Image via Columbia Pictures
Published May 10, 2026, 11:29 PM EDT
Sign in to your Collider account
The worst remakes of beloved ’70s movies usually commit the same fatal sin: they inherit a premise that already had pressure built into it, then flatten that pressure into product. The ’70s were messy, nervous, suspicious, and often spiritually bruised. Even the populist hits from that decade had grit in the joints. The violence felt uglier. Institutions felt less trustworthy. Men looked weaker, angrier, more confused, or more morally compromised. Women in genre films were often trapped inside systems that looked normal from the outside and rotten from within. The atmosphere mattered because the culture’s nerves were already exposed.
That is exactly why so many remakes of ’70s movies feel weirdly bloodless even when they are louder, slicker, and more expensive. They remember the thing you can put on a poster. They forget the social panic, the grime, the moral trap, the class resentment, the suburban dread, the humiliating vulnerability. A good remake has to understand what hurt in the original. These movies mostly just remember what sold.
10 'Halloween' (2007)
Image via Dimension Films Rob Zombie’s Halloween is not empty in the way some of the others are. It has intention. It has grime. It has a filmmaker’s fingerprint all over it. That is part of what makes the failure so interesting. This is not a cynical Xerox. It is a sincere misunderstanding. John Carpenter’s original is terrifying because Michael Myers (Nick Castle) is less a person than an intrusion. He is blankness with a knife. He drifts through suburbia and makes ordinary space feel spiritually unsafe. Hedges, sidewalks, afternoon light, babysitting, all of it starts to feel cursed because Michael is barely legible in human terms.
Zombie hates that kind of abstraction. He wants filth, abuse, broken homes, humiliations, ugly social roots. So he stuffs Michael’s childhood with explanation. The trouble is, explanation is not depth here. It is reduction. Michael becomes less mythic, less impossible, less like evil moving through space and more like a case file screaming for attention. That would already be a problem, but Zombie’s other weakness piles on top of it: everybody in the movie lives at the same shrill, vulgar register. Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor-Compton) and Dr. Loomis (Malcolm McDowell) are trapped inside a world that is degraded from frame one. And horror like Halloween needs contrast. It needs clean air before the poison. This version starts poisoned, which sounds “darker” until you realize fear has nowhere left to spread.
9 'The Longest Yard' (2005)
Image via Paramount PicturesThe original The Longest Yard is one of those deceptively loose ’70s movies that actually knows exactly what it is doing. On the surface, it’s just convicts playing football. But when you peel a layer, it is actually anti-authoritarian sports comedy built on humiliation, macho ruin, institutional sadism, and the weird dignity that can emerge in a rigged system when losers decide they would still rather hit back than behave. Paul Crewe (Burt Reynolds) in the original is already disgraced, already morally compromised, already spiritually beaten down in that perfect ’70s antihero way.
The remake turns a lot of that into broader, more crowd-pleasing underdog entertainment. That is not a crime in itself. A remake can shift the register. But the writing keeps softening the bitterness that made the original bite. Paul Crewe (Adam Sandler) is more digestible, less corroded, more built for eventual likability. The prison becomes a comedy venue more than a pressure system. Even when the movie has fun, and it sometimes does, it feels safer than it should. A prison-football movie should still have some meanness in its bloodstream. This one is too eager to entertain cleanly.
8 'Death Wish' (2018)
Image via MGMThe ugly beauty of the original Death Wish is that it never really lets Paul Kersey (Charles Bronson) off the hook. The movie knows the revenge fantasy is seductive, but it also understands that seduction as moral damage. Bronson’s Kersey does not become some triumphant action icon in any spiritually healthy sense. He hardens. He narrows. The city’s violence enters him and rearranges what he is willing to be. That discomfort is the point. Vigilantism is not just empowerment there. It is infection.
