Favorite Horror Movie Remake

[metternich1815]

What is your favorite horror movie remake?

[metternich1815]

My favorite horror movie remake is John Carpenter's The Thing (1982). The film is brilliantly directed by John Carpenter. It is an extremely dark, scary atmosphere. Additionally, it is (intentionally or unintentionally) a comment on both the Cold War and AIDS. The acting and character development is really high-quality (despite the large number of characters involved). The story is an interesting science fiction story based on the book "Who Goes There?." It is especially interesting to see how the characters who had so trusted each other slowly descend into paranoia and fear. Of course, one must mention the special effects, which were definitely ahead of their time. The score, despite not being composed by Carpenter, is quite eerie and match the film quite well. Honestly, everything about this film is brilliant, it is definitely a major improvement on The Thing from Another World (1951), which is also a great movie. Ultimately, The Thing (1982) is my favorite horror movie remake, due to the reasons described above.

[Kandarian Demon]

I think it's probably "House on Haunted Hill". I absolutely love Vincent Price, and in some ways I enjoy the original, but scary or even just a tiny little spooky? Not at all!

With the remake, they somehow found the right balance between actually improving the story, but at the same time paying tribute to the original. And Geoffrey Rush was awesome as the Vincent Price-like character.

[neverending]

My favorite remake:

[Souther]

I haven't seen the thing's remake but my favorite horror movie remake is Halloween. He is for me so much better than the carpenter's movie. The second part of film is good but the first is even better. I like Michael Myers as child. He is more original than others Halloween. However, I don't like the second remake.

[metternich1815]

Personally, I liked where they were going with it, but it was poorly executed. My main criticism being that they failed to develop many of the characters (with notable exceptions being Michael Myers, Sam Loomis, and guard in the mental hospital). Additionally, I think that the back-story of Michael Myers was interesting, but unnecessary. Part of what made the original Myers so great was the mystery behind his origins. Although, I suppose that is a fundamental disagreement, so if I did agree with the idea I would say it was one of the best executed parts of the movie (although, it was difficult to buy that that kid at the beginning being the menacing, evil character known as Michael Myers). Honestly, this is a major criticism of many of the slasher remakes (adding origins). I also thought that there was too much focus on the action (i.e. killing) and, as I mentioned, not enough on character development. In my opinion, the remake of Halloween did not even touch the original, which sparked a new age in horror movies: The slashers. In fact, virtually all of the slashers after it (the best example being Friday the 13th) were modeled after it. The original developed the characters amazingly well (with Laurie Strode and Sam Loomis being the most developed) and had an interesting story. The score and the direction were equally astounding. Ultimately, the remake of Halloween was okay, but not near as great as the original for the reasons I described. (By the way, you seriously need to see the Thing (1982) because it is considered by many to be one of the greatest horror movies of all time and I personally have seen it hundreds of times)

[Souther]

In fact, it is the remake of "Thing" I haven't seen. The thing (1982), I know. I saw The thing at least 5 times. I like The thing from John Carpenter. However, I don't like Halloween (1978) from John Carpenter. For me, that movie has aged. He is boring. It is my view (opinion). I'm ok, characters are developed. And this is the problem. Characters speak too. And now, I'm used to watch movies with a lot of murders but not only. I like to be inside characters and look them die gradually. I want to feel the heart of the action. I prefer movies like "Martyrs" or "Megan is missing". I love their atmosphere.

[metternich1815]

I was referring to The Thing from 1982, which was a remake of The Thing From Another World (1951), which I stated. Personally, I think the original Halloween has held up remarkably well. For the reasons I stated in my previous post. I respect your opinion, but I just strongly disagree with it because I think Carpenter is a much better director than Rob Zombie. I belive what made the original so great was that they spent a great deal of time developing the characters. I understand that modern audiences consider that boring, but I think more movies should do that.

[Bob Gray]

Personally, I liked where they were going with it, but it was poorly executed. My main criticism being that they failed to develop many of the characters (with notable exceptions being Michael Myers, Sam Loomis, and guard in the mental hospital). Additionally, I think that the back-story of Michael Myers was interesting, but unnecessary. Part of what made the original Myers so great was the mystery behind his origins. Although, I suppose that is a fundamental disagreement, so if I did agree with the idea I would say it was one of the best executed parts of the movie (although, it was difficult to buy that that kid at the beginning being the menacing, evil character known as Michael Myers). Honestly, this is a major criticism of many of the slasher remakes (adding origins). I also thought that there was too much focus on the action (i.e. killing) and, as I mentioned, not enough on character development. In my opinion, the remake of Halloween did not even touch the original, which sparked a new age in horror movies: The slashers. In fact, virtually all of the slashers after it (the best example being Friday the 13th) were modeled after it. The original developed the characters amazingly well (with Laurie Strode and Sam Loomis being the most developed) and had an interesting story. The score and the direction were equally astounding. Ultimately, the remake of Halloween was okay, but not near as great as the original for the reasons I described. (By the way, you seriously need to see the Thing (1982) because it is considered by many to be one of the greatest horror movies of all time and I personally have seen it hundreds of times)

Halloween is personally one of my favorites but it was not the first of the slashers, that title goes to Black Christmas. Of course that could be argued as well as there were some forerunners in Thirteen Women, Peeping Tom, Psycho, Dementia 13, Blood Feast, and many of the Italian Giallo films. Silent Night, Bloody Night and Savage Weekend also came before Halloween. What Halloween had over these others was the huge box office success which is the reason that so many slasher films were made.

