Latest
Why Rotten Tomatoes Sucks: The Score Does Not Mean What You ThinkWhy Amazon KDP Sucks: They Terminated My Account OvernightIngramSpark: How I Publish Now and WhyWhy Fiverr Sucks for Ghostwriting: The Buyer’s SideWhy eBay Sucks Now: A Seller’s Numbers and a Buyer’s WarningThe Ghost Story TraditionThe Gothic TraditionThe Christmas Ghost Story TraditionBooks to Give a WriterResurrection as a Narrative StructureThe Beach Read ArgumentWhy It’s a Wonderful Life Failed on ReleaseWhat to Read in SpringWhat to Read in SummerWhat to Read in OctoberHow Warner Bros. Dismantled a $17 Billion Cartoon EmpireThe Imaginary Scarcity TrapThe Graph That Goes Vertical Is Usually Somebody Else’sSubstack Is Not Collapsing. The Promise Was.The Disasters That Happen to Ordinary PeopleToba: The Winter That Almost Ended UsJay Stifflemire: Nothing Ever Gets Written DownGeorgie-Ann Getton: I Forgot I Had Free WillAI Detection Cannot Be Evidence, and Publishing Is Using It That WayAI Consciousness Left Philosophy and Entered the LaboratoryThe Office Block Where the Bedrooms AreBlack Tuesday: The Web Ring War Nobody Outside It NoticedThe Web Got Fenced: What AI Search Costs Small SitesWhat the AI Visibility Industry Sells, and What the Evidence SaysBlack Tuesday: The Original ring-master.net Page, 2000Behind the Book: Peacekeeper, The Dissolution WarsBehind the Book: Publish Your BookBehind the Book: Real World SurvivalBehind the Book: ReincarnationBehind the Book: Sell Your BooksBehind the Book: Selling on eBayBehind the Book: Show Don’t TellBehind the Book: Street-Smart Management WisdomBehind the Book: Stuck in the MiddleBehind the Book: The ADHD MarketerBehind the Book: Suddenly UnemployedBehind the Book: The Blonde With a Violin TattooBehind the Book: The Blog-to-Book BlueprintBehind the Book: The Day Your Website DiedBehind the Book: The Death of ThinkingBehind the Book: The Emasculation of AmericaBehind the Book: The Ethical WorkplaceBehind the Book: The Ghostwriting AdvantageBehind the Book: The Gig EconomyBehind the Book: The Villainization of America

Remakes, Ranked

A remake has exactly one obligation, which is to have a reason. Not a better budget, not newer technology and not a wider audience, but something the original could not do or did not want to.

Everything at the top of this list has one. Herzog changed the emotional register rather than the plot. Schrader made explicit what Tourneur suggested and the comparison teaches you something about both. Everything at the bottom repeated the story with better photography.

Ties are broken by the year of the original.

↑ All Entries

1. All Quiet on the Western Front (1930, 1979, 2022)

► Read the full review of All Quiet on the Western Front (1930, 1979, 2022)

RLR: 10 / 10

"Three adaptations of the book the Nazis burned, and the 1930 one is still definitive."

The All Quiet entry covers ninety years of adaptation and the earliest is still the best. Remarque published in 1929, it sold over a million copies in a year, and the Nazis burned it and stripped him of citizenship.

Milestone’s 1930 film trusts the book completely including its ending, was made with sound arriving mid-production, and the sequence in the shell hole with the dying French soldier has never been bettered.

The 1979 television version is respectful and inessential. The 2022 German production is visually extraordinary, won four Academy Awards, and invents an armistice negotiation subplot the novel does not contain because a modern production wanted a countdown. Ratings across the three are 10, 7 and 7.

Remarque sold over a million copies in a year and the Nazis burned the book and stripped him of citizenship.

Milestone’s 1930 film was made with sound arriving mid-production and the shell hole sequence has never been bettered.

The 2022 German version invents an armistice negotiation the novel does not contain, because a modern production wanted a countdown.

For WritersAdding a countdown to a story that refused one is a structural change disguised as a production note. The novel has no armistice negotiation because waiting without a deadline was the point. When you adapt, notice which absences are deliberate. A missing structure is often the argument, and supplying one makes the book more conventional and less true.

↑ All Entries

2. Dracula (1931 / 1992 / 2000 / 2014), Contrast Review

► Read the full review of Dracula (1931 / 1992 / 2000 / 2014), Contrast Review

RLR: 10 / 10

"Four Draculas across eighty years, and each one tells you what its decade was frightened of."

The Dracula entry is here because a property remade this often becomes a measuring instrument. The story is constant, so every difference is a statement about the era that produced it.

Browning’s 1931 Lugosi version establishes the image and is afraid of foreignness and of sexuality it cannot name. Coppola’s 1992 film is explicitly about blood-borne disease and desire, made at the height of the AIDS crisis. The 2000 version is about celebrity and distribution. The 2014 origin story is about building a franchise.

