When it comes to movies/films/picture shows, has there ever been a remake of a great one that somehow improved on the original?
As someone who has watched literally thousands of movies, I can’t think of one.
The website Insider did a list of the top 50 films of all time, based on reviews. It’s actually a quite wonderful list, although some of you will be disappointed by the absence of comic book movies, Star Wars/Trek films, anything involving hobbits or orcs as well as a lack of pulps and shawshanks.
In fact, I don’t think there’s a Spielberg film among the 50, although there is one George Lucas film.
In all four of the top 50 have been remade, with a fifth used as the basis for a different movie.
For those who want to nitpick, two of the four remakes actually took animated films and made them live action. “Dumbo” wasn’t horrible, but Roberto Benigni’s telling of “Pinocchio” could make you long for the sweet release of death.
The two live action ones ran the gamut. The remake of Hitchcock’s classic “Psycho” is about as awful as it gets, while a made-for-cable version of “12 Angry Men” stands proudly beside the original.
The fifth film, “The Shop Around the Corner,” was reworked and done as a different story, “You’ve Got Mail,” for Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan.
With a few exceptions, most of the really beloved Hollywood films have not been remade. That’s especially true of the epics like “Lawrence of Arabia” and “Doctor Zhivago,” although for some reason, several versions of “Ben Hur” have been made. And for some reason. Spielberg is doing a remake of “West Side Story.”
Mostly, Hollywood seems to want to remake wonderful comedies and turn them into lesser laugh fests. Two of my favorite comedies, “The In-Laws” and “The Heartbreak Kid,” were both remade to mild success, but a third took a truly wonderful film and turned it into, well, the kind of film Brendan Fraser would do.
That may not be fair. I liked “Blast from the Past” a lot, but he did make movies with Pauly Shore and he had the lead in the movie of the same name that trashed “Bedazzled.”
The original 1967 version might just be the funniest truly subversive movie ever. Starring Great Britain’s greatest comedy duo, Peter Cook and Dudley Moore, it was a reworking of the Faust legend and was never less than hilarious.
It’s almost impossible to imagine a pitch meeting at which someone says, “And then there will be nuns on trampolines.”
In fact, the entire movie is satirical toward religion, with God and Satan each trying to be the first one to capture 100 billion souls. It’s as intelligent a comedy as you could ever imagine.
The remake? Meh. It’s Elizabeth Hurley’s Satan trying to convince Fraser’s dweeb a give up his soul in exchange for the affections of the girl he loves. The late great Roger Ebert explains the flaw in the story perfectly. It’s simply impossible to believe that anyone coming into contact with Hurley would want some other woman.
All the subversive humor is gone.
In the original, Satan can point to a vicar and say, “Oh, he’s one of ours,” or tell Lilian Lust to hurry and get dressed because she’s due down at the Foreign Office. After losing the battle for Stanley’s soul, Cook as Satan can rail at God.
“All right, you great git, you’ve asked for it. I’ll cover the world in Tastee-Freez and Wimpy Burgers. I’ll fill it with concrete runways, motorways, aircraft, television, automobiles, advertising, plastic flowers, frozen food and supersonic bangs. I’ll make it so noisy and disgusting that even you’ll be ashamed of yourself! No wonder you’ve so few friends; you’re unbelievable!”
I’m not sure Americans ever made movies like that, but remaking “Bedazzled” didn’t help.