ILHM's Guide to Rating the Remakes

It's easy for everyone to jump on the bandwagon and boycott remakes out of principle, but there are certainly cases where remakes are not only warranted, but entirely welcome. The current influx of remakes has been both a blessing and a curse in different respects, depending on the motivation behind the filmmakers. Disasters like One Missed Call and (indisputably) The Wicker Man have soiled the name of the remakes, but most horror fans cannot deny the strengths of other recent entries like the new Texas Chainsaw Massacre or the balls to the wall My Bloody Valentine reboots. ILHM would like to present several arguments in favor of remaking films meeting certain criteria, along with our ratings guide for making a successful new film:


A film may warrant a remake if...

-The film was initially a flop or wasn't properly distributed in the US, but developed an underground following (Ex. Funny Games).

-The film was limited by a small budget and could benefit from a larger scale or expensive effects (Ex. The Thing From Another World).

-The film was limited by the effects of the time (Ex. The Blob).

-The initial concept was great, but the film is now considered a cheesy B-Movie (Ex. The Fly).

-The film is extremely dated, and might not appeal to a newer generation of movie goers (Ex. The Amityville Horror).

-Aspects of the plot are not relevant outside of the context of the culture of origin (Ex. The Eye).

-A series has fallen too far into self-parody or has taken a dramatic decrease in the quality of the sequel output (Ex. Halloween).

-The film would suffer more from being sequelized than being remade, but is deserving of revisitation (Ex. Piranha).


Things to consider when reviewing a remake:

-Does remake offer the same underlying plot, but at the same time introduce fresh new elements that make it entirely unique from the original? Despite its inherent flaws, Boogeyman did attempt and entirely different plot using the same concept from the 80s original. Texas Chainsaw maintained the same cannibalistic terror as Hooper intended, while introducing an entirely new family structure and cinematic approach.

-Would the remake have been considered a classic had the original never been made? In the rare cases of The Blob, The Thing, or Texas Chainsaw Massacre, I feel this holds true, but most remakes are easily forgettable. Of any of the remakes, Halloween struck me as the best example of how an all-time classic could be made into a conventional and utterly lackluster film that would never stand the test of time.

-Is there sufficient reason to warrant the remake? Typically, you cannot make a case for remaking a film if the singular aspect being changed is the spoken language of the film, but we have seen that this doesn't always hold true (Quarantine, The Grudge, and The Ring in particular). If the original film being remade meets one or more of the criteria above, there may be just cause.

-Would you rather never see the film or series revisited and continue to have to re-watch the original, or give another filmmaker the opportunity to re-imagine the films you loved, and possibly reboot a franchise in a positive new direction? Personally, I will take the Chainsaw remake over The Next Generation hands down any day of the week, and although Jason X is a complete guilty pleasure and fan favorite.. C'mon, it was time for the series to scrap the direction it had taken and bring it back to its roots, which I felt it did successfully.

Just some more food for thought as we continue to be bombarded with the inevitable tide of remakes on the horizon. I know everyone has an opinion on the matter, post your thoughts in the comments section!