how about Little Shop of Horrors? not only did it get remade, it got remade as a horror musical... and was a huge success!

Little Shop of Horrors is kind of a hybrid, though. It didn't take itself at all seriously, and that's why it was successful.

Maybe that's the ticket to remaking horror -- you have to redefine what it is that you're trying to accomplish. If the point of the original was to scare, perhaps you make your point to make people laugh. If the original Fly was supposed to be terrifying, you make the new Fly grotesque.

A lot of horror movies in the '50's were more what we might call "thrillers" today. Your example of "The Fly" (which was originally a short story...I read it in junior high!) makes a good point. Back then, it was enough to make a slight hint about a man with a fly head shrouded in cloth and then reveal it. The later version had to show his whole body and have him talk as he's transforming. The first "Fly" couldn't talk because he was a fly!

I have a copy of the first "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" (1956) and I still prefer that version, although the one from 1978 is pretty good. I didn't care all that much for last year's "The Invasion". Some parts were downright gross!

Another good movie is "Village of the Damned" with versions from 1960 and 1995. I think they pretty much stand alone. Of course, the newer one has been modernized and in some ways, that weakens the story (as I think happens in most remakes), but times have changed and events are much more "in your face".

I for one enjoy remakes

carnage,

What remakes have you recently seen that you enjoy? What do you like about them. Ya gotta give us more, buddy!

DRKellogg: I didn't even bother seeing the remake of the remake of Invasion, though I can imagine it didn't live up. So what made Village of the Damned work, then? Does it follow my theory of redefining the emotional response it's trying to evoke?

First of all, let me just say for the record that NO Alfred Hitchcock movie should EVER be remade, EVER! Yes, I do feel that strongly about it.

Everything else is fair game...although I know I would be very disappointed in a "Rosemary's Baby" remake! It's not that I think that it shouldn't be remade, I just loved that version and I don't know if there is an actress today that could capture Mia Farrow's naivete.

"Village of the Damned" is based on a book that I haven't read. It was written in the '50's and I think I might try to hunt it up for vacation reading this summer. Hopefully I'll be able to find it!

Both versions have pretty much the same frightening plot and can stand alone without the later movie having to resort to too many cheap tactics. However, the 1995 version has been modernized. If you don't know anything about the movie, the first thing that happens is that an invisible entity has taken over the borders of a town, so that when a line is crossed, everyone passes out. No one knows what it is, but it's like a gas that incapacitates those who step over the line. Several hours later, the people wake up and within a short time, it is discovered that all the women are pregnant. In the original movie, there's no real funny stuff, but the newer version has one young girl who is a virgin and another woman whose husband who has been out of the country doing research.

I won't say much more about the story, in case you want to check it out, but I think part of the reason this one hasn't had to redefine its audience is that it was a good story the first time around. When you're starting with substandard material or a vague plot, by the second telling, you have to grasp at straws or go gore to keep it interesting. Those things can be fun, but they're not necessarily scary.

This is a tough one, I too generally don't have a problem with remakes. So they're remaking Friday the 13th no biggie, even a A Nightmare on Elm Street is ok with me. I'm not such an 80's purist that I find these things to be taboo, but the ones that are hurting me right now are preported remakes of Cannibal Holocaust and Hellraiser. In my opinion these are subversive pieces of Cinema that are best viewed in their original form and not "modernized". So you see I guess I can be rather snarky about certain things more so than others.

As far as a successful remake, the only one that even comes close for me was Zach Snyder's Dawn of the Dead remake. I'm not so sure why it worked so well for me since the original Dawn is one of my all time favorite films, but it worked and it didn't step outside the genres box.

I just wish that if they are going to remake something, then find a director that has a passion for the original and a way to make it better. Don't hire some music video director (Marcus Nispel) to recreate the terror of the original and then leave it flat and lifeless.

I suppose, Microwaved that remakes, like all films, are all in their execution. If anyone with a vision has an idea for a film, I'm willing to hear it out.

