If you mean from this past decade, not really. Remakes throughout the decade is a whole other story.
The Fly with Goldblum and John Carpenter's The Thing are hands down two of the best.
NO! i loath it when The Thing is called a remake because of the name of the 1951 film, they have little in common. Carpenter's film is NOT a remake of the earlier film as the only thing they have in common is alien and snow, sure there are 2 homages to the earlier film like the circle of men and the opening logo/title, those are just it! they share a name/title but everything about them like the location (one in the south pole and north pole), the characters and their backgrounds, the nature/methods of the alien (one is a dumbed down killer vegetable vampire alien that is a lumbering Frankenstein-esque creature that could reproduce itself and suck blood but it didn't imitate anyone like in the story where the other is a parasistic shape-shifting organism that could imitate other lifeforms by cell), the ways to kill the monster (one by electricity and one by fire), the discovery of the alien, origin/discovery of the spaceship etc. are different from each other. I consider them to be 2 separate films and they are in reality 2 different adaptations of John Campbell's 1938 short story "Who Goes There", the 1951 film is a very good film but in truth it is one of the worst book to film adaptations of all time and was nothing the story as it strayed too far from it. Carpenter's film is a standalone film is very loyal and faithful to the source material where the 1951 film was not, i mean sure Carpenter is a fan of the 1951 film but he's a bigger fan of the story as he stated he didn't want to remake the earlier film he wanted to go back to the source material and the film it's own film. I always refer the 1982 film as the true original cause it was actually based on Campbell's novella.
I consider remakes and re-adaptations to be 2 very separate things, remakes refer to films based on ORIGINAL screenplays not based on source materials (comics/novels/novellas) like say The Blob for example, a TRUE remake as it's not based on source material but an actual original screenplay. Re-adaptation means another adaptation of source material like say The Thing, Frankenstein/Dracula films, I Am Legend, The Fly, Girl with Dragon Tattoo, Carrie.
Here are excellent remakes:
Dawn of the Dead.
Night of the Living Dead 1990.
The Blob.
Cat People.
The Hills have Eyes. (Better than the dull original)
The Ring.
Fright Night.
Let Me In. (Less of an adaptation and a remake of the Swedish film's screenplay but a nice film that honors the original)
The Crazies.
Do you agree with each of the rules?
number 5 "Stay away from torture Porn"? anyone agree with them that if mindless blood orgies are a filmmakers things then they should keep their karo encrusted gloves off the classics and do you think the gag reflex can only be tested and that there are already too many gore-fests out there to please the blood thirsty masses? and does anyone consider Rob Zombie's Halloween remake to be torture porn?
The last 2 examples on number 5 make no sense, the original I Spit on Your Grave and Last House on The Left were torture porn films originally and were marketed as shocking gory exploitation as i agree with Sarah on the bottom comments there. If you look through the remakes's gore then you might consider them to be decent remakes.
Number 8 "Honor the original" as in whether it's by recycling memorable quotes, having cameos from original cast members or sticking to the story a filmmaker can do alot of good will by refusing to fix what isn't broken, isn't that right? Night of the Living Dead, Cat People, Let Me In, Funny Games, Cape Fear etc. all followed this rule as they did a good job.
Number 7 "No carbon copies", who agrees with this one? it means no shot-to-shot word-by-word clones of successful classic original films and that's where Psycho and Omen failed badly as they are just lazy clones with nothing new to them and no new dialogue added, i don't like these kinds of remakes.
Who agrees that Jaws, Rosemary's baby and American Werewolf in London should never be remade and are already perfect horror films?
Number 10 "Chose a horror movie that could actually use a remake", who agrees? what horror movie would you like to see remade? i mean under-appreciated, out-dated or never quite cashed in on it's potential.
Number 9 "Make it relevant", you know as in saying something about the way we live today and who agrees with that? i mean you gotta say something about a remake's existence, horror movies with substance is what some fans like about it and a remake has to say about how we live now. Who agrees Dawn of the Dead and Fright Night are 2 good examples since vampires and zombies are popular than ever?
Number 6 "Up the ante but don't overdo it", who agrees on this one?
Number 4 "A good cast doesn't make up for a bad screenplay", who agrees on this one and that Elm Street and Haunting are 2 worst culprits on this one? i mean do you think they are right that good actors can't make up for a script that even any teacher can do better?
Number 3 "Play to the original's strengths", who agrees? it means keep the suspense of the original and make the story your own without carving the heart out of it.
Number 2 "Just because it was good in Japanese doesn't mean it will be good in English", who agrees? i mean The Ring is the only good one and i agree filmmakers should move on.
And who agrees with number 1 "If the original was rated R the remake should not be PG-13"? i agree, KEEP the original rating and i agree that teens grow up and when they are old enough to watch the remake, they'll be happy they didn't dumb it down.
I'm just messing with you. Your points are actually spot on, I keep forgetting they're both based on a book.
