With the remake of Speak No Evil out I was thinking about this topic. I can find that there are times where it’s OK to make remakes and times where it’s not. I like Chris Stuckmann’s take on it; if it adds something more to the movie than what was already there to begin with go for it. But if it’s just a frame by frame remake what gives? Why should I not just watch the original movie?
Speak No Evil is a really amazing movie that I really have a hard time understanding why they would make a remake of. It really did not need one, the original is really so good and effective that It will scare most people.
What do you guys think about this subject?
Spoiler alert: Do not watch the trailer of the remake if you haven’t watched any of them. It’s going to totally ruin the movie as it spoils mostly everything involving the plot.
In my opinion, the only three (technically speaking) horror remakes that I can think of, which are actually very good are:
In these three particular cases, the directors have successfully enriched the original stories by expanding on specific aspects barely hinted in the books or previous works. For example, the theme of sexuality in the vampyrism of Dracula or the true feelings of paranoia and isolation depicted in The Thing. All this with the addition of amazing visual effects, and great actors interpretations.
Many good points here! I personally think The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Friday the 13th (2009) and A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) are pretty good remakes myself. I cannot say I’ve gone this deep into it like you have in your thought prosses, but I think they add some elements that makes it work. The story in these movies are maybe not worked on so much but they did a decent job at making these movies “modern” if you will.
I now see that I’m contradicting myself by what I wrote in my OP but my view is maybe a bit more nuanced than what I wrote there.