[Bob Gray]

My vote goes to David Cronenberg's The Fly.

[metternich1815]

Halloween is personally one of my favorites but it was not the first of the slashers, that title goes to Black Christmas. Of course that could be argued as well as there were some forerunners in Thirteen Women, Peeping Tom, Psycho, Dementia 13, Blood Feast, and many of the Italian Giallo films. Silent Night, Bloody Night and Savage Weekend also came before Halloween. What Halloween had over these others was the huge box office success which is the reason that so many slasher films were made.

I never said that Halloween (1978) was the first slasher, merely the one that sparked the Slasher Age. Additionally, many later slashers were specifically modeled after Halloween (1978) because of its tremendous commercial success. Traditionally, Black Christmas (1974) is regarded as the first slasher, although films such as Psycho (1960) and Peeping Tom (1960) had tremendous influence on the genre. Bloodfeast (1963) raised the amount of gore that was tolerable in a film, along with such films as The Night of the Living Dead (1968) (i'm sure that giallo films had a simliar effect). Silent Night, Bloody Night might have been a slasher, though not particularly influential. Why Halloween (1978) was the one that sparked it is a matter of debate.

[metternich1815]

My vote goes to David Cronenberg's The Fly.

That was a really good remake, definitely high on my list. I really enjoy Cronenberg's work, in general.

[Bob Gray]

I never said that Halloween (1978) was the first slasher, merely the one that sparked the Slasher Age. Additionally, many later slashers were specifically modeled after Halloween (1978) because of its tremendous commercial success. Traditionally, Black Christmas (1974) is regarded as the first slasher, although films such as Psycho (1960) and Peeping Tom (1960) had tremendous influence on the genre. Bloodfeast (1963) raised the amount of gore that was tolerable in a film, along with such films as The Night of the Living Dead (1968) (i'm sure that giallo films had a simliar effect). Silent Night, Bloody Night might have been a slasher, though not particularly influential. Why Halloween (1978) was the one that sparked it is a matter of debate.

I didn't say you did, lol, I never even implied it. I was just giving a little horror history is all.

[metternich1815]

Sorry, I must have misinterpreted your statement.

[The Villain]

I hate remakes but i guess i would have to say The Crazies. I hated the original and actually really liked the remake

[Despare]

Couldn't pick my favorite between The Fly and The Thing but they're the top two, I also dug the Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Night of the Living Dead (Savini's), and The Blob remakes.

[newb]

Most of the "remakes" have been more re-imaginings.......The Thing and The Fly ...two mentioned...both great re-imaginings ...the only true "remake" I can think of is the 1998 Gus Van Sant remake of Psycho....and that kinda sucked.

[metternich1815]

I consider reimaginings to be a type of remake. These are the four types of remakes: reimaginings (such as The Thing, Dawn of the Dead, and Thirteen Ghosts remakes), modernization (such as Black Christmas, The Fog, and Psycho remakes), encapsulations (such as Friday the 13th, Halloween, and A Nightmare on Elm Street remakes), and foreign horror for U.S. audiences (such as The Ring and the Grudge). My source is the book Horror Movie Freak. Even if you don't agree with the book, I think these are good classifications for horror movie remakes. As for the Psycho remake, it was perhaps the worst horror movie remake in horror movie history.

[newb]

I consider reimaginings to be a type of remake. These are the four types of remakes: reimaginings (such as The Thing, Dawn of the Dead, and Thirteen Ghosts remakes), modernization (such as Black Christmas, The Fog, and Psycho remakes), encapsulations (such as Friday the 13th, Halloween, and A Nightmare on Elm Street remakes), and foreign horror for U.S. audiences (such as The Ring and the Grudge). My source is the book Horror Movie Freak. Even if you don't agree with the book, I think these are good classifications for horror movie remakes. As for the Psycho remake, it was perhaps the worst horror movie remake in horror movie history.

while I agree the Psycho remake was pretty bad....The Fog re-whatever was terrible

[metternich1815]

I haven't seen it yet, but when (if) I do I might agree from just the little I have seen. Plus, the original Fog movie was brilliant. But, the Psycho remake will always be very high on my hate list of horror movie remakes.

[newb]

And the "foreign horror for U.S. audiences" is usually not up to par with the original ....case in point "The Vanishing"


although I didn't hate "The Grudge" or "Let Me In"

[metternich1815]

The Grudge was pretty good. I also greatly enjoyed The Ring (2002), despite not seeing Ringu (1998).

[horrorfangirl66]

I think The Crazies(2010) and The Thing(1982) were better than their predecessors.

Some other good remakes not surpassing the originals are TCM (2003), The Omen(2006), and Fright Night (2011).

[The Villain]

I think The Crazies(2010) and The Thing(1982) were better than their predecessors.

Some other good remakes not surpassing the originals are TCM (2003), The Omen(2006), and Fright Night (2011).

I agree with you on The Crazies (Like i said before) but The Thing From Another World is a classic and i wouldn't say that the remake was better. However the remake was also fantastic. When it comes to those two, i'm not sure which i like better. I like them both in different ways.

[metternich1815]

I also greatly enjoyed Thirteen Ghosts (2001). I was surprised by how many people hated that movie because I acctually thought the story and acting were great. Additionally, I thought the special effects were brilliant. Despite all the good aspects of the film, it only holds like a %12 apporoval rating on Rotten Tomatoes. I find that highly unusual. I realize the original was a great film by William Castle, but the remake was still really high-quality in my opinion (despite negative reaction).

