people are overreacting about its being a remake

Exactly

Excellent point.

This is not a remake, this is an adaptation, another version of the story.. Fantistic 4 is a remake, or what what Gus Van Sant did to Psycho. This movie has the same basic plot line but from what I've read about the Campanella film and having actually seen a screening of the Billy Ray film, they are very different movies.

NOTHING IS BEING RUINED ABOUT THE 2009 FILM. It is still there. Intact. Just the way you've always seen it. The Mona Lisa is the best known and most parodied work of art in the word. None of the parodies have ruined the brilliance of it. Ruining the original would be like Da Vinci coming back to life and painting a bigger smile. Or George Lucas tinkering with Star Wars. The Hollywood remake police are not coming into your home and confiscating your DVD and erasing all memory of the original from your brain.

Even if you think the new version sucks sight unseen (which it doesn't, I've seen it and the audience seemed to have a very positive reaction to it), this film may actually intrigue people into seeking out the original, like me, bringing the original to a whole new audience. Is that really something to get mad about?

If you really need to ask WHY ARE THEY DOING THIS? Here is your answer - $$$$$$$$. This movie will make more money opening weekend than the original made worldwide. For better or worse, that's Hollywood.

Look at the credits of the people involved. Billy Ray is one of the hottest screenwriters around, coming off great acclaim for Captain Phillips, and returning to the directors chair. The cast is great, Chiwetel and Julia give top notch performances, and even Nicole, who I'm not a big fan of, does a good job. It's not as if Adam Sandlers team is making the movie.



all work and no play make jack a dull boy.

It's not that it's a remake, it's that this kind of genre has been done a million times. In fact, it was considered dated twenty years ago when Eye for an Eye was released. If it didn't capture people's imagination then...

Remakes usually aren't very good but they do nothing to harm the original movie. With the Robocop remake, some people said it would demolish the original's legacy. How is that even possible? Based on this remake's rating, I suggest everyone to watch the original first, same with Robocop. People complain too much - sure, we don't need this remake, but if you don't like that it's been made, don't watch it. As the original was released a couple of years ago, I don't think the remake competes with the original - if you haven't watched the original already, you're likely never going to watch it (and I assume very few will watch the remake as it looks like it sucks).

The original movie was great. It's only natural for fans to be defensive about it because they don't want to see its' legacy 'sullied'. Hollywood has a history of poorly adapting existing properties so people are understandably pessimistic about remakes and adaptations.

Probably because it's a huge waste of time of the actors and the audience, since there is no way it's gonna top the original?

http://cinematiccorner.blogspot.com/
http://littlesati.tumblr.com/

I completely agree!

I am so sick and tired of 'critics' deeming a remake as a terrible move simply because it is 'not as good as the original.'

There are plenty of remakes which, albeit may not have been 'as good as the original', are nevertheless good, solid films in their own right.

I have not seen this movie yet, but I don't care what the critics say, I will be watching it and deciding for myself whether it is a good film or not.

Having an average rating of 5 on IMDB before the movie has been released is just stupid. Since the movie has been released the rating has moved up slowly so that just goes to show the amount of fake votes the haters have made of a remake film they have not even watched!

What was the name of the original movie?



"Vulgarity is no substitute for wit".