PJM's post inspired me..
To think of Re-makes that aren't a pile o' wank.

Ok, so personally, I don't mind Godzilla (it's a guilty pleasure), but generally any decent film being re-made is a bad idea (Taxi, The Italian Job, Get Carter, etc).

So, I'd suggest:
1) Gone in 60 Seconds - ok, it's no oscar winner, but it's got cool cars, Angelina Jolie and it's shot nicely. The original 70s film was utter, utter tripe. In fact, I think they just kept the name.

2) Batman Begins - think about it, the Tim Burton "Batman" tells the story of how the Joker kills Bruce Wayne's parents and thus how he comes to become Batman ("Did you ever dance with the Devil in the pale moonlight?"). Suddenly, in Batman Begins, we have Batman being created by a childhood accident and several years being turned into a ninja in Tibet. It takes huge liberites with the accepted timelines of the comincs, etc, but Batman Begins is amazing. The Dark Knight looks great, too. Nothing will ever top Pfieffer's Catwoman, though - superbly portrayed as more of a tragic figure, but hugely shagable in that PVC suit.

3) Casino Royale. Don't get me wrong, I think Brosnan was a better Bond and should have done at least one or two more, but there is a great parkour sequence at the start of this and, despite the plot going AWOL and the dire third act that was shoe-horned in where Bond wants to quit and his missus dies (have they been watching On Her Majesty's Secret Service, by any chance?), it's still far far better than the godawful pastiche of the same name done in the 60s and obviously fuelled by a fistful of LSD and helmed by a director who was out of his mind. David Niven was the only one who escaped with any dignity from that wreck...

3) The Magnificent Seven. Yes, Kurosawa's Seven Samurai is arguably the better film, but the point is that this was a re-make that took the essential outline, made it more relevant to the audience and then made a great film out of it.

4) The Mean Machine - another guilty pleasure (mainly for Jason Statham, who was admirably psychotic). Yes, we don't have a prison system that involves the possibility of being shot by the guards at any time, unlike in the southern USA, but I think it hangs together well when compared to Burt Reynold's 70s movie (now suddenly renamed The Longest Yard, presumably to stop the piggy-backing of DVD sales). No, it's not great, but it's just as watchable as the original, albeit without the searing heat, threat of death and grittyness of parts of the earlier film. A good attempt, although why you'd want to re-make Mean Machine is beyond me.

5) Highlander 2. Not a remake? Then how do you explain the fact it completely re-tells the story of how the Immortals come about? The bad side? Well, it's a bit cheesy and some of the model effects were rather badly done, but that's about it from my point (oh, and it does get a bit preachy about the Ozone layer, etc). The good bits - Sean Connery, the scene in the Tailors' shop, the Bladerunner-esque scenery around the diner where Macleod deals with the dude on the flying snow-shoes...oh, and the soundtrack!

6) not strictly re-makes, but Young Sherlock Holmes and Without a Clue are two brilliant re-tellings of the age-old detective story that will brighten up any wet sunday afternoon.

I'm sure there are more...
(Chad, Wed 23 Jul 2008, 14:28, 6 replies)

Thanks Chad...
Some interesting points there, I have to agree with Batman Begins. Although I loved the charm of Burton's 1989 original and rate Keaton highly, Batman Begins was an excellent retelling. It's darker, edgier and although it loses the slight fluffy comedy edge of Burton's work I thoroughly enjoyed it. Christian Bale was wonderfully brooding and acted superbly.

I've yet to see Casino Royale, so cannot comment there, but the original was a satire as you put it so well with "obviously fuelled by a fistful of LSD and helmed by a director who was out of his mind". It's hard to see how they could cock up the modern retelling of the story.

Magnificent Seven? It's been done with Battle Beyond the Stars too, but I've never seen Seven Samurai to comment.

Highlander 2? I agree with the Sean Connery in the tailors shop bit, but I found it a poor second to the original. Don't get me wrong, the original was poorly acted and badly cast in places, but the direction, soundtrack and of course Connery won me over.

I'm going to trawl for decent remakes now...
(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Wed 23 Jul 2008, 14:45, closed)

I just thought of another one...
Jet Li's "Fist of Legend" - a remake of Bruce Lee's "The Chinese Connection". Frankly, anyone with the balls to remake a martial arts film by Bruce Lee has got to have some balls, but Li pulls it off. Arguably, Bruce was the better martial artist, but Jet Li is the better actor and a better all-round package, so it adds up. Li has the balanced middle ground between Bruce's philosophising ass-kicking kung fu (well, jeet kune do) and the comedy chop socky of a Jackie Chan or Sammo Hung - Jet can do funny (some of the Legend of Fong Sai Yuk films are almost pure Buster Keaton or Chaplin), whilst being able to take a serious role (Danny The Dog/Unleashed or similar) with more success than the ever-smiley Jackie Chan could manage.