Read in sequence they form a record of what studios believed audiences wanted from identical material at four separate moments, which is more informative than any one of them.

Browning’s 1931 Lugosi version establishes the image and is afraid of foreignness and of a sexuality it cannot name.

Coppola’s 1992 film is explicitly about blood-borne disease and desire, made at the height of the AIDS crisis.

The 2000 version is about celebrity and distribution and the 2014 origin story is about building a franchise.

For WritersThe same monster means something different in each decade because the fear moves. Browning’s is about foreignness, Coppola’s about blood-borne disease, and the later ones about celebrity. When you use a durable figure, identify the current anxiety. A monster attached to nothing contemporary is a costume, and the versions that last are the ones that arrived when they were needed.

↑ All Entries

3. Robin Hood (1938 / 1973 / 1991 / 2010), Contrast Review

► Read the full review of Robin Hood (1938 / 1973 / 1991 / 2010), Contrast Review

RLR: 10 / 10

"Four adaptations, and the 1938 one solved it so completely that nobody has improved on it."

The Robin Hood entry demonstrates a pattern rather than a single failure. The 1938 Warner production is canonical and each subsequent version adds something the original deliberately lacked.

Curtiz and Keighley shot in early three-strip Technicolor with Flynn, Rathbone and a Korngold score, and the defining quality is confidence. Nobody in it is conflicted, the adventure is not apologised for, and the film assumes the audience wants what it is being handed.

The 1973 Disney version adds animals, the 1991 adds grit and an American accent, and the 2010 adds a psychological backstory and a political framework before the legend even begins. Each addition is an attempt to justify the story to an audience that did not require justifying.

Rathbone was a genuinely accomplished fencer and the 1938 duel is staged largely in shadow thrown on a wall.

Korngold wrote the score as though for an opera and established what a Hollywood adventure score would sound like for fifty years.

The 1991 adds grit and the 2010 adds a political framework before the legend begins, and each is answering an objection nobody raised.

For WritersEach generation’s additions reveal what it could no longer take on faith. The 1938 film needed no explanation for why a nobleman would help peasants, and every later version supplies one. When you remake something, notice what you feel obliged to justify. The justification is a document about your era rather than an improvement to the story.

↑ All Entries

4. Dumbo (1941 / 2019), Contrast Review

► Read the full review of Dumbo (1941 / 2019), Contrast Review

RLR: 10 / 10

"Sixty-four minutes in 1941, and the remake proves that was the right length."

Dumbo is first because the pair makes the clearest argument on this page. The 1941 original runs sixty-four minutes, was made cheaply on a shoestring to recover the losses from Pinocchio and Fantasia, and has almost no plot at all.

That brevity is the achievement. There is no villain with a scheme, no quest and no third-act reversal, and the film’s most famous sequence is a hallucination that has nothing to do with the story. It is a mood held for an hour.

Burton’s 2019 version adds a human family, a corporate antagonist, a motivation and a rescue plot, and every addition drains the thing that made the original work. It runs almost twice as long to say considerably less, which is the entire lesson.

The 1941 film runs sixty-four minutes because the studio needed a cheap picture to recover the losses from Pinocchio and Fantasia.

The Pink Elephants sequence has nothing to do with the story and is four minutes of pure abstraction in a children’s film.

The 2019 version adds a human family, a corporate antagonist and a rescue plot, running almost twice as long to say considerably less.

For WritersA remake that adds material to a spare original has misdiagnosed it. The brevity was the achievement, and filling the gaps removes the space the reader was working in. When you expand something short, ask what the compression was doing. Economy is often the entire technique, and a fuller version is not a better version of the same book.

↑ All Entries

5. Cat People (1942 / 1982), Contrast Review

► Read the full review of Cat People (1942 / 1982), Contrast Review

RLR: 10 / 10

"One film suggests and one film shows, and the pair is the best lesson in horror available."

Cat People is here because the two versions are a controlled experiment. Same story, opposite method, and the results are unambiguous.

Tourneur had no budget for a convincing panther in 1942 and built the horror entirely from sound and shadow. The walk along the park wall, where the footsteps stop and a bus brake hisses, gave the industry its term for a false scare and is still taught.

Schrader’s 1982 version has the money and shows everything, including the transformations in full. It is a more explicit film, a more sexually serious one, and a considerably less frightening one, and having both is more useful than having either.

Tourneur had no budget for a convincing panther in 1942 and built the horror entirely from sound and shadow.

The walk along the park wall gave the industry its term for a false scare and is still taught.

Schrader’s 1982 version has the money and shows everything, which produces a more explicit film and a less frightening one.

For WritersNo budget for the creature produced the technique. Tourneur built the horror from sound and shadow and gave the industry its term for a false scare. When you cannot show something, make the not-showing the method. Readers construct a worse version than anything you would have described, and the constraint that forced it is invisible in the result.

