Remakes really aren't our thing. Both Marie and I (and no doubt most of the horror-viewing world) want to see original ideas come to light (and theaters!). Is it really necessary to keep dredging out these less-than-inspired re-imaginings that make us throw up in our mouths just a little bit more each time it happens? There have certainly been a whole tractor-trailer's worth of crap come our way in recent years. Some is passable, even mediocre - but most of it....dreck of the highest degree.
How many would you agree with??
![]()
THE WOLFMAN (2010)
How many would you agree with??
It is amazing that this film came out two years ago and I have already nearly forgotten about it. The 1941 is charming and a classic, held close to the hearts of all horror buffs. Director Joe Johnston has done a lot of big name movies, such as Captain America, Jurassic Park, and Jumanji; I'm not going to lie, I wanted his remake to be good. I am a HUGE Benecio Del Toro and Anthony Hopkins fan (not so much of an Emily Blunt fan). You see those names and you think, "How could this go wrong?" Oh, but it did. I was expecting it to be cheesy and fun, maybe even a little bad-ass, but it was hardly even laughable. Can we just pretend this never happened?~MR
![]()
WHEN A STRANGER CALLS (2006)
With the original boasting some of the scariest first twenty minutes in film, it would be hard to capture the gritty feel of the 1979 version that frightened the hell out of anyone who dared think about babysitting. This remake was just a poor excuse for horror, barely scaring up enough frights to keep it above board. Seeing as how 2006 was one of the worst years for the genre, it's utterly shocking that this film made enough money to open at #1. It feels more like a Lifetime movie of the week, which is fine for a rainy Saturday afternoon, but it stinks if you've just blown twenty bucks on a ticket and snacks. Gah! ~CH
With the original boasting some of the scariest first twenty minutes in film, it would be hard to capture the gritty feel of the 1979 version that frightened the hell out of anyone who dared think about babysitting. This remake was just a poor excuse for horror, barely scaring up enough frights to keep it above board. Seeing as how 2006 was one of the worst years for the genre, it's utterly shocking that this film made enough money to open at #1. It feels more like a Lifetime movie of the week, which is fine for a rainy Saturday afternoon, but it stinks if you've just blown twenty bucks on a ticket and snacks. Gah! ~CH
This Thing, directed by Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. and starring Mary Elizabeth Winstead (I hate her face, I don't know why) is supposedly a prequel to John Carpenter's 1982 Thing. All I know is that it sucks. Lacking character development and any sense of dread or terror, the only compliment I can give this film is that it's "thing" looks pretty cool, thanks to modern day technology.~MR
![]()
THE FOG (2005)
John Carpenter's 1980 classic is rife with atmosphere and creepy moments. The 2005 version is a load of hooey with horrible acting (I'm talking to you, Maggie Grace!) and even worse effects. As so many horrendous remakes of this time period, it was bogged down with a lame PG-13 rating, rendering it a sad wannabe that never quite induces the chills and thrills of its far-superior predecessor. Hard to believe Carpenter and Debra Hill even got behind this monstrosity to produce it. ~CH
John Carpenter's 1980 classic is rife with atmosphere and creepy moments. The 2005 version is a load of hooey with horrible acting (I'm talking to you, Maggie Grace!) and even worse effects. As so many horrendous remakes of this time period, it was bogged down with a lame PG-13 rating, rendering it a sad wannabe that never quite induces the chills and thrills of its far-superior predecessor. Hard to believe Carpenter and Debra Hill even got behind this monstrosity to produce it. ~CH
You know what I have to say to this made-for-TV piece of crap? No. Just no. Directed by Mick Garris, most famous for the Masters of Horror series, and also the director of The Fly 2 and Critters 2, this guy isn't exactly the greatest. Okay, he did also do Hocus Pocus, which I LOVE, but still! That is no excuse. What was he THINKING? Remaking The Shining? There is no way he was aiming for greatness because that would be silly. He must have known there was no way he could compare to Kubrick's 1980 masterpiece. I am confused on the motive to make this film. One time I turned on the TV and saw The Shining was on and got all pumped, and then when I realized it was this crap... I was pissed.~MR
![]()
BLACK CHRISTMAS (2006)
More proof that 2006 was an abomination, this pointless remakes has some lovelies in scanty clothing and plenty of gratuitous gore. But what it lack is the heart of the 1974 slasher. Just because there are girls willing to get naked and run around screaming doesn't mean they should be. Bob Clark took his time building plot in the original but in the remake we barely got to know anyone before they were offed in some spectacular fashion. It has the dubious distinction of making the least amount of money of all the sequels within that 2-3 year time period, and with good reason. It's a real dud. ~CH
More proof that 2006 was an abomination, this pointless remakes has some lovelies in scanty clothing and plenty of gratuitous gore. But what it lack is the heart of the 1974 slasher. Just because there are girls willing to get naked and run around screaming doesn't mean they should be. Bob Clark took his time building plot in the original but in the remake we barely got to know anyone before they were offed in some spectacular fashion. It has the dubious distinction of making the least amount of money of all the sequels within that 2-3 year time period, and with good reason. It's a real dud. ~CH
Good god, I hate this movie. First of all, I hate Ryan Reynolds--I'm sorry, he is just dreadful. This film was all creep-outs and cheap scares, none of the real fear or suspense given by the 1979 original. Director Andrew Douglas is one of those who has done literally nothing else, which is probably for good reason (sorry, bro). They play this movie like every other weekend on Oxygen for reasons I will never understand--I guess to see Ryan Reynolds shirtless? Not worth it, if you ask me.~MR
