Generally speaking, I hate remakes.

I’m one of those people who finds a movie he likes and likes the movie as is.  The thought of someone else coming along to perform some sort of cinematic “do-over” doesn’t sit will with me.  Some movies should just be left well enough alone.

Examples of unnecessary remakes come immediately to mind.

The first was Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho.  If a horror movie could ever be called art, this would be the one.  What made this 1960 picture really stand out to audiences at the time was the shocking murder of its lead actress just a third of the way into the picture, requiring the audience to find a new “hero” in the middle of things, and that it was shot in black and white.

You’ll remember that both Gone with the Wind and The Wizard of Oz, both made in 1939, were presented in glorious living color, so the availability of color film wasn’t an issue when it came time to put Janet Leigh in that shower in time for her date with Mother.

Hitchcock, though, wanted it in black and white.  He told his associates that it would be too gory if they shot it in color.  He wanted his audience to focus on the story, not the blood.  Then there was the nudity.  Or, to be more exact, the lack of nudity.  Through clever editing, Hitchcock didn’t show anything in that shower scene, though censors were convinced on first pass that he’d shown nearly everything.  It was almost like an inside joke, but that was part of Hitchcock’s charm.

So when Gus Van Sant decided to remake Psycho in 1998, he promised a shot-by-shot remake.  This was a warning flag right from the start:  if you’re going to remake someone else’s movie, shot by shot, which essentially means you’re going to redo exactly what the previous director has already done, that’s a good sign that a remake isn’t as necessary as you think it is.

Van Sant also demonstrated his lack of getting the point when he shot the film in color and showed nudity — as early as the very first scene.

The excuse, of course, was that he was updating it for a “new generation.”  If that’s what’s required to make a new generation watch, it deserves to miss out.

The second was the 1997 remake of 12 Angry Men.  The original, made forty years earlier, starred Henry Fonda as the one hold-out in a jury of people overcome by prejudice and impatience, ready to sentence someone they’re certain is guilty of capital murder so they can get home to dinner or to the ballgame.  But something strange begins to happen in the tense, claustrophobic jury room, and the men — and the audience — learn a lot about themselves over the course of the movie.

I at least see one good thing about the remake of this movie: they were able to work in more diversity into the cast, which had previously consisted of all white men.  But it was still nearly the same script, updated for a new generation.

A year or so ago, there was a remake of 1972’s Sleuth, a murder mystery featuring Sir Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine.  The interesting tweak to this remake was that this time, Caine was taking over Olivier’s role, and Jude Law, who had earlier redone Caine’s original role as the title character of Alfie, would take Caine’s original role in Sleuth.

It seemed like an interesting passing of the baton, so I watched the remake.  And was highly disappointed.  As I expected.

But this time, there’s something different. 

I saw online a trailer for a movie coming to theaters this summer that will be a remake of 1974’s The Taking of Pelham One, Two, Three.  The original starred Walter Matthau and a cast of character actors in a story about terrorists who hijack a New York City subway train and demand a million dollars for the hostages.  The original is still watchable, though severely dated both in technology and clever lines that, while at the time may have been original thoughts, now seem like old jokes.

The 2009 version has Denzel Washington taking Matthau’s role, with the adjustment that Washington’s character is a subway dispatcher rather than a NY Transit Authority police officer.  (The original had character actor Dick O’Neil in that role.)  Opposite him is John Travola, taking Robert Shaw’s role, as the leader of the hijackers.

Two actors that I think could play quite well off of each other.  And I’ve just seen the trailer, and am surprised to note that there isn’t a lot of rehashing of old lines.  It seems like the story has been updated.  Take a look at the trailer here.

It’s rare for me to actually go to the movies these days, since they’re so outrageously expensive.  But I think I might be headed to a theater on June 12th to check out the new Pelham.  And if I don’t like it, I at least have the DVD of the original to fall back on.