I was on youtube the other day when I saw some video about “worst horror movie remakes ever” and as I watched, they mentioned quite a few that actually were not that bad. Even if I agree they weren’t entirely necessary (and were probably only done to make money) I still would say they have a decent level of entertainment value and shouldn’t be written off. Here I have made a list (in no particular order) of five horror movie remakes that aren’t nearly as bad as people will claim. Spoilers ahead, probably, I don’t even know what constitutes as spoilers anymore with old movies.
- Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003): Though there have been other additions to this franchise since 2003, I didn’t think that this one was awful, at all. I was fairly surprised at how well it was done. Yes, I am a fan of the original but there are several reasons why I didn’t think this remake was entirely unnecessary. Though the original is nightmarish, gritty, and overly horrifying I do believe that it is something that the younger generation is less likely to watch. The acting isn’t the best in a lot of places and there are a lot of elements that younger people just wouldn’t connect with. Do I think that the original is bad? No, not at all. The original is definitely one of my favorite classics but I did appreciate the remake and what it brought to the table. I thought it was just as gritty and unflinching. I liked quite a few of the characters in it (like Morgan) and I thought that the portrayal of the Sheriff was fucking awesome (and hilarious) at the same time. It’s not as good as the original but it’s certainly not awful and still most definitely has it’s entertainment value.
- House On Haunted Hill (1999): People cite this one as awful for many reasons and like to pretend the 1959 one is a thousand times better. This is a case of people hating on horror remakes just to hate on them. I have seen the 1959 one and no, it’s not bad, but are we really going to pretend it’s somehow 100% better than the remake? Why? Certainly, this one isn’t perfect but the acting of Geoffry Rush doing an homage to Vincent Price was stellar and you really can’t go wrong with a movie that includes Famke Jansen. The ending was cheesy and I still don’t understand the half-assed plot of most of it but it’s not a crap movie. Once again, it has its entertainment value. Though I couldn’t give a shit about Ali Larter’s character (whatever her name was) I did like the character of Eddie. The practical effects were really good but at times the CGI could be a bit over the top. All in all this remake isn’t one to skip but it’s also probably not one to rush out and see. I think it’s hated on far too much for actually being pretty decent.
- Thirteen Ghosts (2001): Even though I pretty much hate Shannon Elizabeth in everything she does, I would still say this one isn’t too awful. I thought the cinematography, acting, and effects were really well done. The makeup for a lot of the ghosts was just terrifying which was half the fun of watching it, to see what all of them would look like. Not to mention the impossible house which would never exist anywhere. Though most of the movie is Shannon Elizabeth running around and chewing on scenery, I did enjoy Matthew Lillard’s performance as he’s one of the few people that can accurately portray “crazy” without being way too over the top to where it’s not at all believable. If you can ignore some of the more cheesy elements of this movie (and the bad CGI near the end) it’s not a bad movie to watch and it gets far more shit than it deserves for being a remake.
- Last House On The Left (2009): I do love the original of this one, it was one of the very first Wes Craven movies I saw (obviously among Nightmare On Elm Street and other things) but it has gone down on my list of favorites. It gets a lot of hate for not being exactly like the original. People ignore that it really can’t be given that film quality has changed over the years and people would crap their pants if you gave them the same grainy and gritty film quality of the original. Not to mention some of the more cheesy acting in the original. As much as I love it, I have to admit there were a lot of scenes that were just too comical and over the top to be taken seriously. As for the remake, I was not a huge fan of the acting of the two girls in the beginning but luckily they aren’t in most of this movie. A lot more of the movie has to do with the parents taking revenge on the killers and that’s when it gets over the top awesome. I think that both movies have redeeming qualities and faults but I don’t think that there isn’t room to like both either.
- Halloween (2007): This one seems to be split in opinion. Of course, you have the hardcore Rob Zombie people who will defend and praise anything he does. Not that there is anything wrong with that because I have enjoyed his other movies like House of 1000 Corpses and The Devil’s Rejects. I also greatly love the original Halloween (as anyone probably would) and think it’s amazing. The thing is, I had quite a bit of fun watching Rob Zombie’s Halloween. Was it the best ever? Should it have been remade? No, and probably also no but it wasn’t as bad as some people will tell you. I think the major failing of Rob Zombie’s version is attempting to give way too much backstory to Michael Myers to try to force people to empathize with him, and this took up too much of the plot. Once you get past that part into the heart of the story it’s really good. Rob Zombie at least knows about blood, gore, and horror and I have seen this a few times just because I absolutely don’t hate it. I would recommend staying away from his version of the sequel though because what the literal fuck?
And there you have it, five horror movie remakes that get way more shit than they really need to get. There is certainly a list of horror movie remakes that suck complete donkey balls and I will gladly be doing a list of those, but for now, this is what I came up with.