↑ All Entries

6. The Jungle Book (1967 / 2016), Contrast Review

► Read the full review of The Jungle Book (1967 / 2016), Contrast Review

RLR: 10 / 10

"A film built on voice casting, remade as a film built on rendering."

The Jungle Book pair identifies exactly what a remake can and cannot reproduce. The 1967 animated feature is structured as a series of encounters specifically to accommodate its voices. Phil Harris and George Sanders are performances first and characters second, and the film is arranged around them.

Favreau’s 2016 version is a genuine technical achievement. The jungle is photoreal, the animals are convincing, and the entire thing was shot in a Los Angeles warehouse.

It reproduces the plot and cannot reproduce the reason anybody liked the original, because the reason was a handful of performers being allowed to do whatever they wanted for four minutes at a time.

The 1967 film is arranged around its voices, with Phil Harris and George Sanders performing first and characterising second.

Walt died during production and had rejected the first, darker treatment entirely, instructing the team not to read Kipling.

Favreau’s 2016 jungle is photoreal and was built in a Los Angeles warehouse, which is a genuine achievement attached to nothing new.

For WritersA remake can reproduce the plot and not the reason anybody liked it. The 1967 film was built around its voices, and photoreal animals do not replace a performance. When you adapt, identify what the original was actually made of. Plot is the most portable element and is almost never the thing that made a work loved.

↑ All Entries

7. Cleopatra (1934 / 1945 / 1963 / 1999 / 2023), Contrast Review

► Read the full review of Cleopatra (1934 / 1945 / 1963 / 1999 / 2023), Contrast Review

RLR: 9 / 10

"Five Cleopatras, and the 1963 one nearly destroyed a studio."

The Cleopatra entry spans ninety years and five productions, and the 1963 version is the famous one for reasons that have almost nothing to do with what is on screen.

It cost around forty-four million dollars, which was more than any film had ever cost, nearly bankrupted Twentieth Century Fox, and required the studio to sell its backlot. The production history, including a change of director, a change of country and the Taylor and Burton affair, is more interesting than the four hours it produced.

DeMille’s 1934 version is the better film and nobody watches it, which is the pattern this entry exists to demonstrate.

The 1963 version cost around forty-four million, nearly bankrupted Fox and required the studio to sell its backlot.

The production changed director and country mid-shoot, and the Taylor and Burton affair generated more coverage than the film.

DeMille’s 1934 version is the better film and nobody watches it, which is the pattern the entry exists to demonstrate.

For WritersA production history can outlive the work entirely. Everything anybody remembers about the 1963 version happened off screen. When a project becomes a story in itself, understand the work will be read through it. Nothing you put on the page competes with what people already believe about how it was made.

↑ All Entries

8. The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951 and 2008)

► Read the full review of The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951 and 2008)

RLR: 9 / 10

"A warning about nuclear weapons, remade as a warning about the environment, and only one works."

This pair shows the limits of substituting a subject. Wise’s 1951 film has a visitor who is more reasonable than the people receiving him, delivering an ultimatum about nuclear weapons rather than executing a threat.

The power came from the audience genuinely fearing the thing being warned about. In 1951 the threat was immediate, specific and recent, and the film did not have to argue for it.

The 2008 version keeps the structure exactly and swaps in environmental collapse, which is a real danger and a different kind of one. It is diffuse, contested and slow, and an ultimatum about it does not carry the same charge, so the film has a shape with nothing inside it.

The 1951 film’s power came from an audience genuinely fearing the thing being warned about, which required no argument in 1951.

The 2008 version swaps in environmental collapse, which is diffuse, contested and slow, and an ultimatum about it carries no charge.

Wise’s original has a visitor more reasonable than the people receiving him, which the remake replaces with a visitor who is simply correct.

For WritersSubstituting a subject only works if the new one carries the same charge. Nuclear war in 1951 needed no argument; environmental collapse is contested and slow. When you update a threat, test whether an ultimatum about it would frighten anybody. A danger the reader has already learned to live with cannot supply urgency however serious it is.

↑ All Entries

9. War of the Worlds (1953 & 2005)

► Read the full review of War of the Worlds (1953 & 2005)

RLR: 9 / 10

"Two invasions, and each is about the war its country had just had or was having."

The War of the Worlds pair is the clearest demonstration on this page that changing the point of view is enough. Same source, same invasion, same outcome, and two completely different films.

The 1953 Pal production is a Cold War picture about coordinated national defence. The military are protagonists, scientists are consulted, and the structure is institutional response to a threat.

Spielberg’s 2005 version is a post-September-11 film about a father running with his children and knowing nothing. No general appears, no explanation is offered, and the audience learns only what a man in a crowd would learn. The shift from institutional to domestic is the entire difference.

The 1953 Pal production is a Cold War picture about coordinated national defence, with the military as protagonists.

