Top 10 Most Unnecessary Movie Remakes
Definitely the most unnecessary remake. It doesn't have the charm or silliness of the original. And definitely the most important that it's missing it's Arnold Swazzeneger.
I actually like this movie when I first saw it. But after I watched the original one, that version is way better.
The original film isn't even that old.
I like Colin Farrell, Jessica Biel and Kate Beckinsale but the movie itself, was weak
Terrible! Remakes are so pointless and such a waste of money. What IS the point of them?
Just awful. Enough said!
Original looked funny and entertaining. This one looks stupid
God! This movie is a waste of time!
I guess they were trying to remake the original because of how old and dated it was, but who in the right mind thought about casting Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates?
When you remake Psycho with Vince Vaughn as the lead role, something has gone horribly, horribly wrong.
Every once in a while comes a good remake, that happened in 1982, now Hollywood had to go remake a remake.
They didn't add anything new nor smart to the story. The main female character was very annoying in addition
Prequel or sequel, who cares? This movie was awful and absolutely unnecessary!
The 2011 film is a prequel to the 1982 film. It is not a remake.
Not scary at all. Just silly
Original is better but nevertheless this one is worth to watch. And Sophia Bush is very good ( and hot! ) in this movie.
It's just a shorter rehash of the original, it's like the movie was running on fumes.
Original was much better
"Not a remake"? Yeah, right! Willy Wonka was NOT this insane in the original movie! "But he was insane in the original book"! Gene Wilder made him more fun!
I'm actually shocked that the original author Roald Dahl hated the original movie. I hate how it received lukewarm reviews from critics, and was a box office failure. And yet this gets better reception, AND IS THE MOST SUCCESSFUL Roald Dahl FILM AT THE BOX OFFICE IN HISTORY?!
HOW IS THIS MORE CRITICALLY AND COMMERCIALLY SUCCESSFUL THAN THE ORIGINAL?! It's disgraceful, it's too dark, and I'm surprised this was approved by the Dahl family!
This is why I prefer the original versions more than the new versions. Charlotte's Web was ruined by Nickelodeon (TWICE!), and Hanna-Barbera's version was better.
Gene Wilder did Willy Wonka better. Even if Willy Wonka was more insane in the original book, that's not how I wanna see Willy Wonka. Gene Wilder is the real Willy Wonka.
It seems like Hollywood just can't stop letting the classic beloved movies alone. The original had great acting, a selection of likable characters, iconic songs and heartwarming moments. Willy wonka was an eccentric and brilliant, yet likable candy maker, charlie was a good compassionate kid, grandpa joe was Charlie's funny and unforgettable grandfather and the bratty kids were amazing actors. They managed to impress the bratty stereoptypes of that time : augustus - the greedy fat kid, veruca - the spoiled brat, violet - the obnoxious gum chewer and mike - the brainless T.V. watcher. The songs were very memorable and had impressive lyrics.
The remake, on the other hand, was beyond awful. The main characters were unlikable and dull, the songs were annoying and forgettable, the bratty kids didn't seem bratty enough, the ending was bad and the look of the film was too dark and creepy for my tastes.
In this version, willy wonka is a cold hearted anti-social douchebag who thinks just ...more
Wow! There are so many butthurt people in the comment section! Is quite weird that all the people who read the book hated the 1971's version and like the 2005 one. You guys are too nostalgic. The original willy wonka managed to be entertaining for a few times, but then he became boring and his jokes weren't funny at all. I mean, he quoted from classic literature and played classical music. He also seemed t friendly and social for someone who spent 20 years in a factory. Depp's wonka was funny and dark and his jokes actually were funny.
Burton tried to do a version which is more accurate to the book, but it was a fail. It looked nothing like the book. In Roald Dahl's novel, Wonka is a warm kind likable candy maker just like in the original movie. Johnny Depp made Wonka a cold-hearted rude incoherent man-child. I feel bad for the kids who didn't grow up with the original movie.
But what can I say?! The concept of remakes is to transform the characters in their opposite.
This remake is crap, and that ending was atrocious.
Tim Burton didn't even wanted to work on this.
Why is there even a lion king remake in the first place? This shouldn't have been touched. All this is is a nothing more than just a shot-for-shot remake of the original but with extra filler inserted to make the run-time longer. If you like it, fine. But I'm sticking with the original '94 version and Simba's Pride. Both of which I have at home free to watch whenever I want and have a much better time watching. I really think Disney should only remake movies that either failed or are obscure, and leave the classics alone. It would be a better use of time and resources and requires a lot more creativity. This is just a pointless and lazy excuse to make money off of people's nostalgia for the 90s. If you want to watch the Lion King, just watch the 1994 version because this one adds nothing except photo-realistic visuals. It would save you time and money and you would at least have a better time with it than with the remake.