The remake keeps the bones and throws away too much of the infection. Paul Kersey (Bruce Willis) should feel like a man crossing into a state he cannot come back from, but the writing keeps smoothing that descent into more familiar action-revenge mechanics. Once that happens, you lose the queasiness that made the original worth arguing about. Revenge movies are easy. Morally ugly revenge movies that implicate the audience in the pleasure are harder. The remake wants the gunfire and the outrage while avoiding too much of the rot. And that is exactly what this story should never avoid.
7 'Straw Dogs' (2011)
Image via Screen GemsThis is one of the most difficult remakes on the list because Sam Peckinpah’s original Straw Dogs is simply about humiliation, sexual tension, masculine weakness, social performance, class resentment, intellectual fragility, and the horrifying way violence can awaken things a man would rather believe are not in him. David Sumner (Dustin Hoffman) in the original is not a sturdy hero pushed too far either but a man who does not know what force lives inside him until the siege demands an answer, and the answer is not cleansing. It is sickening.
The remake translates too much of that unease into more standard Southern-hostility thriller energy. David Sumner (James Marsden) is less spiritually baffling than the role needs to be, and the whole conflict becomes more legible in ways that weaken it. The locals are hostile, the marriage is tense, the old boyfriend energy is bad, the house becomes a battleground, all the plot machinery is there. But Straw Dogs should feel morally dangerous. You should be watching a man become competent at violence and feel no comfort in it at all. The remake does not fully trust that discomfort. It starts behaving more like a siege thriller and less like a nightmare about civilization cracking open to reveal how thin it was.
6 'The Taking of Pelham 123' (2009)
Image via Columbia PicturesThe original The Taking of Pelham 123 is a great urban pressure-cooker thriller because it understands that systems are dramatic. A hijacked subway train, city bureaucracy, labor tensions, criminal intelligence, civic personality, procedural improvisation, all of it clicks because every human being feels positioned inside a larger machine that is overheating. The threat is not just the gunmen. The threat is that New York itself has to respond as a living, burdened organism.
The remake keeps the basic skeleton and inflates the personalities. That sounds fun in theory. Walter Garber (Denzel Washington) and Ryder (John Travolta) should be electric on paper. But the film keeps pushing everything outward, toward bigger acting, bigger score cues, bigger emotional emphasis, and in doing so it loses the elegant procedural tension of the original. Ryder becomes more performative and less unnerving. Garber gets bulked up into a more explicitly guilty, redemptive protagonist. The result is not terrible scene to scene, but the story loses the civic tightness that made the original feel so alive. The machine has been replaced by star wattage.
5 'Rollerball' (2002)
Image via Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer PicturesThe original Rollerball is one of the coolest examples of science fiction and action working together without either side getting dumbed down for the other. The sport matters because the politics matter. Corporate power wants spectacle without individual transcendence. The public gets addicted to violence. The player becomes a problem the second he starts looking too singular, too legendary, too human inside the machine. Jonathan E. (James Caan) is compelling because his very persistence begins threatening the logic of the system. That is a real idea. That is not just a setup.
The remake seems to have looked at the title and concluded that rollerblading violence, MTV editing, metallic chaos, and nihilist sports energy would be enough. But without the social idea, it is just noise. Jonathan Cross (Chris Klein) never becomes symbolically dangerous to the world around him. He is merely present inside it. And that is devastating for a story like this. Rollerball should make mass entertainment feel politically sinister. The remake behaves like mass entertainment already won and nobody writing it was smart enough to notice.
4 'Get Carter' (2000)
Image via Warner Bros. PicturesThe original Get Carter is one of the meanest, most clear-eyed revenge films ever made. Jack Carter (Michael Caine) returns home as a dangerous man already shaped by vice, crime, and emotional hardening (not as a romantic Avenger). The film works because the investigation into his brother’s death becomes a guided tour through a city’s rot, and Carter is not morally above any of it. He belongs to the same darkness he is moving through. That is what gives the revenge its foul taste.