Still, anything by Lee, Li, or Chan is worth a watch!
(Chad, Wed 23 Jul 2008, 15:18, closed)

Casino Royale
The 60's spoof was directed by at least half a dozen directors, which is one reason why it was such a mess. It was originally meant to adhere very closely to the book, then something went a bit mental. The recent version was really quite faithful to the book (the second half of the film anyway - the first half was completely original). Which brings me to a small gripe about the film. If it's meant to be a reboot of the Bond series by showing how 007 gets his licence to kill, but still 'canon', somebody other than Judi Dench should have played M. Purely because in Goldeneye, Brosnan makes a reference to her predecessor keeping a very good malt under his desk (or words to that effect).

And Batman Begins is a superb movie. It certainly takes less of a liberty with Batman's origins than Tim Burton's 1989 film. I like both films, but Begins is the better movie in every way.
( Davros' Granddad a voice of calm reason in a world of spastics., Wed 23 Jul 2008, 15:19, closed)

casino royale
I think the fact is that the minute they didn't make it the first Bond film back in the 1960s, it was always a doomed film - it introduces Bond and the book isn't exactly riveting. In fact, it's main function is to introduce the character of Bond and I think it is revered so much nowadays because we can see that book as where Bond began. Personally, I'd rather read the Young Bond series by Charlie Higson than a lot of Fleming's works, but Casino Royale is a mediocre book, translates into a poor film (the whole thing is about a game of baccharat, but they have now changed it to poker?!?)and was all rather dull.

Personally, I don't think Bond needed a "reboot". Let's face it, the Bourne films do realistic spy work far better than bond, as does Macgyver, for chrissakes. What people want from a James Bond film is a lot of one-liners, live-action stunts, a fit bird to go "ooo, James", a tasty car, some gadgets and a few knob gags. It lasted a 40 year franchise on that basis, because people always knew a Bond film would entertain them - it didn't try to educate them, lecture them, moralise at them or do anything other than take a few hours of your life and make it fun. I think the new Bond is going to have to work hard to get over the sour-faced half-assed, mish-mash of non-family-friendly twaddle that Daniel Craig just ruined. Any time the leading man gets on more posters than his Bond Girl, you know the film is broken from the depths of it's soul. Bond films are for watching on Boxing Day with the family, much like Indiana Jones films - they are good Bank Holiday fair. But the new Bond film doesn't know whether to to be a gritty noir-esque thriller, an extended episode of Spooks, or an S&M gay man's fantasy with daniel craig in his pants on a chair being whipped in the knackers. In fact, the only good thing was the car. Which they crashed.

I don't hold out hope for The Quantum of Solace, as it seems they have hit the "pretentious" button and since Barbara Broccoli basically let the septics take over the franchise, I'm just waiting for the day they announce it'll be played by Will Smith and set in LA...
(Chad, Wed 23 Jul 2008, 15:39, closed)

Mean Machine
FWIW, the 1970s original was The Longest Yard, but was released in the UK as "The Mean Machine". The recent US and UK remakes kept those names, but as you say, the Burt Reynolds version has reappeared on DVD as "The Longest Yard" for some reason...
(Vice Admiral Sir Charles Cockbrush KCB MBE DSO, who is finding it increasingly difficult to log into b3ta.com wants to duck your aunt and kick your puppy, Wed 23 Jul 2008, 16:12, closed)

dvd re-naming
Presumably, in the same way that Star Wars, suddenly became Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope to allow for the sudden appearance I-would-rather-shit-my-bollocks-out-through-my-eyes prequels, they renamed "Mean Machine" to "The Longest Yard" in the UK DVD releases to stop people buying the old movie by mistake (or to prevent cynical shop owners ripping people off), or there was a disagreement over royalties/rights when the new film was released that using the US market name (Longest Yard) got round...or it made printing the cases cheaper as they didn't need to do two versions...although they'd still need to localised the text and whether it's PAL, NTSC, etc... could be a mix of all of the above, or none of them. In short, I don't know, but I got that far and didn't want to seem implausible!
(Chad, Wed 23 Jul 2008, 16:22, closed)