Spielberg’s 2005 version is a post-September-11 film about a father running with his children and knowing nothing.

No general appears in the remake and the audience learns only what a man in a crowd would learn.

For WritersThe same invasion becomes a different book depending on where you stand. The 1953 version has generals and the 2005 has a father who knows nothing. When you write catastrophe, choose your altitude deliberately. Command level produces a story about response and street level produces one about incomprehension, and they share only the event.

↑ All Entries

10. Bedazzled (1967 / 2000), Contrast Review

► Read the full review of Bedazzled (1967 / 2000), Contrast Review

RLR: 9 / 10

"Cook and Moore made a theological comedy, and the remake made a romantic one."

The Bedazzled pair demonstrates a specific kind of loss. Donen’s 1967 original has Peter Cook as a bored suburban devil granting a short-order cook seven wishes, each of which is subverted by a technicality the wish failed to specify.

The joke is theological and administrative. Cook’s Satan is petty, tired of the work, and collects souls the way a man collects stamps he stopped enjoying years ago. The argument is that hell is a job and that damnation is a contract dispute.

The 2000 version keeps the wish structure, makes the devil attractive and the protagonist sympathetic, and resolves it romantically. Everything transferred except the thing the film was about, which is the pattern this page keeps documenting.

Cook’s Satan is petty, bored of the work, and collects souls the way a man collects stamps he stopped enjoying.

Each wish is subverted by a technicality the wish failed to specify, which makes the joke theological and administrative.

The 2000 version keeps the wish structure and resolves it romantically, transferring everything except the argument.

For WritersWhen a remake keeps the structure and loses the argument, the structure was never the work. Seven wishes subverted by fine print is a premise; what the fine print says about the universe is the film. When you rework something, identify the position rather than the mechanism. A shape can be copied by anybody and an argument is what nobody else can supply.

↑ All Entries

11. The Taking of Pelham 123 (1974 and 2009)

► Read the full review of The Taking of Pelham 123 (1974 and 2009)

RLR: 9 / 10

"A procedural about municipal competence, remade as a film about two men shouting."

The Pelham pair is about scale in the wrong direction. Sargent’s 1974 version is about the transit authority as an organisation, with Walter Matthau as a tired functionary who is good at his job and would rather be elsewhere.

The tension comes from a system being tested. Dispatchers, the mayor’s office, the transit police and the money all have to move, and the film is interested in whether a city can physically deliver a million dollars in an hour.

Scott’s 2009 remake converts it into a personal duel between Washington and Travolta, with backstories, moral symmetry and shouting. It is a bigger film about a smaller subject.

The 1974 original is about municipal competence and whether a city can physically deliver a million dollars in an hour.

Walter Matthau plays a tired transit functionary who is good at his job and would rather be elsewhere.

The colour-coded names were borrowed wholesale by Tarantino for Reservoir Dogs, which he has acknowledged.

For WritersResolve a procedural on a small physical detail rather than a large revelation. A sneeze satisfies because the reader has spent two hours learning to notice exactly that. When your book is about method, let the method catch them. A reader trained to watch small things experiences the ending as a reward for attention rather than as information.

↑ All Entries

12. Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979)

► Read the full review of Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979)

RLR: 8.5 / 10

"Herzog remade Murnau and stands beside him without embarrassment."

Nosferatu the Vampyre is the best single remake on this page and the reason is that Herzog changed nothing structural. The plot is Murnau’s, the shots frequently reference Murnau’s, and the intention was explicitly to honour rather than to improve.

What he altered is the emotion. Kinski plays Dracula as exhausted rather than predatory, a creature tired of its own continuation who envies the dead, and the performance is closer to grief than to threat.

That reading is implied by the 1922 film and never stated in it, which means Herzog found a genuinely new work inside an existing one without inventing anything.

Herzog changed nothing structural, using Murnau’s plot and frequently his shots, intending to honour rather than improve.

Kinski plays Dracula as exhausted rather than predatory, a creature tired of its own continuation who envies the dead.

That reading is implied by the 1922 film and never stated in it.

For WritersFinding a new reading inside an existing work is more valuable than changing it. Kinski plays Dracula as exhausted rather than predatory, which the 1922 film implies and never states. When you remake something, look for what the original left unexamined. An interpretation the source supports is a contribution; a departure is just a different book.

↑ All Entries

13. Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956, 1978, 1993, 2007)

► Read the full review of Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956, 1978, 1993, 2007)

RLR: 8 / 10

"Four versions, and each decade decided the pods meant something different."

The Body Snatchers entry is the best example on this page of a premise flexible enough to hold whatever an audience brings. Siegel’s 1956 film has been read as anti-communist and as anti-McCarthy with equal confidence, which tells you the film does not specify.

Kaufman’s 1978 version is the best of the four and has the superior ending. Moving it to San Francisco and to a culture of therapy and self-actualisation makes the conformity ambient rather than imposed, and the final shot is the bleakest in the sequence.