I saw this movie when I was 14 when it came out on 6/6/06, the day many people believed the world would end even though the date 6/6/06 has happened many-a-time before. The earth kept spinning but the release of this movie certainly made it a horrible day. Being a proud young horror fan already and having seen the 1976 original, I knew this was going to suck but I saw it out of curiosity and novelty purposes. The director, John Moore, must have remembered that 6/6/06 was coming up and thrown this movie together, because that is certainly what it seemed like watching it. Let's all be honest with ourselves, new Damien could never be as creepy as old Damien.~MR
Aww, Liam. You let me down. Big time. This film is such an embarrassment. I don't like Owen Wilson much in the first place, so casting him didn't exactly make my day. But Liam Neeson? I like the dude in practically everything, and he is really the only good thing about this bomb. Sure, CZJ is nice to look at, and Lily Taylor tries to bring all her indie film finesse to it, but in the end it's just a mess of CGI and a lot of screaming. A real dud considering the classic status of the original. Potential, unrealized. ~CH
This is director Neil LaBute's most famous and successful film--way to go. Starring the always crazy Nic Cage, this movie was inevitabley going to suck as the 1973 original is a masterpiece (if you haven't seen it, Christine's Vital Viewing article will convince you why you NEED to)! Even if there was no original Wicker Man, and this movie wasn't a remake at all, it would still be god-awful. There is a wonderful Youtube video showcasing the "best" scenes from this film, most of them are of Nic Cage punching out women. Please view it here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6i2WRreARo) and please never view this movie.~MR
![]()
APRIL FOOL'S DAY (2008)
The original April Fool's Day was a campy good time, and remains to this day one of my favorite 80's flicks. This remake totally changed the original plot points and tried to be a clever, modern day version of the '86 movie. Unfortunately, they didn't get one bit of it right. It was described as Mean Girls crossed with horror, but it is just a flop with characters who have trite names such as Desiree, Barbie, Milan, Blaine, and Torrance. Seriously, Torrance? I can think of absolutely NO idea to ever struggle through watching this shoddy and inferior lemon. ~CH
![]()
PROM NIGHT (2008)
I wasn't really expecting much, truth be told. And I didn't get much, that's for sure. They called this one a re-imagining. Well, I imagine there was no real reason to make it over. Yet another piece of dreck that opened at #1 at the theater (what has this world become?), every ounce of the original plot was basically exchanged for pretty actors and a glossy set. And let's face it, without Jamie Lee, there's no real hope of a groovin' dance scene! ~CH
![]()
A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET (2010)
People. Did you really think this was destined to be a new classic? Really? How many times has that ever really happened? Despite the inspired casting of Jackie Earle Haley as Freddy, the film morphed into a CGI-heavy disaster that served notice to future remakes: just because it seems like a good idea doesn't mean it is. It did have the sense to make Freddy more evil than humorous, because let's face it, no one does Freddy like Robert Englund. Perhaps what this film was missing all along.....? ~CH
![]()
PSYCHO (1998)
Naturally I saved the very worst for last. I have NO idea what on earth Gus Van Sant was thinking. To try to think about remaking one of the most iconic films in horror history would take balls the size of watermelons.
Seeing as how I have no idea of the size of Van Sant's privates, let me just say: why? A remake should bring something new to the table. This film just brought....color.
Psycho (1960) is my second favorite horror film of all time. The fact that someone felt it necessary to make a shot-for-shot remake of it made me throw up in my mouth a little bit. Like the Beatles said: Let it be. ~CH
*A final thought: The day that someone decides to remake Jaws is the day I become a vigilante for the integrity of the horror classics. This is your final warning...
The original April Fool's Day was a campy good time, and remains to this day one of my favorite 80's flicks. This remake totally changed the original plot points and tried to be a clever, modern day version of the '86 movie. Unfortunately, they didn't get one bit of it right. It was described as Mean Girls crossed with horror, but it is just a flop with characters who have trite names such as Desiree, Barbie, Milan, Blaine, and Torrance. Seriously, Torrance? I can think of absolutely NO idea to ever struggle through watching this shoddy and inferior lemon. ~CH
I wasn't really expecting much, truth be told. And I didn't get much, that's for sure. They called this one a re-imagining. Well, I imagine there was no real reason to make it over. Yet another piece of dreck that opened at #1 at the theater (what has this world become?), every ounce of the original plot was basically exchanged for pretty actors and a glossy set. And let's face it, without Jamie Lee, there's no real hope of a groovin' dance scene! ~CH
People. Did you really think this was destined to be a new classic? Really? How many times has that ever really happened? Despite the inspired casting of Jackie Earle Haley as Freddy, the film morphed into a CGI-heavy disaster that served notice to future remakes: just because it seems like a good idea doesn't mean it is. It did have the sense to make Freddy more evil than humorous, because let's face it, no one does Freddy like Robert Englund. Perhaps what this film was missing all along.....? ~CH
Naturally I saved the very worst for last. I have NO idea what on earth Gus Van Sant was thinking. To try to think about remaking one of the most iconic films in horror history would take balls the size of watermelons.
Seeing as how I have no idea of the size of Van Sant's privates, let me just say: why? A remake should bring something new to the table. This film just brought....color.
Psycho (1960) is my second favorite horror film of all time. The fact that someone felt it necessary to make a shot-for-shot remake of it made me throw up in my mouth a little bit. Like the Beatles said: Let it be. ~CH
*A final thought: The day that someone decides to remake Jaws is the day I become a vigilante for the integrity of the horror classics. This is your final warning...
