Worst Remake Ever?

[Matilda]

Last night on TCM I saw the 1964 remake of "Night Must Fall" for the first time - and I wish I hadn't
bothered. I've never seen it before; didn't even know it existed. I'm looking forward to the next
screening of the 1930's version so that I can wipe this tragic failure from my mind.

Albert Finney played the Robert Montgomery role, and although I'm normally an admirer of Finney, I
couldn't believe how bad his acting was. Unlike Montgomery's smooth and likeable psychopath, Finney
did everything but play with his toes and babble. And the first scene was of him hacking away at
a body, and then throwing an axe into a river - why not take out an advertisement? He was so smarmy
when he wheedled his way into the household of old Mrs Bramson (played by Mona Washbourne, the only
sound performance in the film), the rest of the characters would have had to be blind, deaf and
totally stupid not to have him picked for a total nutter from the beginning. And while I'm not an
expert on the Welsh accent, Finney's slipped so badly from scene to scene, I could hardly believe
my ears.

Rosalind Russell's wonderful repressed but yearning spinster was replaced by Susan Hampshire as a
spoiled little society brat - if anybody deserved to be decapitated on sight, it was she. I'd have
handed the axe to the murderer myself.

This film was made just a year after the wonderful "Tom Jones" (which Finney reportedly hated) - how
could the same actor give two such wildly differing performances? I did notice in the titles that
Finney was one of the producers - perhaps the director was afraid to rein him in, because he was
definitely in great need of being pulled back, and even sat upon to calm him down from the eye-
rolling and grimacing that he was prone to.

I read some laudatory reviews on IMDb, and can only suppose that those people had never viewed the
original Montgomery/Russell version, or else were such devoted Finney fans they were unable to
exercise any sound judgement at all.

If it comes your way - be warned!

[lavenderdiva]

1. I haven't seen the remake of 'Night Must Fall', however

I have seen the original many times, and can't believe that they would even attempt to remake such a classic! I loved that there wasn't anything explicit shown about the killer, only implications in the original. Robert Montgomery's performance was perfection, and I thouht Rosalind Russell was the perfect foil for him.

I have been seeing promos for the new version of 'The Women'. It is coming out soon, and while the cast is made up of very talented ladies, I cannot believe that it will surpass the original version. As many of you know, because whenever it is shown on TCM I just go on and on about it (not to mention that Norma Shearer is my avatar!!!!), 'The Women' is one of my top five favorites!! Of course, I will go see the remake, but I already know that it will never match the version I love so much.

[Longhorn]

2. The June Allyson remake of The Women certainly didn't measure up!

Even if I hadn't seen the original, there is no way I would have believed the divorce. Who could divorce June Allyson? I'll have to check out the casting on the new remake.

[Matilda]

5. I'd never seen the original version of "The Women"

when I saw "The Opposite Sex", so I thought it was fun, but my mother
couldn't bear to see it. When I eventually caught up with the original
on television, I understood why.

The big thing it lacked, I think, was sophistication. Many undoubtedly
attractive women, all talented in various ways, but not the classy,
elegant sophistication of a Rosalind Russell, a Norma Shearer, or even
a Joan Crawford. She played trash, but always classy trash.

The other thing I liked about "The Women" was the lack of men. A clever
gimmick, but it worked - the whole atmosphere was changed by in the
remake with the appearance of the men. Not that I don't like the little
dears*, but they were unnecessary.

* thanks to Ruth Hussey (The Philadelphia Story).

[Longhorn]

3. What are the qualities of a good remake?

Should it be judged on whether it captures the essence of the original or even improves it? Or should it be judged as a "stand-alone" movie, as if the original never existed? I guess the same question could be asked about sequels and movies based on books.

We recently saw the latest Indiana Jones movie and thought it was good -- not great but not disappointing. Some of the reviews have been very harsh, though. Would we have liked the movie if we hadn't seen the others? How can we know? :)

I don't think I've ever seen Night Must Fall but I'll definitely watch for the original! Thanks! This is a good topic! :hi:

[lavenderdiva]

4. I can't say explicitly what makes a good remake, but

its kinda like you know it when you see it. Take 'Little Women' for example. How many times has this movie been remade? At least 3 that I can think of. One with Katherine Hepburn, one with June Allyson, and one with Winona Ryder. I've seen all three, and enjoyed all 3. However, my 2 favorites are the June Allyson version and the Winona Ryder version. Somehow to me, the Winona Ryder version seemed perfectly cast, with Ms. Ryder exhibiting both the softness and determination that Jo March would have had, IMO. Susan Sarandon was wonderful as Marmee. June Allyson was great in her version, and I especially loved Elizabeth Taylor as her sister, Amy. For me, Katherine Hepburn as Jo March didn't show enough vulnerability in that role. I also think that filming it in color helped, versus the original in b/w. (please note that I am strongly of the opinion that certain films should only be in b/w, and have been ruined by being filmed in color)

