Cult films that BADLY need a remake...

[Too Much Fun]

A masterpiece? The movie was a low-budget exploitation flick about busty girls in tight, low-cut outfits kicking ass and spouting horrible dialogue. A campy cult classic, yes, but not a masterpiece (although apparently Tura Satana's bosom was said to have been one, I think).

Reee-make...

Yeah, man, I know what kind of a movie it was. Just because it's low budget and features highly sexualized women doesn't automatically make it junk. A movie of any genre can be a masterpiece of its type. I've seen my fair share of campy movies and B-movies and I consider this the best of them. I don't think the dialog is horrible at all. It is not to be taken seriously, of course, yet there's some real poetry to it. Trashy poetry, but poetry, nonetheless.

For example:

"Oh, you're cute... like a velvet glove cast in iron."

[Billie throws Rosie a can of beer to calm her down] "Here Rosie baby, pop the top before you blow your own!"

"Violence devours all it touches, its voracious appetite rarely fulfilled. Yet violence doesn't only destroy, it creates and molds as well."

"Women! They let 'em vote, smoke and drive - even put 'em in pants! And what happens? A Democrat for president!"

Come on, that shit's priceless. It's funny, satirical, unique, and it makes the characters memorable and endearingly full of bravado. It also provides insight into sixties attitudes and mores. It a'int Shakespere, but compared to the bland, functional dialog of so many other movies, it's really refreshing.

Don't judge a movie by its genre. Someone put a lot of thought and cleverness into that movie, even if it was only for the purpose of being cool and fun. I think it has as much merit as a lot of the tacky stuff Tarantino writes (which I also like). And again, it is very much 'of its time' and a good reflection of society during its time. Modernizing it with a remake would be missing the point.

 

[C.E. Evans]

A masterpiece? The movie was a low-budget exploitation flick about busty girls in tight, low-cut outfits kicking ass and spouting horrible dialogue. A campy cult classic, yes, but not a masterpiece (although apparently Tura Satana's bosom was said to have been one, I think).

Reee-make...

Yeah, man, I know what kind of a movie it was. Just because it's low budget and features highly sexualized women doesn't automatically make it junk.

Um, where did I say it was junk? I said it was a campy cult classic. That means that it is a silly film that had something about it that appealed to a small audience. If it was junk, we wouldn't be talking about it nor would I propose a new version of it.

A movie of any genre can be a masterpiece of its type.

This was not a masterpiece of cinema, but rather a busty bad girl flick that developed an underground following years after its release. The only thing masterful about it was how many lingering cleavage shots Russ Meyer squeezed into it. Now, in that regard, I agree.

I've seen my fair share of campy movies and B-movies and I consider this the best of them. I don't think the dialog is horrible at all. It is not to be taken seriously, of course, yet there's some real poetry to it. Trashy poetry, but poetry, nonetheless.

For example:

"Oh, you're cute... like a velvet glove cast in iron."

[Billie throws Rosie a can of beer to calm her down] "Here Rosie baby, pop the top before you blow your own!"

"Violence devours all it touches, its voracious appetite rarely fulfilled. Yet violence doesn't only destroy, it creates and molds as well."

"Women! They let 'em vote, smoke and drive - even put 'em in pants! And what happens? A Democrat for president!"

Come on, that shit's priceless.

Shit is correct. Priceless--not so much.

It's funny, satirical, unique, and it makes the characters memorable and endearingly full of bravado. It also provides insight into sixties attitudes and mores. It a'int Shakespere, but compared to the bland, functional dialog of so many other movies, it's really refreshing.

Definitely needs to be remade for a new generation though.

Don't judge a movie by its genre. Someone put a lot of thought and cleverness into that movie, even if it was only for the purpose of being cool and fun. I think it has as much merit as a lot of the tacky stuff Tarantino writes (which I also like). And again, it is very much 'of its time' and a good reflection of society during its time. Modernizing it with a remake would be missing the point.

Your defense of a movie in which the biggest draw were the big bosoms of its female leads is amazing...

 

[Kegg]

If one was going to remake a Russ Meyer film, why not Beyond the Valley of the Dolls?

