25 Remakes and My Reaction to Them 16-20

FLIPPER 1963 and 1993

CONCLUSION: Both are fun but rather forgetful.

The two films have nothing in common other than the title and having the main character a dolphin.  Considering the source material I'm ok with this.  I like both movies, feel that both are a bit underrated, especially the remake.  I think the film suffers from what it was Vs what people thought it should be.  That happens sometimes.

OF MICE AND MEN 1939 and 1992

OVERALL CONCLUSION:  The remake got right what the original got wrong

This in my opinion is exactly why a remake should be made. Not to rehash what was already done right in an attempt to bank on a sure shot success but instead to take a really good concept that failed in execution the first time around, and make it what it should have been. 

I realize the late 1930's was a different time and perhaps my criticisms are unfair considering.  Yet I have two major biffs with the film that I think were more so a result of poor choices than they were any restraints by the time period.  The first criticism I have is that I don't feel the tone is depressing enough.  The novel is hopeless and full of endlessness.  I didn't get that out of the 1939 film, but I did get it out of the 1992 film.  The 1939 version was nothing more than a film to me with Burgess Meredith in what I feel was one of his weaker performances.  The 1992 film was a life changing event for me that helped to formulate my perspective on life and my philosophies.  We're often told time and time again that life is not fair, and I feel the 1992 version illustrates that reality better than any other film I've ever seen.

My other biff with the 1939 version is that Lennie's handicap is borderline mockery.  That may be because mental retardation and other forms of mental disability wasn't well understood in the late 30's. Maybe they didn't have much to reference, but it seemed to me that Lon Cheny Jr played the role more so as the village idiot than he did someone with actual mental disabilities.  John Malkovich's version on the other hand seemed pure, raw and innocent.  Not a man playing a man with retardation but a man with actual retardation.

Again I feel that perhaps my criticism is a bit off considering 1939 to 1992, but we're not talking special effects here, we're talking performances and direction.  So maybe it isn't.

PET SEMATARY 1989 and 2019

OVERALL CONCLUSION: One of the most shocking, terrifying, heart-stopping and distressing films ever made Vs a film that's still good, but in many ways misses the mark on what made the first film so effective.

I'm not here to bash the 2019 remake.  I gave it as a stand alone film an above average review.  I liked it and I have a lot of good things to say about it.  But in comparison to the original it falls flat.  We're comparing a minor league baseball team to the MLB champs.  The minor league team is still good, but they're going to get their asses handed to them at the ball game.   That's the comparison here.

The true terror in PET SEMATARY 1989 was in the compromising position that the father had been put in.  It wasn't so much in the scary Gage coming back with a murderous vengeance as it was a father dealing with an immeasurable amount of guilt in a battle with his own sanity.  To me that was so much more fascinating as well as horrifying than was the more action based plot of the remake. 

I appreciate both films for what they were but I have to have the lights on, someone else in the house with me and we're cuddling when we go to bed after I watch the 1989 version.  The 2019 version I can watch in the dark, and sleep just fine.

PHANTOM OF THE OPERA 1943 and 2004

OVERALL CONCLUSION: Just the opposite of how I feel about of MICE AND MEN.  The 1943 version as how the film should be done. The 2004 version took everything that the 1943 version perfected and decided to do something different. It didn't work.

The 1943 film is a masterpiece.  A strong story, compelling performances and I think above all else which is weird to say for this time period, well paced.  The 2004 version had too much going on.  Too much added to it that served little to no purpose.  The original story stood fine on its own, it didn't need any fine tuning or perfecting.  The original was a tragedy through and through, one where you empathized with each character and related to both their feelings and their emotions.   The remake felt more like an episode of Maury where in the end you're so turned off and disengaged by the whole thing the credits are all you look forward to.

POINT BREAK 1991 and 2015

OVERALL CONCLUSION: How can you screw up a fun, action packed adventure like POINT BREAK?  Hold someone's beer.

The original POINT BREAK isn't going to win any academy awards but at least it was fun.  Keanu Reeves, Gary Busey and Patrick Swayze.  An action packed film full of interesting characters, fun fight scenes and a decent score.  The 2015 Remake was just awful.  It was God awful.  They took cheesy dialog and somehow made it even cheesier.  They took performances that were supposed to be overthetop and over dramatic and somehow made them even more laughable and pathetic.  Did Tommy Wiseau direct this?