The 1993 and 2007 attempts add stars and a military base and a virus respectively, and neither finds a new anxiety to attach the premise to, which is the only thing that makes a version of this worth making.

The 1956 original has been read as anti-communist and as anti-McCarthy with equal confidence, which tells you it does not specify.

Kaufman’s 1978 version moves it to San Francisco during a culture of therapy, which makes the conformity ambient rather than imposed.

The 1993 and 2007 attempts add a military base and a virus and neither finds a new anxiety to attach the premise to.

For WritersA premise that does not specify its own target survives every decade. The pods have meant communism, conformity and therapy culture in turn. When you write allegory, resist naming the referent. A story tied to one political moment expires with it; one that describes a shape is reinterpreted by every generation that finds it.

↑ All Entries

14. The Blob (1958 and 1988)

► Read the full review of The Blob (1958 and 1988)

RLR: 8 / 10

"A hundred and ten thousand dollar original, and a remake that improved on it."

The Blob is the clearest case on this page of a remake being straightforwardly better. Yeaworth’s 1958 film made roughly four million against a hundred and ten thousand dollar budget and is one of the most profitable independent films of its decade, and it is slow, cheap and coy.

Chuck Russell’s 1988 version, co-written with Frank Darabont, uses the premise properly. The creature dissolves people on screen in practical effects that still hold up, and the film kills characters the original would have protected, including the apparent lead in the first act.

It also gives the thing an origin that adds rather than subtracts, and it failed commercially while the original had been a phenomenon.

The 1958 original made roughly four million against a hundred and ten thousand dollar budget and is slow, cheap and coy.

Chuck Russell’s 1988 version, co-written with Darabont, dissolves people on screen in practical effects that still hold up.

It kills the apparent lead in the first act and failed commercially where the original had been a phenomenon.

For WritersKill the apparent lead early and the reader stops assuming anybody is safe. The 1988 version does it in the first act, which is the single change separating it from the coy original. When you want genuine unease, remove somebody the reader has been told is protected. Every subsequent scene then carries a possibility that costs you nothing to maintain.

↑ All Entries

15. Overboard (1987 and 2018)

► Read the full review of Overboard (1987 and 2018)

RLR: 8 / 10

"A morally indefensible premise that works because the leads were a real couple, and does not work when they are not."

The Overboard pair is the sharpest illustration on this page of what happens when you defuse a premise to make it acceptable. The 1987 film has a carpenter convince an amnesiac heiress that she is his wife and put her to work raising his four sons.

It is indefensible and it is charming, almost entirely because Russell and Hawn were together in life and the audience knew it. The performances carry a premise the script cannot.

The 2018 version reverses the genders so a wealthy man is deceived by a working single mother, which removes the power imbalance and with it the only thing giving the story any charge. What is left is a pleasant film about nothing.

The 1987 film has a carpenter convince an amnesiac heiress that she is his wife and put her to work raising his four sons.

It is indefensible and charming, almost entirely because Russell and Hawn were together in life and the audience knew it.

The 2018 version reverses the genders, which removes the power imbalance and with it the only thing giving the story any charge.

For WritersReversing the genders removes the power imbalance and with it the only thing giving the story any charge. The 1987 film is indefensible and works; the 2018 version is defensible and does not. When you fix a problematic premise, check whether the problem was the engine. Some stories only function because somebody has unreasonable power, and removing it leaves nothing.

↑ All Entries

16. Let Me In (2010)

► Read the full review of Let Me In (2010)

RLR: 8 / 10

"An American remake of a beloved foreign film that justifies its own existence."

Let Me In arrived two years after Let the Right One In to considerable hostility and is one of the few American remakes of a recent foreign film that earns its place.

Reeves kept the events and changed the emphasis. The New Mexico setting, the snow, and Reagan-era radio broadcasts about evil underneath give it a colder and more specifically American bleakness.

The significant change is interpretive. The Swedish film leaves the relationship between the child vampire and the older man ambiguous; the remake states plainly that he was once the boy and frames the whole arrangement as grooming, which is the reading the source supports and was too careful to commit to.

Reeves kept the events and changed the emphasis, with New Mexico snow and Reagan-era broadcasts about evil.

The Swedish film leaves the relationship ambiguous; the remake states plainly that the man was once the boy and frames it as grooming.

That is the reading the source supports and was too careful to commit to, which is why the remake justifies itself.

For WritersA remake earns itself by committing to what the original implied. The Swedish film leaves the arrangement ambiguous and this one names it and frames it as grooming. When you rework something careful, consider being explicit where it was not. That is interpretation rather than repetition, and it is the only justification for telling the same story twice.

↑ All Entries

17. Total Recall (2012)

► Read the full review of Total Recall (2012)

RLR: 8 / 10

"A remake that removes the ambiguity the original was built on."