Save your money and watch the original. The story is the same and the remake was only made to make this much money. Could you imagine how much money disney will make if a Frozen remake gets made or they do a deal with Epic Games to make a Fortnite movie.
Seriously? Remaking a film that not only is already perfect but also already LOOKS as breathtakingly gorgeous as the original Lion King? (NOTE: same goes for Beauty And The Beast as well)
This is not a remake, this is a parody.
Were they trying to make a bad movie? Because all this movie is sums up to: Dull characters, blatant sexism, laughable writing, and the irritating PG-13 rating dumbing down this product even further.
Whoever put this on the list might be sexist. There is absolutely nothing wrong with women being Ghostbusters. I heard similar things about Captain Marvel, which was one of my three top favourite Marvel characters. I might go and watch it while it's still on Netflix. I recommend giving this a chance.
Plot doesn't make sense. the movie looks like reused clips from Jurassic park.
The original was an awesome movie featuring a new cyborg policeman who fights corporate greed, corruption and crime. The new one should be called Cyborg Dad because it talks about his family more.
Seriously, screw you, you boring PG-13 trash.
The characterless characters also speak so quietly, like why?
They should have just made Hellboy 3 instead!
AWFUL acting from the actors for Aladdin and Jafar, the Genie is quite annoying, and this movie is just a rehash of the original.
I'm sorry but this movie doesn't deserve to be seen as the best remake ever. This is the most overrated movie of 2019 and here's why:
How does this have a higher budget than Godzilla KOTM? This movie shows that it's not spending its budget wisely, resulting in the visuals to look ugly and something you would expect in a Disney Channel movie. In the original Aladdin, colors were used to represent the movie's narrative but in the live action remake, it looks like black-and-white. Why is everyone praising the Will Smith Genie? This Genie is boring, lazy, and just unfunny. Will Smith is a terrible comedian and is a disgrace to Robin Williams' Genie, the comedy genius. Not only that, but Will Smith is a really bad singer like Emma Watson in Beauty and the Beast. That means Friend Like Me was botched up and Prince Ali is easily the worst song number in the movie. Speaking of song numbers, the songs are fine but they come with flaws as well: "Arabian Nights" is way too slow and ...more
Useless movie filled with the most pointless subplots in movie history. Skip this and wait for Lion King (or just rewatch the original)
This movie looks like trash they should just leave the classics alone!
I guess Leigh Whannell has never read the book!
H.G. Wells is rolling over in his grave!
Paramount's answer to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005). The 2000s were NOT a very pleasant time for the classic E. B. White novel, and I'm surprised he hated the 1973 film. How is this closer to the original story? Hanna-Barbera did it WAY better than Nickelodeon did. In fact, Nickelodeon ruined Charlotte's Web TWICE! Once with a straight to video sequel in 2003, and one with a live-action remake in 2006.
It's like if Paramount and Nickelodeon saw Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) and thought they should do the same thing to Charlotte's Web. How fitting as this came out when Nickelodeon was beginning to go downhill. No emotion, no character development, no NOTHING! Why do people view this as the more superior version and not the 1973 classic?
Gary Winick, you oughta be ashamed of yourself for ruining such a wonderful animated classic! Oh, and you have the legendary Danny Elfman doing the music. Why must Danny Elfman (a great composer) provide music for ...more
"Nickelodeon did Charlotte's Web better"? That's like saying Tim Burton did Charlie and the Chocolate Factory better-- OH WAIT!
You know how the Roald Dahl family estate preferred TIm Burton's unnecessary remake to Willy Wonka? Willy Wonka was the only film adaptation of the Roald Dahl Charlie novel that was ever necessary. I'm so sick and tired of people defending the 2005 Charlie remake, and not the 1971 film! Charlotte's Web 2006 is no different.
Sure, Tim Burton had no involvement with this film, but it's just like his remake of Willy Wonka. Burton was chosen to make the Willy Wonka remake, because the Dahl estate not only liked his version of James and the Giant Peach (admittedly a great film), but also Tim Burton's remake of Planet of the Apes. This makes me wonder if Roald Dahl was like George Lucas or Butch Hartman or even M. Night Shyamalan.
Similar to how Tim Burton ruined our childhood, what Nickelodeon did was no different. Being more faithful to the ...more
This movie needs to be higher! I wish the Nostalgia Critic gave this movie a negative review, saying that it's a disgrace to both the original film, and the E. B. White book. E. B. White, you are WRONG about the 1973 film!
If anyone is doing a list of worst films by Nickelodeon, they should always include this! It shares the same quality as Wilbur's Great Adventure!
The original 1970s film is way better! I'm surprised people say that this is better than the original! WRONG! Haven't they told you the originals are better? Just like how Willy Wonka is objectively better than Charlie.