy it, not reduce the original film to a hack job. And I’m only arguing against shot-for-shot remakes that do nothing to alter the originial script, I’m not saying it’s bad to copy the premise of a movie as long as it doesn’t adhere to the original film in a strict sense. To me seeing remakes instead of the originals is like seeing the movie instead of reading the book it was based off of, it just feeds the Hollywood machine and replaces genuine filmmaking with mass-produced slop. I’m sorry if I upset you so much to give me a thumbs down, guess I’ll never reach that cinephile status.
JP I prefer to respond directly, someon else must have disagreed with you enough to give the thumbs down.
Cronenberg’s remake of The Fly is leaps and bounds better than the original if you need a counter argument. I would like to say that certain genre films are excusable as remakes, but then I think about all the Hollywood teen slasher/Asian ghost-story remakes, and I can’t say that’s true.
As for The Departed, JP, I understand being a little bit more harsh on it as everyone seems in agreement that it’s the exception to the rule, but whether you like Marty or not (I tend to not in a lot of cases), he didn’t just Xerox Infernal Affairs for English-speaking audiences, which is what most of these awful remakes do (except it’s usually the lousiest batch of carbon paper, not a Xerox, as nearly all lose (and never improve) what their source material had).
There’s a very simple answer to the original question: money.
They make them to make money, pure and simple.
SOMETIMES you’ll hear the argument that they’re just bringing great source material to a new generation, the same as when classic plays are revived over-and-over (A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE is in it’s 50-thousandth production this year, etc.).
But it’s really all about the money.
They’re already remaking “Let the right one in”.
They do it for the money
I found the TCMassacre remake to be a worthy horror film and am really looking forward to the Fthe13th remake.
What’s the big deal ? If you have no desire in seeing the remake, then don’t.
Well, remember, without the Dawn of the Dead remake, George wouldn’t have been able to get funding for Land of the dead. (not that I especially enjoyed it or anything)
Besides, remakes do give the originals a bigger fan base as well.
Just looking on the upside..
But, yeah.. other than pure entertainment and money/politics; remakes, mostly, don’t serve any real artistic purpose.
There are flawless films?
Now that’s a good question.
Of course, a cease of production of remakes would be an excellent way to curb the scoffing epidemic.
The fundamental reason Hollywood likes remakes is that they’re generally cheaper to make – they need less in the way of development and marketing costs, since the original film is usually a known quantity.
Personally, I don’t have any problem with remakes as a concept – many of Shakespeare’s plays were “remakes” of earlier Elizabethan theatrical hits. What matters is the talent of the people doing the remaking, and it’s no surprise that the better remakes tend to be by people like John Huston (THE MALTESE FALCON), David Cronenberg (THE FLY), Philip Kaufman (INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS), John Carpenter (THE THING) and Martin Scorsese (THE DEPARTED).
I can also think of three major directors who remade their own films: Alfred Hitchcock (THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH), Michael Mann (L.A. TAKEDOWN/HEAT) and Andrei Tarkovsky (STALKER – the first version of which was completely shot before they discovered that the lab wrecked the footage, necessitating a reshoot from scratch, but on a sharply reduced budget. No-one ever saw the first version, obviously, but by all accounts it was much more overtly “sci-fi” than what was ultimately released).
I just finished watching Funny Games US, Michael Haneke´s American remake of his own film. It was very well made and was not very similar to the original. It this case, I don’t see the problem with it…
I love Gus Van Sant, but his Psycho was absolutely horrible. Totally unnecessary. As for The Ring, Texas Chainsaw Massacre and The Hills Have Eyes, I couldn’t care less!
Sorry, I completely forgot about Michael Haneke! And Georges Méliès and Tex Avery remade their own films on several occasions, presumably in the (reasonable) belief that audiences would never be in a position to compare different versions when they may have been released years if not decades apart.
As for the Gus Van Sant PSYCHO, I rather like it precisely because it was such a daft idea – not merely remaking the film in the first place, but doing it in the style of Jorge Luis Borges’ Pierre Menard: literally shot for shot and angle for angle, but creating a completely different film as a result (i.e. a contemporary thriller becomes a period melodrama, and so on). But I absolutely sympathise with people who find it exasperating, and think that it only really works if you know the original backwards before you watch it.
The remake of Andrei Tarkovsky’s genius Solaris as an empty vessel featuring George Clooney was a travesty.
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 not “Let the Right One In” I Know with Tom Cruise as the little boy and Shite Lebeef as his helper or do I have that in reverse?
Actually I don’t care much for either version of Solaris altho I love the novel. I found Tarkovsky’s to be an exercise in tedium. As far as Let the Right One in-I live in Detroit. It never opened here.
You’re in luck Steve; Right 1 in will be on Blu and DVD this march in R1 stateside.
And don’t forget Oldboy! Steven spielberg is doing it and Will Smith is going to play the role of Dae-Su.
OMG! I can’t wait to see will smith becoming a dog in the end of the film!
In the case of foreign film, North Americans don’t like reading subtitles, and dubbing looks obvious. Hollywood has to make the themes softer and in North American trappings, or remain “obscure”.
In the case of older US/UK films, a remake introduces the film to a younger generation, makes money off the grousing die-hard fans who watch to see if it compares to its predecessor. Moreover remaking something is easier and less risky than trying something new.
I think needless remakes are bad form, but those are the reasons usually given.
It’s pretty simple: money. The film industry is called an industry for a reason. Hollywood is motivated by money, whether it’s good films, or artistic films, or remakes – it’s whatever makes money that will determine what Hollywood does next. I feel pretty pessimistic about it, but then again, I couldn’t count how many terrible remakes and sequels have been put out over the last decade.
Although remakes usually flop in my eyes, there’s also now the ability to work with great special effects. For instance Fahrenheit 451 lacked a mechanical dog in the film. Oksar Werner was perfect as Guy Montag though in my opinion. I chose Fahrenheit 451 as an example because there’s a remake of it in the works as well it seems.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0360556/
In my opinion, very rarely do remakes end up working. Recent remakes like Psycho and The Bad News Bears were awful because they did not bring anything new to the story and were almost exact duplicates.
I just watched Vanilla Sky and was genuinely upset that Cameron Crowe destroyed Open Your Eyes. Like, I really wanted to hurt the man.
And The Beef (Shia Lebouf) had the nerve to work on Disturbia, rehashing Rear Window. (I blame The Beef because if it wasn’t for him, it wouldn’t be as popular.)
Joe Bowman
Yes, Tom, the ‘Let the Right One In’ US remake is on its way. David Cronenberg is also remaking a Spanish time-travel film called ‘Timecrimes’ which came out maybe a week or so ago in the US. I can’t get too upset about that one, as Cronenberg knows what’s he doing (and Timecrimes could certainly benefit from his interpretation).
I also read that the Belgian film ‘Ben X’ is getting a US remake as well. Apparently the trend these days is to scoop up the foreign-language titles for their remakes as soon as possible. I hated Ben X, but I’m sure the Donnie Darko fans will eat it up. Not to mention, the film’s about a kid with Asperger’s, a form of autism, one of America’s favorite hot topics.
Vanilla Sky is the pits, by the way.