I mostly throw that out there because I'd really like to read Roger Ebert's reaction to that (he may have to recuse himself from reviewing the film, or not?).

 

[C.E. Evans]

If one was going to remake a Russ Meyer film, why not Beyond the Valley of the Dolls?

Because it would scare the hell out of people...which, of course, is all the more reason to do it.

I mostly throw that out there because I'd really like to read Roger Ebert's reaction to that (he may have to recuse himself from reviewing the film, or not?).

He may even say "That's it, I'm done. I quit."

 

[lurok]

If one was going to remake a Russ Meyer film, why not Beyond the Valley of the Dolls?

Because it would scare the hell out of people...which, of course, is all the more reason to do it.

Good choice. I thought there'd been rumours of a remake in recent past (at least of original Valley...).

Could we throw Myra Breckinridge into ring? Only seen once, but that's one strange cult film that feels oddly both of its time but somehow ahead of curve.

 

[Too Much Fun]

I agree that most of the appeal of "Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!" (and all Russ Meyer movies, for that matter) is the sexiness of the women and their bodies, but I still think anyone believing that movie is completely shallow and has nothing going for it besides that is not giving it enough credit.

It has definitely made a mark on pop culture and there are countless movies that feature women with impressive busts. Not all of them are remembered and revered as great pop art 46 years after their release, and for a movie to have the kind of longevity, there has to be something more to it than superficial merits. If you can't appreciate the dialog of that movie as something special, I understand why.

It's easy to dismiss everything else in a movie that on the surface appears to be nothing more than gratuitous sexuality, but I'd still assert that it's more than meets the eye. It has also been praised as feminist because the women aren't just sex objects, they're powerful and dominate the men in the movie. I agree with that take and submit it as another defense against the argument that the movie is nothing more than shallow exploitation of women's physical attributes.

I guess I wouldn't mind a "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" re-make, although I think that would be unnecessary too. Not because I think it's great like "Faster, Pussycat! Kill Kill!", but rather because again it's an artifact of its time that would just be stupid out of context. I didn't think it was very good, except the unforgettably weird last party scene which was pure cinema and made the limp first half of the movie worth sitting through.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I think you're giving the movie way, way too much credit--even more than Meyer himself would give it really.

Russ Meyer on "Faster, Pussycat..."
http://www.avclub.com/articles/russ-meyer,13556/
O: What do you think is the key to the film's enduring popularity?
RM: It's a little puzzling. Most of my films have women who have large breasts... I suppose they like the idea of the women kicking the shit out of the men. More than anything else, I think that's the reason it's done very, very well.
O: Do you think it has a feminist sort of appeal?
RM: Oh, yeah, yeah. Very much so. And Tura Satana [the film's star], without any question, is a feminist. Without any question, [feminists] love her.
O: Was that something you were thinking about consciously when you made the film?
RM: No, I made another film prior to that in which I had men kicking the shit out of the women, so I thought, "Why don't we do one where the women kick the shit out of the men?"

It's as simple as that really.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I wonder how Dr. Strangelove would be done today?

That needs to be the top of the Do Not Remake list along with Casablanca, The Graduate and The Blues Brothers.

I enjoyed the original, but what about an updated version of Metropolis?

Metropolis is really seeped in the political crises of the early twentieth century, labour, capital and all that jazz. If one were to remake it, it'd need to be a weird, pretentiously symbolic melodrama about today's economic/political climate transposed into the future.

Yeah, it might be tricky and lose too much in translation.

 

[Too Much Fun]

I think you're giving the movie way, way too much credit--even more than Meyer himself would give it really.

Russ Meyer on "Faster, Pussycat..."
http://www.avclub.com/articles/russ-meyer,13556/
O: What do you think is the key to the film's enduring popularity?
RM: It's a little puzzling. Most of my films have women who have large breasts... I suppose they like the idea of the women kicking the shit out of the men. More than anything else, I think that's the reason it's done very, very well.
O: Do you think it has a feminist sort of appeal?
RM: Oh, yeah, yeah. Very much so. And Tura Satana [the film's star], without any question, is a feminist. Without any question, [feminists] love her.
O: Was that something you were thinking about consciously when you made the film?
RM: No, I made another film prior to that in which I had men kicking the shit out of the women, so I thought, "Why don't we do one where the women kick the shit out of the men?"