The remake keeps trying to make Jack Carter more sympathetic in a way that weakens the whole enterprise. Jack Carter (Sylvester Stallone) becomes more mournful, more recognizably bruised, more conventionally redeemable. But Get Carter is not supposed to redeem its avenger. It is supposed to let him cut through filth like somebody who already carries the same stain. The more accessible the hero becomes, the less poisonous the story is. And once the poison is gone, you are left with a revenge movie that has style residue and very little soul.
3 'The Stepford Wives' (2004)
Image via ParamountThis one is especially infuriating because the original is such a razor-sharp genre concept. It is not “men turn wives into robots” in some goofy high-concept vacuum. It is suburban misogyny rendered as science-fiction horror. It is the male fantasy of frictionless domesticity turned into annihilation. Women do not merely become obedient. They are emptied out, polished, displayed, and stripped of real personhood so their husbands never again have to cope with female will, mess, thought, contradiction, or independence. The chill in the original comes from how recognizable the desire underneath the horror is.
The remake turns that into upscale camp. Not clever poison. Not destabilizing satire. Camp. That decision kills almost everything. Joanna Eberhart (Nicole Kidman) should feel like a woman watching the language of perfect home life turn mechanically predatory around her. Instead the film keeps tipping toward broadness, reassurance, and audience-safe joke rhythms. It is too charmed by its own decorative world. The Stepford premise only bites when the film is willing to say something ugly and specific about how patriarchy dreams of femininity. This version mostly wants to be glossy and cute in a story that absolutely should not be cute.
2 'The Omen' (2006)
Image via 20th Century FoxThis is the most frustratingly faithful failure on the list. You can feel the movie trying to assure horror fans that it remembers all the right stations: Damien’s eerie presence, the nanny, the priest warnings, the church panic, the family dread, the accidental revelation that your child may be a vessel for apocalypse. All the pieces are there. And that is exactly why the weakness becomes so obvious. It proves, scene by scene, that remembering the beats is not the same as carrying the dread.
The original The Omen was so loved because it treats its premise with terrifying seriousness. Robert Thorn (Gregory Peck) slowly realizes that modern privilege, diplomacy, fatherhood, and rationality may all be useless against a biblical evil already growing inside his own house. The remake copies the map and misses the conviction. Robert Thorn (Liev Schreiber) and Katherine Thorn (Julia Stiles) move through the same broad ordeal, but the movie never makes you feel the full spiritual indecency of what is happening. The Antichrist should not feel like a franchise concept but reality itself curdling.
1 'The Wicker Man' (2006)
Image Via Warner Bros.This had to be number one because it is the clearest example here of a remake not merely failing, but failing to comprehend its original on the level of worldview. The Wicker Man is not about a weird island and pagans. It is about ideological collision. It is about a devout, sexually repressed, morally rigid Christian policeman walking into a culture whose rituals, eroticism, and social harmony are all structured around a completely different understanding of life, sacrifice, fertility, and order. The horror comes from the fact that he thinks he is investigating them when really they have already read him perfectly. The ending, therefore, becomes not just shocking but cosmological. His belief system is not enough to save him from theirs.
The remake throws almost all of that away. It swaps in paternal guilt, louder conspiracy-thriller mechanics, and a more generalized “creepy isolated community” approach that completely misses the original’s spiritual trap. Edward Malus (Nicolas Cage) is not undone by the limitations of his own moral certainty in the same way Sergeant Howie (Edward Woodward) was. He is just dragged through increasingly bizarre set pieces until the movie bursts into camp notoriety. The memes do not even annoy me as much as the misunderstanding does. The original burns because every ritual, every smile, every song, every sensual provocation has been tightening the same noose. The remake just flails. And that is why it sits at the bottom. It does not know what kind of story it is desecrating.
Collider Exclusive · Oscar Best Picture Quiz
Which Oscar Best Picture
Is Your Perfect Movie?
Parasite · Everything Everywhere · Oppenheimer · Birdman · No Country
Five Oscar Best Picture winners. Five completely different visions of what cinema can be — and what it can do to you. One of them is the film that was made for the way your mind works. Ten questions will figure out which one.
