Why can't reviews look at remakes as SEPARATE FILMS!?

I disagree. Often, when there are two films telling the same story, I've already seen the older film, and I'm assuming that the filmmakers of the newer one have also. So I'm expecting something not identical, but better in some way. It doesn't have to be better in every way. Maybe some aspects are worse. But the net result ought to be equal or better than the original, or what you have is basically a waste of time, and a lack of respect for the older team.

In this particular case, I think it's a tie, 6/10 to 6/10.

This version is mercifully shorter, but in a way that leaves too much out, feeling like rapid cuts between shots that should have been slowly dissolved to show time passing. I think 4 hours is about the right amount of time for this story. Having seen both, I don't know how it's possible to make sense of this film, without seeing the series first, because characters just sort of pop in and out, and you have to work to keep up. On the other hand, I'll concede maybe the experience is different if you don't know in advance which characters you want to remember.

But I found that the tweaks to the plot made more sense. In this version, Sebastian turns (more) to the bottle because Charles is dating him AND his sister. In the series, the reason is less clear but is associated with charges of being found in a gay bar of sorts. In this version, Charles seems to remain a nonbeliever throughout (it could be argued), and it's Lord Marchmain who converts before the moments he's actually dying. In the series, Lord Marchmain seems only to convert as he's actually dying, and Charles inexplicably decides this is reason to believe.

Having seen both, I don't know how I could comment on this version without making comment on the other. They're in my head at the same time. I guess I could make liberal use of the Delete key when commenting, to edit it out, but that seems artificial.

When I rate this a 6, I'm complaining about the fast pacing, not-as-good cast, and a jarringly bad effect used twice.
When I rate the series a 6, I'm complaining about the slow pacing, unbelievable ending, and fullscreen format (unless I missed a widescreen version).

By reading reviews and discussions as compared to their own opinions, readers should be able to use comparisons like this (hopefully more informative than mine) to help decide whether to spend 2 hours on this, or 10+ hours on the series, or both, or neither.

We don't walk into a film as blank slates. We walk in with our previous experiences and preferences, many of us having seen the original adaptation(s) and/or read the source material. We develop expectations of the remake because, after one adaptation has been done - and particularly if it has excelled, we presume there must be a very good reason why someone else would want to try to dramatize the same story and weather the comparisons. It's natural to contrast the two works and then judge in what ways the remake fell short of our expectations, which were heightened by our knowledge of the excellence of the original adaptation.

I don't think remakes and new adaptations get poor reviews because the public and the critics expect or want the exact same thing as the original. They get poor reviews because the public wants something better than - or at least equal to and different from - the original, and remakes often fail at delivering this - either because the majority of them really *are* weaker than originals or because viewer expectations become unrealistically high. Oftentimes, I think directors/writers feel the pressure of these expectations and are inclined to go out of their way to make their versions fresh or modern or unconventional or artsy, often at the expense of some essential aspect of the story. Less frequently, their efforts pan out. Unfortunately, I don't think that happened with "Brideshead Revisited".

In short, while I agree with you that a film should be measured by how well it adapts a book, and not by its superiority/inferiority to previous adaptations, the fact is that new adaptations are shaped by previous ones. And just as writers and directors are not ignorant of these older works, neither are many viewers. They compare their work to the original adaptations, consciously or not, and we are justified in doing so, too.

OP, you have a point, the sometimes the remakes are so bad, that you can't help but comparing the two, with the original as the yardstick.

Why should it matter to you what other people think?
I thought the BBC adaptation was fabulous! I thought this one gave a better insight into the manipulative qualities of Lady Marchmain.
I have seen countless performances of Shakespeare's plays. Should I no longer go to watch King Lear because I have seen Sir Ian McKellen in the role? Should I have abandoned all other interpretations of MacBeth because I watched him alongside Dame Judi Dench? - I'm showing my age, I know.
The very idea is preposterous!

I have watched several adaptations of Pride and Prejudice, Wuthering Heights, 12 Angry Men and The Incredible Hulk (don't say my tastes aren't catholic) to name but a few - with varying degrees of satisfaction.

In short, people will always have their favourites. There's no need to get huffy about it.

By the way, the re-make of Total Recall was $&*(!" % *)$!