Top 10 Worst Movie RemakesOver the past two decades, remaking movies has really taken off. Thing is, some movies weren't made to be re-made. This is the top ten worst movie remakes.
This voice is absolutely no different from the original other than the fact that they used different actors and that it's in color. They didn't even add anything new, clever, interesting, funny or exciting to this movie. This is just like an uncreative exact copy of the original movie. Disappointing, stupid, pathetic and cheap.
All they did was re-shoot every single scene from the original Hitchcock film. Not to mention, some of the casting choices are laughable.
Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates. I
Shouldn't have to say more.
It's the same thing... But its in color oh my god color that's so original (sarcasm)
Just like another person said, Godzilla is not supposed to be a lizard, he's supposed to be a gigantic ass dinosaur. And this remake is literally just a cliffs notes overview film of the original movie and the whole entire thing looks like that it just consists of re-used clips from Jurassic Park.
Yes a very stupid stupid movie, it has almost no connection to the godzilla movies at all. The army is not supposed to kill the monster. This film should be higher, but what is the Thing doing here. That movie was great.
Godzilla is a gigantic badass dragon like monster who breaths atomic breath. The monster in this is an oversized iguana who is much smaller than the actual Godzilla. I cannot tell you how many bombs and missiles Godzilla has resisted but they took out this one with A COUPLE OF MISSILES!
America took off the original Japanese version and made a crappy remake out of it. Why does Godzilla looks like an iguana?!
Put Nicholas Cage in any movie, and you already have it at least below 5/10. Remake a classic horror/thriller and you lose another 5 points. Why was this movie made?
What the hell The Thing, House of Wax, The Invasion are doing here? These remakes are ok. The Wicker Man is crap and should have topped this list!
This remake was a total waste of time. I liked the original much better.
A pretty underrated remake this movie was so bad that it is a cult classic
Why do crappy remakes like this have to exist?!
Okay, I know a lot of people like this film, and it's not horrible, but it's certainly mediocre. A lot of the criticisms for the Gene Wilder film was that it strayed from the book, Roald Dahl hated I because of that, so Tim Burton decided to make it closer. And coming from someone who read the book a few times in elementary school, a lot is still added or changed, and none of it is very good. The visuals are nice and most people act well in the film, but the story at most points was really forced. Also, Johnny Depp playing Michael Jackson playing Wildly Wonka was a poor decision. Come on, Tim, Johnny Depp doesn't have to be on all of your movies.
What was Tim Burton trying to do?! This movies is nothing like the book. Yeah, it got some lines from it, but the rest seems nothing from the book. Well, let's see the comparisons.
1971's Willy Wonka - Gene Wilder portrayed Wonka as an unpredictable character. He had the idea of Wonka walking uncomfortably in a cane and the somersaulting since from that moment no one would know if he's lying or telling the truth. His intro was very charming and lovable. Wilder's Wonka was shown as being pretty demented and disturbing, but he also was elegant, charismatic, kind and whimsical. Actually he was more of an eccentric genius : he quoted from classic literature, spoke different languages, played classical music and he knew that Charlie took fizzy lifting drinks. So in the last scene he tried to test him by getting angry at him. Charlie gave him the gobstopper, instead of giving it to Slugworth. Also, his quotes were memorable too.
2005's Willy Wonka - god! What is this?! Why ...more
I'm sorry, people, but right after I saw the trailer for this movie I realized I don't want to buy the DVD for this movie. Geez, I just watched it one time on T.V. and it sucked! What is wrong with you, johnny depp! Your portrayal of willy wonka scared the living crap out of me. The new version of Charlie is such a gary stu who does everything right. The old Charlie was more like a normal kid. Ah, and don't even get me started with the lazy performances of the four bratty kids. Looks like they found those terribly acting children in the last moment. In the new version, veruca isn't nearly as bratty as she's really supposed to be and she acts nothing like a spoiled girl. Where's all the screaming, the yelling, the meanness?! Also, the new violet doesn't seem obnoxious enough and mike teavee became a genius in the remake. Why?! How on earth does a kid who is watching television and playing video games became smart?! Also, when the kids finally see wonka they seem totally uninterested in ...more
It's a newer version, so the visuals are better, but it pales in comparison the original. Gene Wilder plays a great Willy Wonka. I watched the original on DVD, then the new one on live T.V., and I don;t know what happened in the studio. It strays from the book a lot at times. Sometimes I would go to the bathroom and not know what was happening when I came back.
Tim Burton used to do great movies back in 90's. Now all of his movies suck! Especially when he tries to reimagine stuff like he did with Alice in Wonderland or Charlie and The Chocolate Factory. I mean, couldn't he just come up with something original?!
Tim Burton probably watched the original and thought "Hey, it's just people dressed up as monkeys! That's all I need! "
This should be #1. It's horrible. Even the remakes of Halloween and Friday the 13th were better than this. This remake is just pointless and boring from start to finish.