🪜Parasite
🌀Everything Everywhere
☢️Oppenheimer
🐦Birdman
🪙No Country for Old Men
FIND YOUR FILM →
01
What kind of film experience do you actually want? The best movies don't just entertain — they leave something behind.
ASomething that pulls the rug out — that makes me think I'm watching one kind of film and then reveals I'm watching another entirely. BSomething overwhelming — funny, sad, absurd, and genuinely moving, all at once. CSomething grand and weighty — a film that makes me feel the full scale of what I'm watching. DSomething formally daring — a film that pushes what cinema can even do. ESomething lean and relentless — pure tension with no wasted frame.
NEXT QUESTION →
02
Which idea grabs you most in a film? Great films are driven by a central obsession. What's yours?
AClass, inequality, and what people are willing to do when desperation meets opportunity. BIdentity, family, and the chaos of trying to hold your life together when everything is falling apart. CGenius, moral responsibility, and the catastrophic weight of a decision you can never take back. DEgo, legacy, and the terror of becoming irrelevant while you're still alive to watch it happen. EEvil, chance, and whether moral order actually exists or if we just tell ourselves it does.
NEXT QUESTION →
03
How do you like your story told? Form is content. The way a story is shaped changes what it means.
AGenre-twisting — I want it to start in one lane and migrate into something completely different. BMaximalist and genre-blending — comedy, action, drama, sci-fi, all in one ride. CEpic and non-linear — cutting between timelines, building a mosaic of cause and consequence. DA single unbroken flow — I want to feel like I'm living it in real time, no cuts to safety. ESpare and precise — every scene doing exactly what it needs to do and nothing more.
NEXT QUESTION →
04
What makes a truly great antagonist? The opposition defines the protagonist. What kind of opposition fascinates you?
AA system — invisible, structural, and almost impossible to fight because it has no single face. BThe self — the ways we sabotage, abandon, and fail the people we love most. CHistory — the unstoppable momentum of events that no single person can stop or redirect. DThe industry — the machinery of culture that chews up talent and spits out irrelevance. EPure, implacable evil — a force so certain of itself it becomes almost philosophical.
NEXT QUESTION →
05
What do you want from a film's ending? The final note is the one that lingers. What do you want it to sound like?
AShock and inevitability — a conclusion that recontextualises everything that came before it. BEarned emotion — I want to cry, laugh, and feel genuinely hopeful, even if the world is a mess. CDevastation and grandeur — an ending that makes me sit in silence for a few minutes after. DAmbiguity — something that leaves enough open that I'm still thinking about it days later. EBleakness — an honest refusal to pretend the world is tidier than it actually is.
NEXT QUESTION →
06
Which setting pulls you in most? Where a film takes place shapes everything — mood, stakes, what's even possible.
AA gleaming modern city with a hidden underside — beauty masking rot, wealth masking desperation. BA collapsing suburban life that opens onto something infinite — the multiverse of a single ordinary person. CThe corridors of power and science at a world-historical turning point — where decisions echo for decades. DThe grimy, alive chaos of New York and Hollywood — fame as both destination and trap. EVast, indifferent landscape — desert and highway where violence arrives without warning or reason.
NEXT QUESTION →
07
What cinematic craft impresses you most? Every great film has a signature — a technical or artistic element that makes it unmistakable.
AProduction design and mise-en-scène — every frame composed to carry meaning beneath the surface. BEditing and tonal control — the ability to move between registers without losing the audience. CScore and sound design — music that becomes inseparable from the dread and awe of what you're watching. DCinematography as performance — the camera not recording events but participating in them. ESilence and restraint — what's left unsaid and unshown doing more work than any dialogue could.
NEXT QUESTION →
08
What kind of main character do you root for? The protagonist is the lens. Who you choose to follow says something about you.
ASomeone smart and resourceful who makes increasingly dangerous decisions under pressure. BSomeone overwhelmed and ordinary who turns out to be capable of something extraordinary. CA brilliant, tortured figure whose gifts and flaws are inseparable from each other. DA self-destructive artist whose ego is both their superpower and their undoing. EA quiet, principled person trying to make sense of a world that has stopped making sense.
