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


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 about the Poltergeist remake has a pretty good quote about remakes vs. reboots.

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.

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.

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.

This article on best-horror-movies.com reminded me of this thread. Pretty good list, although I haven't seen 2 or 3 of them.

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. :)

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

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

The Hills Have Eyes was lightyears better than the original!

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.

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. :)

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.

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).

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.

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.

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!

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:

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

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.

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

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

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.

I find this thread depressing.

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 :(

The Thing
The Ring
Dawn of the Dead

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