I actually really liked the F13 remake. I thought Platinum Dunes had potential. Until this excuse of a horror movie came out. Dull and boring rather than the creepy and noice F13 remake.
This is one of the worst remakes ever. It's not surprising, though. Remakes are rarely better than the originals. And the original is WAY better than this.
Awful. Just awful. It thinks it's sharp when it's really dull. The series as a whole can't seem to cut a break.
Who wrote this movie? A kindergarten class?
Absolutely awful in so many ways...
It's an insult to the original.
Robin Williams can be funny, but in this movie he was just annoying.
Robin Williams always had strong humor, even in Flubber.
This one scared me for the rest of my life.
Bad dog, no replicating the 1959 classic!
Why, oh why did this remake turn out to be trashy? The 80's Footloose is better than this worthless junk to watch!
Wasn't that bad
This one was a mess
Both sides were insane over this movie: you either hated this with a burning passion, or you worshipped it like the second coming of Christ.
If a hater saw you liked it, you were an SJW, and if a fan saw you hated it, you were a misogynist.
Nobody wins. You couldn't even refuse to watch it! AVGN (James Rolfe) refused to watch it, stating non-political, legitimately respectful reasons, and Dane Cook (remember him?) got on his case about it! Yeah, because Dane Cook is such a priest of feminism anyway. ()
Paul Feig is a talented Director and the Cast is great but it's not funny, the effects are terrible, the characters are annoying and it ends with a Sequel hook.
A remake of the 1984 film. They replaced the old cast with a new one. Now they're all female characters. God, this movie sucks.
I had a bad feeling about this one just by the commercials alone.
I think it's bad... To bad my brother doesn't.
It's not a remake of the original Ms. Vorhees classic, it's more of a celebration of the first four films combined. I wasn't that crazy about the movie, way too generic. Tell me, why does Jason have to get bigger and taller every movie? Kane Hodder was the perfect fit, even though, most of his movie plots sucked!
As a F13 fan, I actually liked this remake.
Definitely doesn't belong here, this was better than the original, the director knew what the Friday movies were about and gave it to us
This movie is better than the original one! Better story, character's, and better ghosts, and better scars
Is this a sequel to the remake and a remake to the sequel of the original movie or is this the actual sequel to the original movie?
I don't know why this film is even in this list. This isn't a remake, it is a sequel to the remake.
This is not the sequel to the remake. This is the actual sequel to the original.
Beyond the first 30 minutes which is god awful, the rest is actually pretty good if you make it past the atrocious beginning that no one asked for
Do people actually think the Amazing Spider-Man franchise is better then the original, let's see, 2002's Spider-Man got an 89% critic rating, Amazing Spider-Man got 73% Spider-Man 2 got 94% Amazing Spider-Man 2 got 53%, so, in what way is the new franchise better?
When the first amazing spider-man came out, some people said it was better than all of the Sam rami movies, that I could understand, but after ASM2 came out it was different, now I look at anyone who says TASM franchise is better and just say "what are you smokin? "
When this movie first came out so many people were just trying to convince themselves that these movies are better than the originals, At least now more and more people are waking up and realizing just how pathetic this franchise is
Very underwhelming, it almost feels like a direct-to-DVD movie you'd stumble across on Netflix or something
It looks like a long intro on how the four will become the fantastic four. It's only on the last twenty minutes of the movie that you really can say " it's a fantastic four movie ".If they would have made follow-up movies from this one, it could have made sense, but they didn't... Pitty, because I like Kate Mara as an actress.
As for the movie " remake ". It's not really a remake. It has its originality ( not a succes one ) but it's completely different than the other " fantastic four " movies I saw.
To be honest when I wanted to say what my worst superhero movies, some people where really hating this film, but to be honest when I watched I actually thought It was Ok. especially when comparing it to the 2005 version.
I wouldn't say this is terrible, keep in mind the original was absolutely terrible so if you compared it to how awful the original the original was this is art by comparison, don't get me wrong it was still bad
Worst movie of all time
The first movie was the best but the sequels, 2 reboots, and prequel were just horrible. They never had the potential the original one did
This movie was actually really good, doesn't deserve to be on this list, a scary remake not as good as the original but not far off
Texas chainsaw massacre 2003 was best horror movie that I ever seen but 2013 was worst
Neither did I, sounds kind of stupid, maybe it's children committing genocide over the corn that they don't have.
I did not know this exists.
Absolutely awful. Kate Beckinsale's character looked ridiculous and unrealistic. Sharon Stone had like 4-5 scenes in the original TR movie but she was 100x more impressive than Beckinsale. This remake is forgettable. Jessica Biel wasn't good too
I think this movie is better than the Original. The action scenes with the very beautiful Kate Beckinsale are awesome. She's way better than Sharon Stone.
I can't say this is one of the worst remakes ever. The cast is better ( Kate Beckinsale, Jessica Biel... ) than the Original.
Never took place on Mars, what the hell!