[roshiq]

My favorite remake:



ROFL! Who dares to solve this fill in the blank?:D

[roshiq]

Couldn't pick my favorite between The Fly and The Thing but they're the top two, I also dug the Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Night of the Living Dead (Savini's), and The Blob remakes.

Ditto, loved them all too.

I consider reimaginings to be a type of remake. These are the four types of remakes: reimaginings (such as The Thing, Dawn of the Dead, and Thirteen Ghosts remakes), modernization (such as Black Christmas, The Fog, and Psycho remakes), encapsulations (such as Friday the 13th, Halloween, and A Nightmare on Elm Street remakes), and foreign horror for U.S. audiences (such as The Ring and the Grudge). My source is the book Horror Movie Freak. Even if you don't agree with the book, I think these are good classifications for horror movie remakes. As for the Psycho remake, it was perhaps the worst horror movie remake in horror movie history.

That's pretty fine classification. I guess, my favorite TCM (2003) may fall into either 're-imagining' or 'encapsulation' category.

Btw, the recent re-imagining of Mother's Day also wasn't bad.

[The Villain]

I also greatly enjoyed Thirteen Ghosts (2001). I was surprised by how many people hated that movie because I acctually thought the story and acting were great. Additionally, I thought the special effects were brilliant. Despite all the good aspects of the film, it only holds like a %12 apporoval rating on Rotten Tomatoes. I find that highly unusual. I realize the original was a great film by William Castle, but the remake was still really high-quality in my opinion (despite negative reaction).

My problem with that movie was it could've been a lot better, instead it turned out kinda lame.

[horrorfangirl66]

I also greatly enjoyed Thirteen Ghosts (2001). I was surprised by how many people hated that movie because I acctually thought the story and acting were great. Additionally, I thought the special effects were brilliant. Despite all the good aspects of the film, it only holds like a %12 apporoval rating on Rotten Tomatoes. I find that highly unusual. I realize the original was a great film by William Castle, but the remake was still really high-quality in my opinion (despite negative reaction).

I agree with you! I really liked this film too. I thought the monsters were creepy and the effects were great.

[newb]

ROFL! Who dares to solve this fill in the blank?:D

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v259/rockinmule/TheBrideBox_zpsa0de72f2.jpg

[Fulg HoarAR]

As far as remakes go I liked Invasion of the Body Snatchers and Dawn of the Dead (although I dont necessarily consider them better than the originals)

AS far as Halloween, I really didnt like the remake, Rob Zombie has this way that to me just seems desperate and clumsy, basically just trying too hard to be shocking and its palpable.

BUT to each their own, I'm definitely biased as the original Halloween to me is one the greatest ones ever made, So someone remaking it to me would be like if someone remade The Godfather or Casablanca or something.

[Kandarian Demon]

As far as remakes go I liked Invasion of the Body Snatchers and Dawn of the Dead (although I dont necessarily consider them better than the originals).

Ohh, I forgot that the 70s version of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" is a remake... and a very good one!

[Fulg HoarAR]

Ohh, I forgot that the 70s version of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" is a remake... and a very good one!

haha yeah, the original is one of those great old 50's movies, I suppose now its viewed as a 'political allegory' , Me personally I just think the 50's looked hilarious

[neverending]

Personally, I just think the 80s looked hilarious.

[Fulg HoarAR]

Personally, I just think the 80s looked hilarious.

HAHAHA absolutely

[metternich1815]

Personally, I just think the 80s looked hilarious.

I'm just curious, what did you mean by this statement?

[The Horror fan]

I got few like

The Thing (1982)
Night of the Living dead (1990)
Dawn of the Dead (2004)
My Bloody Valentine (2009) First 3D movie Ever
Night of the Demons (2009) (Not seen the old one)
Mirrors (2008)
Night watch (1997) Not see old one yet
Piranha (2010)
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)
The Hills have eyes (2006)
The Last House on the Left (2009) there also movie called Chaos (2005) which is actually the first remake The Last house of the left (Not seen that yet)
Halloween(2007) Thir13en Ghosts (2001)
The Shining
The Uninvited (2009)
Mother's Day (2010)


Movies I need give re-watch
The Fly
The Crazies (2010)
The Haunting (1999)
Cat People (1982)
The Hitcher (2007)
Carrie
The Invisible (2007)



House on Haunted Hill (199

[Jason is my Homeboy]

I love the remake of Halloween. I like how it goes more in depth into Michael's past. I also liked the remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street, there was one part in it where I was laughing so hard at something Freddy had said, I replayed it like five times.

My least favorite is the remake of Friday the Thirteenth. It was just... weird.. And it didn't seem very much like Jason to me. Like abducting someone who he thinks looks like his mom and keeping her in some cave. I just thought that didn't seem like something he would do. It was out of character to me.

[phantomstranger]

I forgot about the 1990 version of "Night Of The Living Dead". I was surprised by how much I enjoyed it. The original is still the best, but this was quite good.

[GrimlyFiendish]

I absolutely love both of Rob Zombie's Halloween films. I'm a huge fan of his films anyway but the Halloween films really did it for me. I think you can tell he's a huge horror buff from watching his movies which I love.

One of my favourite remakes is the 'Night of the Living Dead' remake as mentioned above. It's so bad it's good. :)

[ChronoGrl]

My favorite horror movie remake is John Carpenter's The Thing (1982).

I don't consider this a remake at all. I consider it another adaptation of the novella Who Goes There?


My favorite remake:

bahaha - I <3 you.


...