Total Recall is a competent action film that discarded the only interesting thing about its source. Verhoeven’s 1990 version never resolves whether Quaid is on Mars or strapped to a chair at Rekall, and every element of it supports both readings simultaneously.

The 2012 version keeps the implanted-memory premise and drops Mars, the mutants and the ambiguity, resolving the question in the first act so the rest can be a chase.

What remains is well made. Wiseman’s production design is genuinely good and the film has nothing to be about, because the doubt was the subject rather than a complication.

The Colony and the Federation are two vertically stacked cities connected by a tunnel through the planet’s core.

Wiseman shoots the chases well and the production design is genuinely good throughout.

Dropping the ambiguity removes the only thing the 1990 version had that nothing else did.

For WritersTwo versions of one source are not automatically in competition. Judging a remake against what the original wanted rather than against what it wants makes both look worse. When you rework existing material, state your own intention clearly enough that readers can measure you against it. A book that does not announce what it is attempting will be measured against whatever it resembles.

↑ All Entries

18. Nosferatu (2024)

► Read the full review of Nosferatu (2024)

RLR: 8 / 10

"The third great screen Nosferatu, and Eggers had wanted to make it his whole career."

Nosferatu is the third version of this story to be worth having, which no other property on this page can claim. Eggers had been circling it since a high school production and brought the same obsessive period research that produced The Witch and The Lighthouse.

It is the most beautiful and uncompromising vampire film in years, lit substantially by available sources, with dialogue reconstructed toward period usage and a Count who is explicitly a corpse rather than an aristocrat.

It is also slow, grim and demanding, and it asks the audience to meet it on terms it does not negotiate, which is why the reception split.

Eggers had been circling it since a high school production and brought the same period research that produced The Witch and The Lighthouse.

It is lit substantially by available sources, with dialogue reconstructed toward period usage and a Count who is explicitly a corpse.

It is slow, grim and demanding and asks the audience to meet it on terms it does not negotiate, which is why the reception split.

For WritersA third worthwhile version of the same story is possible if each has a different register. Murnau, Herzog and Eggers are doing three separate things with one plot. When you approach much-adapted material, the question is not whether it has been done. It is whether you have a register nobody has applied, and register rather than plot is where the room is.

↑ All Entries

19. The Raven (1935 / 1963 / 2012), Contrast Review

► Read the full review of The Raven (1935 / 1963 / 2012), Contrast Review

RLR: 7 / 10

"Three films sharing a title and almost nothing else."

The Raven entry is here as the limiting case. These three films are not remakes of each other in any meaningful sense; they share a title borrowed from a poem and nothing else.

The 1935 Universal version has Lugosi as a surgeon obsessed with Poe and Karloff as a criminal he disfigures. The 1963 Corman film is a comedy with Price, Karloff and a young Jack Nicholson about duelling magicians. The 2012 has Cusack as Poe himself investigating murders based on his own stories.

It demonstrates that a title is the weakest thing a property can carry forward, and that studios will carry it anyway because it is the part that is legally owned.

The 1935 Universal version has Lugosi as a surgeon obsessed with Poe and Karloff as a criminal he disfigures.

The 1963 Corman film is a comedy with Price, Karloff and a young Jack Nicholson about duelling magicians.

The 2012 has Cusack as Poe himself investigating murders based on his own stories, and the three share only a borrowed title.

For WritersA title is the weakest thing a property can carry forward and the part that is legally owned. Three films share it and almost nothing else. When you acquire rights, notice what you have actually bought. Names and titles are transferable and the thing readers valued usually is not, which is why so many adaptations feel like unrelated works.

↑ All Entries

20. Poseidon Adventure (2006)

► Read the full review of Poseidon Adventure (2006)

RLR: 7 / 10

"A disaster film remade with better water and no characters."

The Poseidon remakes demonstrate that the effects were never the point. The 1972 original works because the survivors argue about whether to climb up or wait for rescue, which gives a physical situation a moral structure and a genuine disagreement.

Gene Hackman’s minister is arguing a theological position about self-reliance and losing people for it, and the film’s tension is whether he is right rather than whether the water rises.

Both 2006 versions keep the capsizing and drop the argument. The water is better, the ship is better, and what is left is an effects sequence with people moving through it.

The 1972 original works because the survivors argue about whether to climb up or wait, which gives a physical situation a moral structure.

Hackman’s minister is arguing a theological position about self-reliance and losing people for it, and the tension is whether he is right.

Both 2006 versions keep the capsizing and drop the argument, leaving an effects sequence with people moving through it.

For WritersIf the argument was the tension, better effects do not replace it. The 1972 film is about whether to climb or wait, and removing the disagreement leaves water moving. When you remake a survival story, find the moral question inside it. Physical danger is the occasion and the disagreement about what to do is the book.