As to the latest remake 'The Women': Meg Ryan in the role of Mary Haines, hmmm I just don't know. Don't get me wrong; I loved Ms. Ryan in 'You've Got Mail', 'When Harry Met Sally', 'Addicted To Love', and many others. The movie is sure to get me to the theater to see it. It has a wonderful cast, and may be great. But the original with Norma Shearer, Rosalind Russell, etc. is just amazing, and will be hard to equal. Here is the casting for the new version in case anyone is interested, from IMDB:

(Credited cast)

Meg Ryan ... Mary Haines (originally played by Norma Shearer)

Eva Mendes ... Crystal Allen (originally played by Joan Crawford)

Jada Pinkett Smith ... Miriam Aarons (originally played by Paulette Goddard)

Candice Bergen ... Catherine Frazier

Carrie Fisher ... Nancy Blake

Annette Bening ... Sylvia Fowler (originally played by Rosalind Russell)

Debra Messing ... Edith Potter (originally played by Phyllis Povah)

Cloris Leachman ... Maggie

Debi Mazar ... Olga

Bette Midler ... Flora DeLave (known in the original as Countess DeLave, and originally played by Mary Boland)

Joanna Gleason ... Barbara Delacorte

Keegan Connor Tracy ... Dolly Dupuyster

Lynn Whitfield ... Glenda Hill

India Ennenga ... Molly Haines

Its release date in the US is September 12, 2008. You can view the trailer for it here: http://www.thewomenthemovie.com/

[Matilda]

6. It's a question that teases people in the business, as well as filmgoers,

and there isn't an easy answer.

A lot would have to depend on whether people have seen the original - I
looked at the reviews of "Night Must Fall" on IMDb, and many (mostly
Finney fans, I think) loved it, but there were some who'd seen the
original and hated the remake. I really think I'd have still hated the
newer version even if I'd never seen the Robert Montgomery original, if
for no other reason than the film signalled that Finney was the bad guy
from the beginning, so there was never the tension of beginning to wonder
just who and what he was. Why they chose to do that is something I'll
never understand.

As for other remakes - there are some films so flawlessly written, cast,
produced, directed and acted that you have the feeling the actors were
born to play their roles, and have come together with the right team at
the perfect time. These should be left alone. As one reviewer commented
on the remade "Sabrina": "Why would you bother remaking "Sabrina" unless
the original had been made with Julia Ormond, and you'd just discovered
Audrey Hepburn?". That about sums up my feelings on remakes in general.

Another problem with modern-day remakes (and this would possibly apply to
the newest version of "The Women"), is that with changing times, the
original stories aren't applicable to the modern world, so the situations
are changed, the characters are different, and you end up with a film
that's neither true to itself or to the original. Why bother?

It goes without saying that sometimes original stories left room for
improvement, or because of community attitudes were forced to tiptoe
around controversial subjects - as in "Tea and Sympathy", which caused
a lot of commotion at the time, but today seems just plain silly - and
then I think a remake that is more true to its theme is perfectly
justified.

So I think after all that, the motto should be: if you can improve on
the original, do it, but if you can't make a better version, go write
a new story.

[terrya]

7. Gus Van Sant's remake of "Psycho"

Wow...get a different cast (and it wasn't even all that better...Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates was horrible miscasting) and film it in color instead of black and white...which diluted the suspense of the original. And...that's it. Same movie. Even kept the brilliant Bernard Herrmann score.

Pointless, to say the least. Hell...just rent the original.

[Matilda]

8. I'd second that!

I admit to not having seen it - simply because it seemed like such a futile and pointless exercise.
The only thing you can say to this one is - why?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

9. The Haunting

The POINT of the original version was that you never actually saw any ghosts or anything macabre. You were just made to feel that something evil was lurking in the house and that it had targeted Julie Harris' character. I saw it on TV when I was 16, and it gave me the chills.

I never saw the remake, because the minute I saw the previews of it, in color, with the ghosts out there plain for all to see, I knew that they had completely violated the spirit of the original, which was horror by suggestion and implication, not in-your-face special effects.