Evil Dead 2013 was utterly fantastic (though I think it takes enough liberties that I think that it's probably more influenced by the original movies as opposed to being a straight remake).

My absolute positive favorite remake ever: My Bloody Valentine 3D. This movie was an incredibly fun theater experience; would love to see it in the theater again.

Piranha 3D was fun, but not as much of a blast as My Bloody Valentine.

I also thought The Grudge was really good (for quite some time I maintained that it was better than the original - Not sure how I feel about that now; I've seen it so many times that it's become a bit cheesy in my mind).

I really liked Cronenberg's The Fly and the 1999 House on Haunted Hill is a bit of a guilty pleasure for me.

Dawn of the Dead 2004 was also a mostly solid little horror movie.


The Halloween remakes were absolutely abysmal and about as necessary as a bicycle to a fish.

[Monas00]

My favorite is "Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The" version of 2003 years but i watched movie long ago when i was teenager and it was in 2004 years and it was all scary for me once and i liked story but version in 3D was hopeless.

[Toadliquor]

Dawn of the Dead is probably my fave, but it can be argued that it isnt a remake.

The others:

The Thing
Invasion of the Body Snatchers
The FLy
The Blob
13 ghosts
House on Haunted Hill
King Kong '05
Wolfman '10

[The Villain]

Dawn of the Dead is probably my fave, but it can be argued that it isnt a remake.

The others:

The Thing
Invasion of the Body Snatchers
The FLy
The Blob
13 ghosts
House on Haunted Hill
King Kong '05
Wolfman '10

I'm curious as to why you think it can be argued as not a remake.

[Giganticface]

My guess is that for the purpose of this thread, remake/reboot/re-imagining all are candidates for the conversation. But I agree there is a somewhat subjective distinction: How different is the "remake" from the original? If it's significantly different, maybe it's more of a re-imagining, or reboot (although that term seems to be used for franchises).

I thought Dawn of the Dead was pretty different than the original, if for no other reason because the zombies are fast, so it has an action element that the original didn't have.

I agree with ChronoGrl that Evil Dead was not a straight remake, and also fantastic. :)

Also, she's making me want to see My Bloody Valentine 3D. I liked the original, but assumed the remake was just another cash grab.

I actually kinda liked the Rob Zombie Halloweens, but they have almost no relationship to the original.

I've never seen the original for some of these remakes: The Thing, The Fly, Invasion of the Body Snatchers. I really liked all three of those (meaning Carpenter, Cronenberg and 1978 body snatchers). Funny that two of those three have been remade again since, and I hear the Fly is in the works.

If I were to pick one remake that I can actually compare to the original, and that I thought really good, I'd pick The Ring. The original had better pacing, but I thought the remake was creepier -- especially the video.

I also liked King Kong 2005 because it brought back some of the prehistoric action from the 1933 version that the 1976 version left out.

[Toadliquor]

I'm curious as to why you think it can be argued as not a remake. Giganticface pretty much answered the question. Besides the shopping mall, and to a lesser degree the the movies arent similar at all. I think they just wanted the credibility of the name to go with the movie.
Also, I've answered the fav remake question on a few forums over the years, and people have always given me crap about saying Dawn of the Dead is my favorite "remake", even though the rest of the movies on my list arent that similar to the originals either. Probably because the remake is better than the original and the original is so beloved

[The Villain]

Giganticface pretty much answered the question. Besides the shopping mall, and to a lesser degree the the movies arent similar at all. I think they just wanted the credibility of the name to go with the movie.
Also, I've answered the fav remake question on a few forums over the years, and people have always given me crap about saying Dawn of the Dead is my favorite "remake", even though the rest of the movies on my list arent that similar to the originals either. Probably because the remake is better than the original and the original is so beloved

So a movies only a remake if its the same as the original? One point of making remakes is to go in a different direction with it like Dawn of The Dead and even the new Evil Dead did. Its also to modernize it and introduce it to new audiences. Some may argue that there's really no point in doing that but it doesn't change the fact that they are in fact remakes. In fact the only good remakes are the ones that change it because what's the point in making a shot for shot remake? We have the original for that.

[Toadliquor]

So a movies only a remake if its the same as the original? .
No. I said that so I wouldn't get people who are too literal for their own good, whining that it was on my list. And now... complaining that that i made an exception.

[The Villain]

No. I said that so I wouldn't get people who are too literal for their own good, whining that it was on my list. And now... complaining that that i made an exception.

Nobody's complaining. This is a forum where people of different opinions can come and discuss different viewpoints on things. If you can't take people saying things you don't like, you shouldn't be here.

[Toadliquor]

Nobody's complaining. This is a forum where people of different opinions can come and discuss different viewpoints on things. If you can't take people saying things you don't like, you shouldn't be here. Gee! Thanks for the advice. I didnt know that message boards were places for people to post their opinions. and differing viewpoints. I'll have to keep that in mind :rolleyes:

[The Villain]

Gee! Thanks for the advice. I didnt know that message boards were places for people to post their opinions. and differing viewpoints. I'll have to keep that in mind :rolleyes:

Well apparently you didn't realize that people might disagree with you either that or you're just way too sensitive when someone does

[Giganticface]

Easy folks, it's all just for fun :)

To be fair, Villain, not everyone might agree with your definition of a remake. I think most would, but not everyone. There's plenty of grey area there, and I suppose everyone's entitled to define it however they want to.