Then there are examples like the remake of Psycho, which was a shot-for-shot homage to the original. It was terrible. It didn't work at all. It can't be argued that Gus Van Sant had no passion for the project -- simply no vision.

The Psycho remake broke the cardinal rule...never try to reinvent Hitchcock. Although I didn't see it, I have no doubt that it was (re)made with good intentions. Gus Van Sant didn't WANT it to fail, but I have the feeling that sometime during the process, he realized the magnitude of what he was doing and ultimately couldn't deliver or stopped trying. It took some guts to even make an attempt.

I think sometimes that humans are too nostalgic for their own good.

One of the problems it seems with the current wave of horror remakes in the past 10 years is that the films being remade are the well known ones: Psycho, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Hills Have Eyes, Black Christmas, Halloween, the recently released Prom Night, the direct to DVD April Fool's Day, and now A Nightmare on Elm Street and Friday the 13th. When looked at in their genre, these films are iconic. How would audiences react if the films being remade were the original Star Wars or The Godfather?

How about remaking lesser known films like The Clown Murders or The Town That Dreaded Sundown? Even though the lesser known films often times became cult classics (I loved TTTDS), they are not as well known and a remake could be made without much expectation.

I think the problem with remaking lesser known films is in the answer: they're lesser known. The whole point of remaking films is that it's by and large a safe bet for hollywood producers -- you've guaranteed an audience before a single frame has been shot. Movies are first and foremost a business, after all.

If you remake The Town that Dreaded Sundown, you're basically making a new movie. Now maybe you remake it because you read a great script or, as Microwaved said, approach a director with a vision, perhaps it's less of a risk. But when you remake an unknown, you're in just as much dangerous water as any other movie.

House on Haunted Hill remake was as good or better than the original Vincent Price one; 13 Ghosts remake was better than the original; and Dawn of the Dead.

I think that on occassion people will spit out by accident a pretty good remake but the Halloween remake just missed the creepiness of Michael Myers. He wasn't some poor abused kid from a jacked up home, what made it so scarey was the fact that he was from a nice middle class family. He was the cute kid next door that you would let your kids play with but he was also this homicidal maniac. The remake of Chainsaw totally missed it too with all the gore, the original made you use your imagination especially since there was no blood in the movie just geniune horror. Now, the Hills remake is just sad. The creepy scarey thing about Hills was the fact that these wierd dudes had walkie talkies and tortured people but in the remake it's like, "hey stay away from the deformed people because they're super human and can kill you thanks to government experiments." I could go on and on with how people just totally missed what makes horror horror. Psycho remake, Night of the Living Dead, Prom Night...

I think they should remake so of the old 50's rated B movies like Attack of the Giant Praying Mantis and Giant Octopus etc. Even if they come out corny it would be cool to see what they would be like in this day and time. Or better yet place them in the 50's era just with modern movie making and the style of the past. I think they should remake or make a sequel to Gremlins that would be cool.I miss the horror where you could almost be live it could happen. Where today horror is just really gory butcher snuff films with crappy plots.What happen to the good old days where movies were had more story and showmanship then just big shot actors that dominate the whole movie with there self added egos? I think a lot of the younger generation wouldn't know a good movie if it came up and slapped them in the face. To really enjoy and understand a great movie is to understand movies in the past and the standards of those days.I think that a lot of movies are affected by new age thinking, money profits and not artistic talent that the older movies give to the viewers. If you don't be live me ask a teenager to watch a movie like let just say 1930's Frankenstein then ask him what he thought of the movie. 8-10 wouldn't watch it and the other 2 would just laugh at the movie and tell you it sucks and is too old. My point is to my big arguement if your going to make remakes be sure to study all aspects of the older movies. Not just throw a bunch main plots of the older movies in a blender and added with your own ideas how the story should in your eyes. But following the story of what its suppose to be.