It's as simple as that really.

Well how many directors are going to actually say, "Yeah, I knew I was making a masterpiece with a deep message, so of course I wasn't surprised when people embraced it as such"? It's called "modesty", pal.

It reminds me of the interview where Woody Allen was asked to name his top five movies of the ones he's made and he excluded "Annie Hall" and "Manhattan" or when the Coen Brothers were asked how they felt about the popularity of "The Big Lebowski" and basically said "meh". A lot of directors are really humble about their work, no matter how great it is, and that's a good thing. Better than them being arrogant egomaniacs.

I haven't seen it, but people say the recent "In the Loop" has a bit of a "Dr. Strangelove" vibe. I agree about "Dr. Strangelove" being one of those movies that really really shouldn't be re-made...it's so perfect just the way it is, a remake would be blasphemous.

You just can't get together such a stars aligned, all-the-pieces-of-the-puzzle-in-place miracle of director, writers, and cast firing on all cylinders like that easily. It may basically be a comedy, but I like it way more than some of Kubrick's beloved more serious movies like "Full Metal Jacket" and "A Clockwork Orange" (I think those are okay, but flawed). It's so consistently funny at a level of intelligence that few comedies come close to, it's one of the rare comedies that's actually awe-inspiring.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I think you're giving the movie way, way too much credit--even more than Meyer himself would give it really.

Russ Meyer on "Faster, Pussycat..."
http://www.avclub.com/articles/russ-meyer,13556/
O: What do you think is the key to the film's enduring popularity?
RM: It's a little puzzling. Most of my films have women who have large breasts... I suppose they like the idea of the women kicking the shit out of the men. More than anything else, I think that's the reason it's done very, very well.
O: Do you think it has a feminist sort of appeal?
RM: Oh, yeah, yeah. Very much so. And Tura Satana [the film's star], without any question, is a feminist. Without any question, [feminists] love her.
O: Was that something you were thinking about consciously when you made the film?
RM: No, I made another film prior to that in which I had men kicking the shit out of the women, so I thought, "Why don't we do one where the women kick the shit out of the men?"

It's as simple as that really.

Well how many directors are going to actually say, "Yeah, I knew I was making a masterpiece with a deep message, so of course I wasn't surprised when people embraced it as such"? It's called "modesty", pal.

No, it's called "I like women with big tits and I made a movie that had women with big tits in it."

Anything else is what other people have attached to it out of a need to attach stuff to it, "pal."

 

[J.T.B.]

I agree about "Dr. Strangelove" being one of those movies that really really shouldn't be re-made...it's so perfect just the way it is, a remake would be blasphemous.

You just can't get together such a stars aligned, all-the-pieces-of-the-puzzle-in-place miracle of director, writers, and cast firing on all cylinders like that easily.

I agree completely, and would only add that the movie was so intimately in touch with its time that it's hard to imagine a remake coming within a fraction of the original's energy and presence. A world where important people were talking seriously of megadeaths and preemptive nuclear strikes seems almost like satire on its own, and the urgency of a brilliant movie capturing that absurdity in its own time doesn't seem likely to ever be recreated after the fact.

--Justin

 

[Greg Cox]

I agree completely, and would only add that the movie was so intimately in touch with its time that it's hard to imagine a remake coming within a fraction of the original's energy and presence. A world where important people were talking seriously of megadeaths and preemptive nuclear strikes seems almost like satire on its own, and the urgency of a brilliant movie capturing that absurdity in its own time doesn't seem likely to ever be recreated after the fact.

--Justin

Yeah, I think you'd need to do a black comedy about terrorism to get the same impact today.

 

[Yevetha]

People trying to remake a Kubrick movie always fall short.

 

[JarodRussell]

People trying to remake a Kubrick movie always fall short.

At least it can't get worse.

 

[Harvey]

People trying to remake a Kubrick movie always fall short.

At least it can't get worse.

 

[Greg Cox]

I just thought of another one.

I'll bet you could do a really fun new version of The Scarecrow of Romney Marsh (aka Dr. Syn).

