What movie from the past 30 years would you want remade/rebooted?

Gah. What a horrible take on "Flowers for Algernon."

Personally I think 99.999% of remakes should never have been made. If a film was any good, then leave the damn thing alone (I especially feel this about Hollywood remakes of European movies). If it wasn't any good, then a remake or "reboot" isn't going fix it up.

The movie "Jumper" came out a few years ago. It was terrible. I read the book and it was fantastic (actually written as a prep for a screenplay), but whoever made the movie didn't follow the book at all. They just borrowed the basic premise to come up with a new story... a horrible idea.

Anyway, they should remake "Jumper" and just follow the book as closely as possible.

The Great Mr. Limpet (of course).

Of course!

ohhh I had it wrong it is the Incredible Mr. Limpet.

I did do a search and there is talk about remaking this film. Wouldn't that be fun?

I totally agree with that, contrex. I cringe every time a "remake" comes out. They don't generally do remakes of duds. So the movies they're making new versions of were nearly perfect to begin with. How can you improve on near-perfection?

yeah - I can't imagine any improvements to the Incredible Mr. Limpet - especially Don Knotts stellar portrayal of Mr. Limpet - who else could be so convincing as both a geeky wimpy human and a heroic animated fish.

Incredible I say can't be reproduced.

'Plan 9 from Outer Space' and take all the hype out of it.

The TRAP .(A Canjun film that starred the late Oliver Reed). It was a decent adventure which could be mde even more adventurous.

THE BIRDS, The women of the Hitchcock film were pretty helpless nd were unreal as characters (IMHO)

I can see how they'd remake The Birds.

Well, yeah, so can I. But then it would no longer be Hitchcock's The Birds. It would be some other film entirely. Just as Hitchcock's version has very little to do with the Daphne duMaurier short story on which the movie was based. Imo, if some really fine director (think, say, spielberg) re-made The Birds it might be a truly teriffic movie but he'd do better giving it a different name. A film called The Birds is a classic Hitchcock legacy. Don't **** with it.

In your opinion maybe. I find the picture tiresome and a complete play on the helplessness of women of the time.
Hitchcock had some good movies but he also hd some rel losers (This IMHO is one of his worst)

PS, Hitchcocks movie had almost nothing to do with the story, any more than did "2001" have with its progenitor.

Oh, I don't necessarily disagree with your opinion of the movie, farmer. The Tippi Hedron role is demeaning to women, though quite typical for the time. But, then, so was the Janet Leigh role in Psycho. That was Hitchcock's style. He was always on the lookout for young very vulnerable looking actresses. That's not the point. Even if you absolutely despise the movie, you have to admit that any re-make would make it a different movie. That's all I'm saying. And, of course, all the critics and reviewers who loved the Hitchcock original would immediately be comparing the remake to the original and panning the hell out of it. As I say, it would be better to make a really good adaptation of the Daphne Maurier story, "The Birds", but then call it something else.

Well.llgive you this, I do hope that any redo of Birds would be different and, hopefully , much better.
As far as Hitchcock and vulnerability, how about Doris Day's character?
I always hated the plot devices that telegraphed what was coming (**** like people running away from danger and then tripping and rolling over to look at their nemesis. Even Cary Grant in N b' NW tripped when running from the crop duster.
Hitchcock could be so damn trite at times. You hadda absirb the whole movie and then forgive him those little stupidities

NbyNW is probably the most notorious example of what you're talking about. The whole crop-duster scene with Cary Grant running and tripping is absurd. The plot hardly makes any sense to begin with. Granted. And, know what? I think it's a great movie. Tell you why. A movie is more like a painting than a book. It's silly to talk about the plot of the Mona Lisa or VanGogh's sunflowers. When you see a great still life, you don't ask whether that fruit in the bowl would actually taste good. You admire the brush-work. Same thing with a fine film. It's all about how well it's done, not what it depicts or whether it even makes sense. Salvator Dali's paintings make no sense whatever most of the time.

I did see that the Birds was on a list of potential future remakes - I'd agree that movie does have the potential to do well as a remake.

I've never been able to understand the adulation that Vertigo gets. I found it very leaden and overlong, but so many critics hail it as a masterpiece. It's on so many top ten films of all time, and I just can't see it.

As far as remakes go Bedazzled with Pete and Dud was brilliant, and the remake was terrible. Brendan Fraser made a decent fist of it, but Liz Hurley just can't act.

It'd probably be by M. Night Shyamalan, and be about killer trees, or something.