I, personally, am one that limits the definition to some degree. (I'll admit I'm a huge nerd.) For instance, Zombie's Halloweens... It has the same name as the original, a few of the same character names, and the same mask (although at the end it's removed to reveal some hippie dude... wha-?). But the similarities pretty much end there. Imagine if Carpenter handed Zombie his script and asked, "Hey could you make this movie?" Zombie basically says, "Sure, but let me change pretty much every single thing first. And, dude, it's gonna be super visceral and have lots of F-bombs!"

So, out of convenience, I might refer to Zombie's movies as "remakes," but in my heart, I would consider it a re-imagining or reboot. If it doesn't pay ample respect to the story of the original (I'm not talking frame-by-frame), I won't give it the honor of being called a remake. That not necessarily a bad thing though. Zombie was clearly inspired by Carpenter.

Evil Dead's not a bad example either. Story-wise, there are very few similarities to the original in the remake. (More than Halloween though.) Yes, there's a cabin in the woods, a Necronomicon (albeit a very different one, with some pretty different rules), some demon possession caused by reading the words, and one of the demons spends most of the film trapped in the basement. Other than that, the references to the original are mostly just insider nuggets that don't serve a similar purpose in the story. For instance, Natalie saws her arm off -- but not for the purpose of removing the evil hand and replacing it with a chainsaw to go kick ass with it. It's to fulfill the reboot's rule of "bodily dismemberment" so that she would expel the demon... then die. Mia's hand gets ripped off, but it's because she had no choice, and her shoving the stump through the handle of a chainsaw is a far cry from Ash purposefully (and groovily) arming himself with his iconic weapon to go demon-slaying.

Also, there are are rumors that Evil Dead is actually a sequel that will join up with the original franchise after Army of Darkness II. So what does that make it? More grey area I suppose.

The Thing (2011) is another one that's not cut & dry. I watched the whole movie thinking it was a straight remake because I thought it followed Carpenter's storyline very closely. (I hadn't seen the 1982 version for a little while, so possibly couldn't remember everything exactly.) But then at the end, it was revealed that it was actually a prequel. I suppose most people might have known that going in, but I didn't.

This article (http://www.best-horror-movies.com/news?name=poltergeist-remake-details-emerge-much-like-evil-dead) about the Poltergeist remake has a pretty good quote about remakes vs. reboots.

According to Moviehole "the Kenan-directed Raimi-produced reboot – much like the “Evil Dead” remake – exists in the same world as the previous “Poltergeist” films. So while it is a ‘reboot’ of the franchise, it’s also somewhat of a sequel – taking place years after the Freeling’s were ran out of town.

We've got sequels, remakes, reboots, re-jiggering... It's all worthy of us horror nerds discussing, disagreeing about, and maybe even agreeing about on occasion.

[The Villain]

Easy folks, it's all just for fun :)

To be fair, Villain, not everyone might agree with your definition of a remake. I think most would, but not everyone. There's plenty of grey area there, and I suppose everyone's entitled to define it however they want to.


That's fine if people don't agree with me but I have a right to state my opinion without people getting all pissy about it.

[metternich1815]

Personally, generally, I regard any film that uses the title of a previous film a remake. Thus, I would group reimaginings, shot for shot remakes, encapsulations, and foreign horror for U.S. audiences in the same group (remakes).

[Toadliquor]

Personally, generally, I regard any film that uses the title of a previous film a remake. Thus, I would group reimaginings, shot for shot remakes, encapsulations, and foreign horror for U.S. audiences in the same group (remakes).
I saw a terrible movie a few years ago named April Fool's Day. I watched it under the guise that it was a remake of the '86 flick. I guess you could classify it as a "horror", but I'm not sure if it was marketed as a remake or what, but it was nothing like the orginal! If you haven't seen it yet, then don't bother, its close to unwatchable.

[Giganticface]

This article (http://www.best-horror-movies.com/news?name=the-14-best-horror-movie-remakes) on best-horror-movies.com reminded me of this thread. Pretty good list, although I haven't seen 2 or 3 of them.

[xX_StarChild_Xx]

I saw a terrible movie a few years ago named April Fool's Day. I watched it under the guise that it was a remake of the '86 flick. I guess you could classify it as a "horror", but I'm not sure if it was marketed as a remake or what, but it was nothing like the orginal! If you haven't seen it yet, then don't bother, its close to unwatchable. Personally, I would go so far as to say the original wasn't even all that good either. My favourite remake would have to be Let Me In. I haven't seen the new Evil Dead yet but the good word is enough Im waiting with bated breath for the HV release. :)

[xX_StarChild_Xx]

Though I will give it the credit it deserves for its twist ending. Still, pretty standard "slasher" stuff.

[Freak]

These are just a few one the ones I've enjoyed over the years.

Texas Chainsaw Massacre
House on Haunted Hill
The Hills Have Eyes

[xX_StarChild_Xx]

The Hills Have Eyes was lightyears better than the original!

[The Horror fan]

What about The Echo Remake ?
is that any good , I am watching sigsaw (2004) one right now!

About hour into the movie.

What about the Bad seed movies are they any good, not seen any of them.

[The Villain]

The Hills Have Eyes was lightyears better than the original!