 

[scotpens]

Darkstar

I wonder how that would work in modern times. It seems very rooted in that 70's disintrested nihilism. Still, it'd be interesting.

A remake of Dark Star might have worked better back in the ’90s, with all those movies about Generation-X “slacker” types. Don’t know how well it would go over now.

I'm going to vote for Just Imagine!, which I've never actually seen.

I’ve seen it. Believe me, it doesn’t deserve a remake.

Wouldn't remaking a cult film kill the mystique of it? Part of the charm of films like that is that they're old and weird.

The old film remains old and weird, in fairness. It gets a higher profile, maybe, but that's about it.

Exactly. Like Little Shop of Horrors.

Here’s one I’ve always felt deserves a remake: Creation of the Humanoids.

 

[ColeMercury]

This isn't really a cult film, but I'd love to see a proper adaptation of the novel Dracula. The 1931 version is bloody awful: it cuts out all the best bits of the book and adds in an annoying Irish stereotype comic relief (its only saving graces are Bela Lugosi and Edward van Sloan). The 1992 version is better, but it still has the ridiculous Dracula-Mina romance added to it... and Keanu Reeves as Jonathan (and it wastes Cary Elwes and Richard E Grant).

I've honestly wanted to see a good, serious, remake of "Manos: Hands of Fate" and think with a competent director, cast and production values and script it could be done very well. The movie has plenty of elements in it to be a good, creepy and unsettling movie but the execution of it just failed in every possible way it could from camera work, sound editing to even the damn sound-track/score. The only thing it may have done well was the cast (the actual actors in the video portion of the movie, not the couple of people who did the ADR in post) as the wife, the brides, Manos and especially Torgo are all well "cast" and do a good job with the roles and material they have. The only person who didn't do well, perhaps is the Writer/Director/Producer himself Harold Warren as the father but he was a damn fertilizer salesman so what can be expected?

As much of a cult-classic as the movie, in large part due to MST3K, I'm surprised no one has tried to make an honest, main-stream "remake" of it. I could honestly see it, if done right, be a lot like The Blair Witch Project and the first Paranormal Activity movie (which both, granted have their own problems and any Manos movie would have to be traditional and not "guerrilla" style in terms of how it is shot.)

There's enough elements in "Manos" to be a good, creepy, movie.

I agree with this. It fails in every way possible, but it still has some seeds of good ideas in there. Even as a low-budget film (as opposed to a no-budget film) it could be pretty good.

Maybe a remake could give some hints as to why Torgo is a faun in a Confederate uniform (well, in real terms he's a guy with bulgy legs in a grey jacket, but that was the intention). And give him a proper death scene. Oh, and change the title back to "The Lodge of Sins"... or something better than "Manos: The Hands of Fate" anyway.

 

[Kegg]

^
There aren't any Irish characters in the 1931 Dracula. I presume you're thinking of the guy who works in the mental ward; he actually speaks with a British accent (Cockney, IIRC.)

But sure, I suppose there's something to be said for actually making a scrupulously faithful Dracula film. Nine billion flicks about the Count and that may be the one approach to my knowledge that hasn't been tried (pretty sure that's a cue for someone to jump on me with some flick but I disgress).

I’ve seen it. Believe me, it doesn’t deserve a remake.

Oh, I've heard it's pretty bad. That's not the point.

I think a sci-fi musical could be done well. And if we're talking about films that could be improved on in a remake, Just Imagine! then, could be one such film.

 

[Greg Cox]

This isn't really a cult film, but I'd love to see a proper adaptation of the novel Dracula. The 1931 version is bloody awful: it cuts out all the best bits of the book and adds in an annoying Irish stereotype comic relief (its only saving graces are Bela Lugosi and Edward van Sloan). The 1992 version is better, but it still has the ridiculous Dracula-Mina romance added to it... and Keanu Reeves as Jonathan (and it wastes Cary Elwes and Richard E Grant)..

What do you think of the 1977 BBC production with Louis Jourdan and Frank Finlay? That's probably the most faithful adaptation of the novel I've ever seen, although Jourdan's appearance owes more to Lugosi than Stoker . . . .