NEXT QUESTION →
09
How do you feel about a film that takes its time? Pace is a choice. Some films sprint; others let tension accumulate slowly, deliberately.
AI love a slow build when I know the payoff is going to be seismic — patience for a devastating reveal. BGive me relentless momentum — I want to feel breathless and emotionally spent by the end. CEpic runtime doesn't scare me — if the material demands three hours, give me three hours. DI want it to feel propulsive even when nothing is technically happening — restless energy throughout. EDeliberate and unhurried — I want dread to accumulate in the spaces between the action.
NEXT QUESTION →
10
What do you want to feel walking out of the cinema? The best films leave a mark. What kind of mark do you want?
AUnsettled — like I've just seen something I can't fully explain but can't stop thinking about. BMoved and energised — like the film reminded me what actually matters and gave me something to hold onto. CHumbled — like I've been in the presence of something genuinely important and overwhelming. DExhilarated — like I've just seen cinema doing something it's never quite done before. EHaunted — like a cold, quiet dread that stays with me for days.
REVEAL MY FILM →
The Academy Has Decided Your Perfect Film Is…
Your answers have pointed to one Oscar Best Picture winner above all others. This is the film that was made for the way your mind works.
Parasite
You are drawn to films that operate on multiple levels simultaneously — that begin in one genre and quietly, brilliantly migrate into another. Bong Joon-ho's Parasite is a film about class, desire, and the architecture of inequality that manages to be darkly funny, deeply suspenseful, and genuinely shocking across a single extraordinary running time. Your instinct is for cinema that hides its true intentions until the moment it's ready to reveal them. Parasite is exactly that — a film that rewards close attention and punishes assumptions, right up to its devastating final image.
Everything Everywhere All at Once
You want it all — and this film gives you all of it. The Daniels' Everything Everywhere All at Once is one of the most maximalist films ever made: action comedy, multiverse sci-fi, family drama, existential crisis, and a genuinely earned emotional core that sneaks up on you amid the chaos. You are someone who responds to ambition, who doesn't want cinema to choose between being entertaining and being meaningful. This film refuses that choice entirely. It is overwhelming by design, and its overwhelming nature is precisely the point — because the feeling of being crushed by infinite possibility is exactly what it's about.
Oppenheimer
You are drawn to cinema on a grand scale — films that understand history not as a backdrop but as a force, and that place their characters inside that force and watch what happens. Christopher Nolan's Oppenheimer is a film about the terrifying gap between what we can do and what we should do, told with the full weight of one of the most consequential moments in human history behind it. You want your films to feel important without feeling self-important — to earn their ambition through sheer craft and the gravity of their subject. Oppenheimer does exactly that. It is enormous, complicated, and refuses easy comfort.
Birdman
You are drawn to films that foreground their own construction — that make the how of the filmmaking part of the what it's about. Alejandro González Iñárritu's Birdman, shot to appear as a single continuous take, is cinema examining itself through the cracked mirror of a fading actor's ego. You respond to formal daring, to the feeling that a film is doing something that probably shouldn't be possible. Michael Keaton's performance and Emmanuel Lubezki's restless camera create something genuinely unlike anything else — a film that is simultaneously about creativity, relevance, self-destruction, and the impossibility of ever truly knowing if your work means anything at all.
No Country for Old Men
You are drawn to cinema that trusts silence, that refuses to explain itself, and that treats dread as a form of meaning. The Coen Brothers' No Country for Old Men is a film about the arrival of a new kind of evil — implacable, arbitrary, and utterly indifferent to the moral frameworks we use to make sense of the world. It is one of the most formally controlled films ever made, and its controlled restraint is what makes it so terrifying. You want your films to haunt you, not comfort you. You are not interested in resolution if resolution would be dishonest. No Country for Old Men is honest in a way that most cinema never dares to be.
↻ RETAKE THE QUIZ
English (US) ·