↑ All Entries

21. Death Wish (2018)

► Read the full review of Death Wish (2018)

RLR: 6 / 10

"A remake that removes the ambivalence and keeps the shooting."

Death Wish took the one film in its genre built on genuine moral uncertainty and resolved it. Roth directs Willis in the Paul Kersey role and makes him a trauma surgeon rather than an architect.

That change should have been an improvement. A man who repairs gunshot wounds by day and creates them at night is a real contradiction, and the film raises it in a few lines and does nothing else with it.

The 1974 original was uncertain about its own protagonist and that uncertainty was why it was still being argued about forty years later. This version is not uncertain about anything.

Making Kersey a trauma surgeon should have been an improvement, since repairing gunshot wounds by day and creating them at night is a real contradiction.

The film raises it in a few lines and does nothing else with it.

The 1974 original was uncertain about its own protagonist, which is why it was still being argued about forty years later.

For WritersRemoving an ambiguity is not the same as resolving it. The 1974 film is still discussed because it would not decide. When your material has a genuine moral difficulty, resist settling it for the reader’s comfort. The unresolved version is the one people talk about afterward, and talking about it afterward is the whole business.

↑ All Entries

22. Oldboy (2013)

► Read the full review of Oldboy (2013)

RLR: 5 / 10

"Spike Lee remaking Park Chan-wook, and the ending was never going to survive an American release."

Oldboy is the clearest case on this page of a remake taking a plot it could not commit to. Brolin plays a man imprisoned for twenty years and released to discover why, and the film reproduces the 2003 Korean structure closely.

The original’s conclusion is the entire film. Everything preceding it exists to make that revelation land, and the Korean version is willing to follow it all the way down and leave the protagonist there.

The American version softens it, which removes its own reason to exist. Lee disowned the final cut, having lost around thirty-five minutes, and the film performed poorly and divided what reviews it got.

The original’s conclusion is the entire film and everything before it is scaffolding for that revelation.

Lee disowned the final cut having lost around thirty-five minutes, and the corridor fight is restaged across two levels.

Softening the ending leaves an hour and a half of setup for something that no longer arrives.

For WritersIf a remake cannot commit to the original’s ending, it should not take the original’s plot. Everything before a conclusion like this is scaffolding for it. When you adapt something built entirely on its final movement, that movement is the property. Acquiring the events and softening the conclusion produces preparation for something that never arrives.

↑ All Entries

23. He’s All That (2021)

► Read the full review of He’s All That (2021)

RLR: 4 / 10

"A remake of a film that was itself a loose Pygmalion, with the genders swapped and nothing else."

He’s All That is the third pass at Pygmalion in this lineage and the thinnest. She’s All That in 1999 was already a loose teen version of Shaw; this reverses its genders and casts a social media personality in the lead.

The reversal is the entire concept and the film has no second idea. Nothing about the material is reconsidered, the class element that was the point of Pygmalion is absent, and the bet structure survives without the observation it originally carried.

Rachael Leigh Cook appears as the protagonist’s mother, which is the film acknowledging its own source more meaningfully than anything in the script does.

She’s All That in 1999 was already a loose teen Pygmalion, and this reverses its genders and casts a social media personality.

Nothing about the material is reconsidered and the class element that was the point of Pygmalion is absent.

Rachael Leigh Cook appears as the protagonist’s mother, which acknowledges the source more meaningfully than anything in the script.

For WritersReversing a premise without reconsidering it produces a copy with the parts swapped. The class element that was the point of Pygmalion is simply absent. When you invert something, ask what the original was about rather than what happened in it. A structural mirror with no argument is an exercise, and readers can tell within a chapter.

↑ All Entries

24. Every Disney Live Action Remake (2010-Present)

► Read the full review of Every Disney Live Action Remake (2010-Present)

RLR: 3 / 10

"A studio strip-mining its own back catalogue, and the 3 rates the programme rather than any film."

This entry rates a strategy rather than a picture, which is why it sits where it does. Alice in Wonderland took a billion dollars in 2010 and established the arrangement: take a title with forty years of affection attached, remake it photographically, and sell it to an audience that already knows the songs.

Several are competently made and one or two are genuinely good. The Jungle Book is a technical achievement and Cinderella is a real film.

The collective effect is a company converting its own history into a release schedule, and the programme has now produced enough entries that the pattern is more visible than any individual result. The 3 is for the run.

Alice in Wonderland took a billion dollars in 2010 and established the arrangement for everything that followed.

Several are competently made and one or two are genuinely good, with The Jungle Book a technical achievement and Cinderella a real film.

The collective effect is a company converting its own history into a release schedule, and the 3 rates the programme.

For WritersA company converting its own history into a release schedule produces work with no reason to exist individually. Several are competent and the collective effect is the subject. When you are asked to repeat something that worked, ask what the new version is for. A remake without an answer to that question is a product rather than a book.