I think that depends on more of what you're into. The original was subtle and gritty and the remake is over the top and in your face. Personally I prefer the original but I think it was a good decision to adhere to a different audience

[xX_StarChild_Xx]

I think that depends on more of what you're into. The original was subtle and gritty and the remake is over the top and in your face. Personally I prefer the original but I think it was a good decision to adhere to a different audience I agree that it's all a matter of personal taste. I haven't seen the original in awhile but I remember not being terribly impressed by it and I think that the material was better served by the in your face attitude that the remake utilized. That being said, I can appreciate and oftentimes prefer sublety and understatment in film. Especially in a horror film. A quiet and well acted scene of tension can speak alot louder than any piece of gore someone can throw at the screen. :)

[Zombie369]

I think that mine is the 1990 remake of Night of the Living Dead, because I felt that it was a good improvement over the original. The special effects were more realistic in this one and I liked how they made Barbara into a stronger female character. In the original movie which was made in the 60's all of the female character's were pretty weak and didn't do much to help while all the male characters did all the fighting and planning, which I guess fit the social norms of the time. But since the remake was set in modern times it made perfect sense that at least one of the three women would be strong and would pick up a gun to help fight the zombies. I liked how they chose Barbara for that part because she is the first character we see in the movie, and I especially liked how she started off in the movie being hysterical like her character from the original but when she realized she had to fight to stay alive she started getting tougher and smarter, and she actually studied the zombies while everybody else was being irrational.

[sleepaway]

I actually really like the Psycho remake.

[metternich1815]

I actually really like the Psycho remake.

Really? I think that movie was quite terrible. They changed hardly anything from the original and the stuff they did change was unnecessary, if not stupid (The one exception being when they replaced the word coat with Walkman. I thought that was pretty funny). It was an insult to the original. I feel when you remake a movie, you should do something different from the original. It should be a completely (or at least generally) different thing (thus, I do not like shot for shot remakes).

[TokyoTenshi]

I personally hate remakes because they tend to be even more horrible than the original with overused CGI.

However, I do like a few remakes that I think turned out okay.. ones that I can remember are 90s Night of The Living Dead.. I think Dawn of the Dead turned out okay too.. I surprisingly did not hate Fright Night.. and I think The Amityville Horror was okay too..

I have yet to see The Evil Dead.. I want to badly.

[metternich1815]

I personally hate remakes because they tend to be even more horrible than the original with overused CGI.

However, I do like a few remakes that I think turned out okay.. ones that I can remember are 90s Night of The Living Dead.. I think Dawn of the Dead turned out okay too.. I surprisingly did not hate Fright Night.. and I think The Amityville Horror was okay too..

I have yet to see The Evil Dead.. I want to badly.

I think that there are a number of good remakes, but, it seems, for every good remake, you can probably find at least two bad ones. I definitely recommend the remake to the Evil Dead. I thought both the plot and the actors were interesting. Additionally, I liked how the film took elements of the original, but yet was still something completely different. I was definitely impressed and highly recommend it.

[xX_StarChild_Xx]

Really? I think that movie was quite terrible. They changed hardly anything from the original and the stuff they did change was unnecessary, if not stupid (The one exception being when they replaced the word coat with Walkman. I thought that was pretty funny). It was an insult to the original. I feel when you remake a movie, you should do something different from the original. It should be a completely (or at least generally) different thing (thus, I do not like shot for shot remakes).

I agree with you, Metternich. I found it to be pointless, and I just cannot see Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates, and I think that speaks to how profound and spot on Anthony Perkins performance was. Nothing against Van Sant either, I have enjoyed almost all of his other movies (Even Last Days drug me in, contrary to what a lot of people I know/have shown the film to have said). Psycho just didn't work for me, either.

[sleepaway]

I knew the Psycho comment would spark some debate! Lol! But I do actually like it - I think it was a strange but interesting piece of filmaking. Pointless to most but there's just something bizarre about it I really like! I actually like all of the Psychos, even the old Bates Motel was okay!

[tiff_vicki_bride]

dawn of the dead 2004 remake I actually like it better than the original because there is more gore and the zombies look more bloody and also the movie is more fast paced in the remake. :cool:

[Bob Gray]

I agree that it's all a matter of personal taste. I haven't seen the original in awhile but I remember not being terribly impressed by it and I think that the material was better served by the in your face attitude that the remake utilized. That being said, I can appreciate and oftentimes prefer sublety and understatment in film. Especially in a horror film. A quiet and well acted scene of tension can speak alot louder than any piece of gore someone can throw at the screen. :)

I've seen the original lately and I like it better, the atmosphere in it is better.

[sleepaway]

I actually like the remakes done by Dark Castle -

House on Haunted Hill
Thirteen Ghosts
House of Wax

I didn't expect to, but I really enjoy them all! I was hoping they'd do more.

[RJ Bland]

'The Hills Have Eyes'
Or maybe 'The Evil Dead'

[Jungell]

Night of the Living Dead. I think Savini did a fantastic job.

[Christian0]

Don't be afraid of the Dark

I thought the remake was a lot better than the original. In the original too many things are left unknown and in the remake we get to know more about these small creeps.

Also the ending is much more exciting in the remake, the original had quite a bland dissapointing ending.

[neverending]

I find this thread depressing.

[Whych_Doctor<3]

my favourite remakes have to be;

Rob Zombies Halloween UNCUT
Dawn of the Dead
Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2003
Evil Dead (although not as good as the original in many ways especially Bruce Campbell) ;)

but as far as Friday 13th & Nightmare on Elm Street go, even though they are my favourite horror movies EVER! i think their remakes were very weak :(

[DaveZ]

The Thing
The Ring
Dawn of the Dead

[Moviegirl80]

Rob Zombie's Halloween
When a Stranger Calls
Friday the 13th
My Bloody Valentine
Prom Night with Brittany Snow
Black X-Mas

[horcrux2007]

The Ring, The Thing, The Fly, The Grudge, Carrie, Evil Dead, The Hills Have Eyes, and The Crazies are my favorites.

