A couple of weeks ago Hollywood released ""Straw Dogs,"" a critically maligned remake of a violent ‘70s classic. Unsurprisingly, it tanked in cinemas and will probably be out of multiplexes by Friday. Whereas the original had Dustin Hoffman playing the lead, the new one has watered-down pretty boy James Marsden in the role.
A month before that, a half-assed redo of ""Conan"" opened to barbaric reception. (The movie would have made even more money if the philandering Governator had starred in it). And, back in April, the usually funny Russell Brand shat the bed in his rendition of ""Arthur,"" a hilarious role immortalized by the late Dudley Moore.
Let's face it: 2011 has been a vast wasteland of really shitty remakes. When will studio excess realize that the movie going public generally doesn't want to see redone versions of films that simply don't need to be redone?
None of the aforementioned properties have much name recognition with the young movie going population. How much of Generation Y knew that ""Straw Dogs"" was a remake? The info definitely wasn't included in the film's marketing. Hell, I didn't know until I just looked it up on IMDB.
It should be obvious that young people aren't going to go out and see it. And the people that went out and saw the original ""Straw Dogs""—our parents' generation—probably aren't going to watch the new one because they generally don't like watching their classics being eviscerated. The same fate went to ""Arthur"" and ""Conan."" Low box-office receipts must be reason enough for studios to stop releasing dumbed down versions of quality older films, right?
Wrong. Hollywood is showing no signs of shutting the remake floodgates. In two weeks we're going to be given a remake of ""The Thing""; the original version is a horrifying sci-fi that any redoing will unlikely be able to measure up to.
In the pipeline are excruciatingly unneeded remakes of other beloved ‘80s movies, including ""Total Recall,"" ""Robocop,"" and ""Highlander."" Perhaps most blasphemous, however, is the news that a ""Scarface"" remake is in development. The fact that anyone is even going to try to top Pacino's Tony Montana is laughable. What's next, a remake of ""E.T.""? ""Star Wars""?!
Studios will often avoid the term ""remake"" in the marketing of their remakes. They'll usually opt for the sexier term—""reimagining."" Tim Burton's ""Planet of the Apes"" was a ""reimagining,"" so was Rob Zombie's ""Halloween,"" and those ""Jason"" and ""Freddy"" re-dos.
This ""reimagining"" euphemism is used to cloak the fact that they merely just changed the characters and slightly altered the plots of older (vastly superior) movies. Most of us would rather see something original, a la 2010's ""Inception"" or ""The Town"" than the watered-down rehash.
It is true, there are decent remakes, but they are few and far to come by. For every ""Planet of the Apes"" or ""Poseidon"" there's the occasional ""3:10 to Yuma,"" ""Insomnia,"" or even ""Ocean's Eleven"" (the sequels are horrible; don't even get me started on sequels to remakes). ""The Departed"" (2006) was a remake of an Asian film, ""Infernal Affairs"" and it went on to win best picture.
Early word on the Craig Brewer's ""Footloose"" is positive and hopes are high for ""The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo"", though I am skeptical of the latter's quality.
I saw the original ""Girl"" in theaters about a year and a half ago, and though it was a good film, the glossy new David Fincher version is total tinsel-town cash in.
Although the same could have been said of ""The Departed,"" the Swedish version of ""Girl"" is more well-known in America than ""Infernal Affairs."" The cultural relevance of the Swedish film renders the Americanized version particularly unnecessary; it's irrelevant that the script reputedly is truer to the Steig Larssen novel. Whatever, I'm still going to see it. With remakes, you just have to take your seat in the theater and do one thing only: Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.
