Good call, that's another. I enjoyed that too.The Clooney & friends remake of Ocean's 11 was great. But otherwise I agree.
Good call, that's another. I enjoyed that too.The Clooney & friends remake of Ocean's 11 was great. But otherwise I agree.
There have been a few "way too late" sequels that have been good to great films.
Mad Max: Fury Road
Top Gun: Maverick
Puss 'n' Boots: The Last Wish
You're right there are 100 bad ones for each good one, though.
There's plenty of 50's Sci Fi movies that could be remade now that visual effects are so much better.
I think something like When World's Collide would work well. I actually have had an idea for the setup that would look really cool with todays SFX
Have the Planet of the Apes remakes been good?
After thinking more and reading this thread, I’m sticking with the only true remake, not spin-off, that was truly great was True Grit.
Bladderunner 2047
Fair enough on True Grit, though I'm basically considering it a remake as it's generally intended to tell a similar story, not a prequel, sequel, or take you to another part of that universe.I barely consider the Jeff Bridges version a "remake" in the classic sense.
I see the second adaptation as exactly that statement -- it returned to the novel and adapted it anew rather than trying to redo the John Wayne version, which really wasn't an influence.
They're both great in their own way. The John Wayne version has a terrific performance from its lead and is one of the best "classic" Hollywood westerns. The new one has a terrific performance from Jeff Bridges (not quite good enough for Best Actor, though, somehow that year) and is one of the best modern, "gritty," neo-westerns produced in the past 20 years (up there with, oh, to name some examples of modern westerns, Unforgiven, Killers of the Flower Moon, No Country for Old Men, the new 3:10 to Yuma, and Hell or High Water).
I might be a heretic, but I didn't like BR2047 all that much.
It looks impressive. It is grand in its scope and ambitions.
It just doesn't have any of the thematic depth that made the original so great. The "brewing" rebellion of the replicants against us "normal" humans as a plot point made me roll my eyes. Some conventional Hollywood narrative like that (an oppressed people and a revolution) has no place in that universe.
I know Deckard is the purported main character of the original -- but far from being the most interesting one. The sequel just doesn't have anybody like Rutger Hauer's Roy Batty and Joe Turkel's Mr. Tyrell. Those two and their interactions are the real dramatic and thematic heart of the original classic.
I've praised Denis Villeneuve for his Dune adaptation because he seemed to understand the source material and its underlying themes so well and worked to bring them out in the films.
With Blade Runner... I'm not sure he really got it.
Fair enough on True Grit, though I'm basically considering it a remake as it's generally intended to tell a similar story, not a prequel, sequel, or take you to another part of that universe.
I thought BR2047 had some interesting things but was a bit of a snooze-fest. Every scene with Hauer in the original was so loaded with tension it was never matched or even close in 2047.
Way to ruin the movie! Netflix just mailed the dvd, so I guess there is no sense watching it now.Rat Pack Oceans 11 was beyond ridiculous. Just Sammy Davis literally carrying bags of money out of a casino.
If you paid attention to the relationship between K and JOI you would know he absolutely understood the source material.I barely consider the Jeff Bridges version a "remake" in the classic sense.
I see the second adaptation as exactly that statement -- it returned to the novel and adapted it anew rather than trying to redo the John Wayne version, which really wasn't an influence.
They're both great in their own way. The John Wayne version has a terrific performance from its lead and is one of the best "classic" Hollywood westerns. The new one has a terrific performance from Jeff Bridges (not quite good enough for Best Actor, though, somehow that year) and is one of the best modern, "gritty," neo-westerns produced in the past 20 years (up there with, oh, to name some examples of modern westerns, Unforgiven, Killers of the Flower Moon, No Country for Old Men, the new 3:10 to Yuma, and Hell or High Water).
I might be a heretic, but I didn't like BR2047 all that much.
It looks impressive. It is grand in its scope and ambitions.
It just doesn't have any of the thematic depth that made the original so great. The "brewing" rebellion of the replicants against us "normal" humans as a plot point made me roll my eyes. Some conventional Hollywood narrative like that (an oppressed people and a revolution) has no place in that universe.
I know Deckard is the purported main character of the original -- but far from being the most interesting one. The sequel just doesn't have anybody like Rutger Hauer's Roy Batty and Joe Turkel's Mr. Tyrell. Those two and their interactions are the real dramatic and thematic heart of the original classic.
I've praised Denis Villeneuve for his Dune adaptation because he seemed to understand the source material and its underlying themes so well and worked to bring them out in the films.
With Blade Runner... I'm not sure he really got it.
If you paid attention to the relationship between K and JOI you would know he absolutely understood the source material.
Have the Planet of the Apes remakes been good?