[vampyd1977]

there are some passable ones, carrie...i liked the nods to the original, rob zombies halloweens for the gore and artistic content, let me in...kept its quite bleak feel, i spit on your grave as it also kept the tone of the original and didnt change the knob cut scene, geoff goldblum in the fly i love, i like 13 ghosts too, im sure theres more......

and now to my least favorite, three words....THE WICKER MAN!! ::mad::

[Ferox13]

I find this thread depressing.

Come on - you don't like The Fly, The Thing* or The Maltese Falcon*?

[horcrux2007]

there are some passable ones, carrie...i liked the nods to the original, rob zombies halloweens for the gore and artistic content, let me in...kept its quite bleak feel, i spit on your grave as it also kept the tone of the original and didnt change the knob cut scene, geoff goldblum in the fly i love, i like 13 ghosts too, im sure theres more......

and now to my least favorite, three words....THE WICKER MAN!! ::mad::

I thought The Wicker Man was hilarious.

[vampyd1977]

I thought The Wicker Man was hilarious.

unintentionally so..now i love nic cage and noone does over the top quite like him but seriously in this even i cant stand it, the ending is soo cringe worthy i have to look away.

[Raegan]

Not a huge fan of remakes (I'll watch them but not with anticipation) but they did a pretty decent job on the last house on the left remake

[Vig]

Last House on the Left remake was decent, while Carrie was downright horrific. I would say out of all the remakes we've had, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre has been at the top.

[TheBossInTheWall]

I also greatly enjoyed Thirteen Ghosts (2001). I was surprised by how many people hated that movie because I acctually thought the story and acting were great. Additionally, I thought the special effects were brilliant. Despite all the good aspects of the film, it only holds like a %12 apporoval rating on Rotten Tomatoes. I find that highly unusual. I realize the original was a great film by William Castle, but the remake was still really high-quality in my opinion (despite negative reaction).

I have to agree. 13 Ghosts remake was amazing. The set of the entire house was brilliant. The acting was great, the ghosts were fucking AMAZING. The ghost glasses were fun.
The original bored me right away so i didn't watch much of it.

[Jake.Ashworth]

Its not the most popular opinion, but I really liked the I Spit on Your Grave remake. It was plenty of fun.

[vampyd1977]

Its not the most popular opinion, but I really liked the I Spit on Your Grave remake. It was plenty of fun.

it was a reasonable attempt

[Vig]

Its not the most popular opinion, but I really liked the I Spit on Your Grave remake. It was plenty of fun.

I was completely bored with that film.

[Jake.Ashworth]

That's cool, to each their own. Do you have a movie to add to the mix?

[Vig]

That's cool, to each their own. Do you have a movie to add to the mix?

What about Maniac?

[Jake.Ashworth]

That was a pretty good one. I like Elijah Wood. He plays dark pretty well. Kudos on the suggestion.

[Raegan]

Its not the most popular opinion, but I really liked the I Spit on Your Grave remake. It was plenty of fun.

it was okay, don't listen to Vig he's a huge dick ::big grin::

[Jake.Ashworth]

Dick or not, I value all genitals opinions.

[Raegan]

Dick or not, I value all genitals opinions.

that was nicely put


as an opposite of this thread the worse remake and biggest let down in my world was EVIL DEAD. I now refuse to go to theater for any horror movie or get excited.

[anglewitch]

that was nicely put


as an opposite of this thread the worse remake and biggest let down in my world was EVIL DEAD. I now refuse to go to theater for any horror movie or get excited.

Very.

[Vig]

that was nicely put


as an opposite of this thread the worse remake and biggest let down in my world was EVIL DEAD. I now refuse to go to theater for any horror movie or get excited.

Want to go see the upcoming Poltergeist remake with me? ::devil::

[Raegan]

Want to go see the upcoming Poltergeist remake with me? ::devil::

jesus their remaking hat now??? sure, but we need to sneak in minis

[anglewitch]

A remake of poltergeist. SPPPPPPPPLLLLLLRRRRRBBBBBTTTT big mistake, poltergeist is already good. Its those bloody people who don't have imaginations again.

[Vig]

jesus their remaking hat now??? sure, but we need to sneak in minis

I never knew there was a film named Hat to begin with...

[Raegan]

I never knew there was a film named Hat to begin with...

blow me

[Vig]

blow me

And that's where the smell of cabbage came from, folks!

[MichaelMyers]

Ring

The Crazies

The Fly

[Vig]

I forgot to mention The Thing. John Carpenter's version, of course.

[anglewitch]

That is a good remake.

[Jake.Ashworth]

The trailer for Poltergeist looks legit, and I don't give a shit what anyone says 90% of the time Sam Raimi puts his fingers on something it turns to gold. He can do no wrong in my eyes... except in the case of Spiderman.

[Jake.Ashworth]

News yesterday says there is a definitely a new Halloween in the works. They are not calling it a remake, reboot, or re-imagining. They are calling it a re-calibration. It will not follow any of the story lines from the previous sequels from the original run or Rob Zombies versions.

[Jake.Ashworth]

OHHHH how about this for super controversial for a remake, they are well into the remake of Martyrs.

[Raegan]

OHHHH how about this for super controversial for a remake, they are well into the remake of Martyrs.

what the shit WHY? It hasn't even been 10 years!!!