↑ All Entries

25. The Hustle (2019)

► Read the full review of The Hustle (2019)

RLR: 3 / 10

"Dirty Rotten Scoundrels with the genders swapped, which was also a remake."

The Hustle is the third version of the same con. Bedtime Story in 1964, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels in 1988, and this in 2019, and each has been broader than the one before.

The material requires the audience to believe both grifters are genuinely competent, because the pleasure is watching two skilled people work against each other. Broadness destroys that, since an obviously foolish con artist cannot generate suspense about whether the con works.

Anne Hathaway is committed and the film keeps undercutting her, and the 1988 version is available and better.

Bedtime Story in 1964, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels in 1988 and this in 2019, each broader than the one before.

The material requires the audience to believe both grifters are genuinely competent, and broadness destroys that.

Anne Hathaway is committed and the film keeps undercutting her, and the 1988 version is available and better.

For WritersA con story requires both parties to be genuinely competent. Broadness destroys the suspense, because an obviously foolish grifter cannot generate doubt about whether the con works. When you write deception, keep everybody sharp. The pleasure is in watching capable people outmanoeuvre each other, and a fool in either chair removes the contest entirely.

↑ All Entries

26. Mulan (2020)

► Read the full review of Mulan (2020)

RLR: 3 / 10

"The songs removed, the dragon removed, and the chi added."

Mulan makes the single most damaging change on this page. The 1998 film is about a young woman with no particular aptitude who becomes capable through training, which is why the training montage is the centre of it.

The 2020 version gives her innate chi, which she has always possessed and has been suppressing. She is not becoming capable, she is being permitted to reveal capability, and the entire argument of the original is removed.

The songs and Mushu are gone as well, which was defensible, and the film was also caught by the Xinjiang filming credits controversy, which overshadowed whatever reception it might otherwise have had.

The 1998 film is about a young woman with no particular aptitude who becomes capable through training.

The 2020 version gives her innate chi she has always possessed and has been suppressing, which removes the argument entirely.

The songs and Mushu are gone as well, and the film was caught by the Xinjiang filming credits controversy.

For WritersAn innate ability she has always possessed removes the argument the original was making. The 1998 film is about somebody becoming capable through training. When you update a story about earning something, check whether you have converted it into a story about discovering something. The two look similar on a synopsis and mean opposite things.

↑ All Entries

27. Snow White (2025)

► Read the full review of Snow White (2025)

RLR: 2 / 10

"A film that arrives exhausted, defending itself in every scene."

Snow White is the bottom of this page and the reason is instructive rather than merely a failure of quality. Every decision in it appears to have been made in answer to an objection raised during production rather than in service of anything.

The dwarfs were reconceived, then reconceived again, the prince was removed and partially restored, the songs are split between the 1937 originals and new material, and the casting became a public argument before a frame was released.

What that produces is a film continuously justifying itself and never doing anything. An audience can feel the difference between a work that wants something and a work that is avoiding complaints, and this is the clearest available example of the second.

The dwarfs were reconceived, then reconceived again, the prince was removed and partially restored, and the casting became a public argument before release.

The songs are split between the 1937 originals and new material, which means the film has two registers and commits to neither.

What that produces is a picture continuously justifying itself and never doing anything.

For WritersA production continuously justifying itself never does anything. The dwarfs were reconceived twice, the prince removed and partly restored, and the songs split between two registers. When a project becomes a defence, stop and decide what it is. Work made under continuous objection acquires the shape of the objections rather than any shape of its own.

↑ Back to Navigation

Frequently Asked Questions

What makes a good remake?
Having a reason the original could not supply. Not a bigger budget or newer technology, but something the first film could not do or did not want to. Everything at the top of this list has one.
What is the best remake?
Six entries take a 10, mostly as contrast reviews covering both versions. Dumbo is first on the year tiebreak and demonstrates that expansion is not improvement, since every addition the 2019 version makes drains the original.
What is the worst remake?
Snow White (2025), at a 2. Every decision in it appears to have been made in answer to an objection, which produces a film that is continuously defending itself and never doing anything.
Which remake is better than its original?
The Blob. Chuck Russell’s 1988 version uses the premise properly with practical effects and is willing to kill characters the 1958 film would have protected.
Why does the Overboard remake fail?
Because it reverses the genders to defuse a morally indefensible premise, which removes the power imbalance and with it the only thing giving the story any charge.
What is wrong with the Mulan remake?
It replaces the protagonist’s earned discipline with an innate power she is born with. The 1998 film is about training and the remake is about destiny, which removes the argument entirely.
Which remake changed the least and improved the most?
Nosferatu the Vampyre. Herzog kept the plot and replaced the emotional register entirely, playing Dracula as exhausted rather than predatory, which is the most reliable route a remake has available.

GenresDrama

🏷︎ Film List🏷︎ Remakes

0 comments

No comments yet. Yours can be the first.

Was this useful?

Leave a comment