[Jake.Ashworth]

They want an English version. They are tag lining it as "The Ultimate Horror Movie". Even crazier, its already done filming. It will be a big screen release which means that it wont be as brutal as the original. Its directed by the Goetz brothers. Ill give it a shot, but I don't have high hopes for this one. Im not a fan of dumbing down the brutality in order to get into theaters.

[Raegan]

so dumb-seriously. That movie was absolutely perfect. Just because some people are too lazy to read subtitles doesn't mean they need to remake it. Plus I have a feeling they'd change some of the story line. UGH.

[Jake.Ashworth]

Most of the time I am completely for a remake. This time, not so much. I will see it, because I love everything horror, but I am prepared to be disappointed.

[Vig]

What about Funny Games?

[vampyd1977]

OHHHH how about this for super controversial for a remake, they are well into the remake of Martyrs.

if hollywoods doing it it will be atrocious.

[tfantasy]

::sad::

[Ferox13]

if hollywoods doing it it will be atrocious.

Fuck Hollywood - Bollywood needs to remake it.

[Vig]

The Town That Dreaded Sundown was a decent reboot. A step in the right direction to bring back the slasher genre from the grave.

[Raegan]

The Town That Dreaded Sundown was a decent reboot. A step in the right direction to bring back the slasher genre from the grave.

agreed

[Sculpt]

so dumb-seriously. That movie was absolutely perfect. Just because some people are too lazy to read subtitles doesn't mean they need to remake it. Plus I have a feeling they'd change some of the story line. UGH.
That's true. Instead of remaking the film, they should just hire industry experts to make an English dub. With the original separated audio tracks it can be done extremely well. I don't think many companies have tested the current market to see if a profit can be made from doing it properly. I would rent the English dub.

[Elijah23256]

My favorite remake is the thing it is so well made from the production value to the score plus it's an interesting premise I only wish the 2011 sequel would have been made better

[Roiffalo]

Wolfman for sure. I don't like it more than the original, and it's certainly not perfect. But it's one of my favorites, and about the only remake I can stomach.

[Repo'd]

My top remake is Herzog's Nosferatu, from 1979. How anyone would improve on Murnau's 1922 version, I couldn't imagine, and then I saw THIS amazing movie. For me, it's possibly the only remake I prefer to the original.

Close would be House of Wax (1953) with Vincent Price, which I love, but I still like Lionel Atwill and Mystery of the Wax Museum (1933) a bit better.

Honorable mentions:
The Thing (1982)
Thir13en Ghosts (2001)
The Blob (1988)
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)
Carrie (2013)
Dawn of the Dead (2004)

[stormr]

While I have to say Evil dead (2013). But part of me won't say that because it's a reboot and not a remake, and glad it's not a straightforward remake too.

So I would have to say at this moment its Poltergeist . I did like Halloween though a lot, but hated part two, so I can't let myself count that in the list. And I also loved Friday the 13th, but it serves as both a reboot, and a sequel in one.

[Lord Voldemort]

Dawn Of The Dead. Honorable mention to The Fly and Halloween.

[Repo'd]

Nosferatu 1979
House of Wax 1953

[Giganticface]

That's true. Instead of remaking the film, they should just hire industry experts to make an English dub. With the original separated audio tracks it can be done extremely well. I don't think many companies have tested the current market to see if a profit can be made from doing it properly. I would rent the English dub.

There's already an English dub of Martyrs. I made the mistake of watching that version the first time I saw it. Terrible. The original French version is one of my favorites though.

[darkdetective]

I would have to say John Carpenters The Thing and David Cronenbergs The Fly.
Two awesome movies with great body horror.
They do everything a remake should do which is to try and improve on films that are flawed in some way.
::wink::

[Repo'd]

I would have to say John Carpenters The Thing and David Cronenbergs The Fly.
Two awesome movies with great body horror.
They do everything a remake should do which is to try and improve on films that are flawed in some way.
::wink::

What do you consider flawed about The Thing From Another World(1951)?

[darkdetective]

I guess I probably shouldn't have said flawed! ::embarrassment::
I meant the remake is an improvement.

It's a better overall movie, it's a richer experience than the original!

[Repo'd]

Now we see eye to eye. Yep, the original is a legitimate classic but I agree that Carpenter's redo gives the viewer a lot more to chew on. I'm a huge fan of both versions.

[favabeans]

Probably either The Hills Have Eyes or Evil Dead.

[jwilliams]

The Hills have eyes(first part,ONLY first part) and The Amityville horror.

[Giganticface]

OHHHH how about this for super controversial for a remake, they are well into the remake of Martyrs.

Saw it. Not too great, unless you've never seen original. In that case, I suppose it's still an interesting concept. American Martyrs PG-13 style, if you can imagine that.

[Ferox13]

Now we see eye to eye. Yep, the original is a legitimate classic but I agree that Carpenter's redo gives the viewer a lot more to chew on. I'm a huge fan of both versions.

Carpenters one is closer to the source material.

[Toddallthingshorror]

Dawn of the Dead
The Thing
The Hills Have Eyes

In that order. Solid films.

[TroyinTX]

Hmm.

Probably The Hills Have Eyes.

[Sculpt]

Not saying any of these were better or worse than the originals, but I enjoyed these "remakes"...

Evil Dead 2
The Thing
The Fly
Invasion of the Body Snatchers
The Ring
Dawn of the Dead

[Giganticface]

I might like the remake of The Crazies better than the original.

[Sculpt]

I might like the remake of The Crazies better than the original.
Seems like the original Romero '73 version was lost to obscurity.