Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
[Yeah, you're deliberately not getting it

No, I'm genuinely not getting it.

 Manchu wrote:
It’s not a race to the bottom. A movie needs to be good as well as not appreciated in its own time in order to eventually qualify as a cult classic. The Ewok movies are like terrible secrets your brain keeps forgetting as part of its natural defense mechanisms until some joker (ahem!) conjours the horror back from oblivion.

Speaking of good, nay great, and unappreciated in its own time, I would say Blade Runner 2049 is overall a better movie than its cult classic predecessor. The original will always be remembered for its urban dystopia (actually echoed in the opening scenes of Solo) but the sequel has better characters, more beautiful and intriguing imagery, and more fascinating questions.

I don't think your first criteria is accurate. While most cult classics are good films for niche audiences, there are also films that are cult classics because they are weird or remarkably bad, such as The Room. Ewok movies fit in that category. Solo is part of a huge franchise and will end up exposed to millions and millions of people through franchise osmosis. Like an MCU movie, it will be a part of a "classic series", and I don't think it will ever be singled out as its own media experience distinct from the franchise. It will just be one of the good Star Wars films.

I agree with your statements about BR 2049, although I doubt it will ever receive the same adoration as the first.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
[SNIP]

Yeah, you're deliberately not getting it, so I'm not going to waste my time responding to you any further.

*plonk* you're Ignored.

No need to reply - I won't see it

Ah, the good-ol' "You have different opinions to me therefore you are blocked" strategy.

FWIW I didn't get what you were going on about either.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Sucker Punch actually has a *lot* to say about femininism, the male gaze and women striving in a male world, if you're smart enough to figure out what's actually going on.

Guess I'm just stupid then. I sure missed the very deep and powerful symbol that was “kill zombie WW1 trench nazis” and “fight the orcs and the dragon”. Silly me!
I just need my movie to be a little more literal when they say stuff about feminism, the male gaze, and women striving in a male world. Stuff like, say, A gun for Jennifer works great. You should try it. Or even, if you want less heavy-handed, movies like Teeth.

I haven't seen the director's cut, curious about those extra 17 minutes, but throughout the film the women are repressed and abused by the men (and enabling women) around them, yet still find a way to maintain a part of themselves and resist. The protagonist lands in the situation she is in defending her younger sister from rape, and then proceeds to presumably get raped throughout her tenure at the hospital/brothel she is left in. I could see some feminist message tucked away in there, but you aren't wrong that the film was very over the top and sensational in how it portrayed the women in their fantasy scenes.

Soundtrack was awesome, though. Regardless of feminist credentials.

I thought it was a good soundtrack too, and I don't need to insert a virtue-signalling qualifier to say that

I'd say I liked Search and Destroy the best, but I also liked the Emily Browning Sweet Dreams.

I would say I liked Army of Me, obviously, but that preceded the movie.

Thanks to those who already mentioned Blade Runner 2049 . I think in some ways, it was better than the original... which was awesome in some parts but really lacking in a few. The new movie was the complete package for me. Also, nearly impossible to watch on a laptop screen because the blacks don't come out . Seriously, you don't realize how many "layers of black" are in the movie until you can't see them!

I'm not sure about Mad Max: Fury Road. I thought it should have won Best Picture the year it was released, but on a re-watch I thought it was just OK... or maybe I've just seen it too many times

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Good call on Tarantino's films. They will all reach cult classic at the very least.

I thought Tarantino was OK previously. I liked Pulp Fiction, I liked Reservoir Dogs, and so on.

But I think his later movies, where most directors start to decline, are actually where he really starts to get cooking. I liked Pulp Fiction but I loved Django Unchained, and that was a very difficult sell because I dislike Jamie Foxx enormously. I bet I've watched Django at least 5 times.

Similarly in terms of infinite watchability is Inglorious Basterds. The only reason I haven't seen Hateful Eight that many times is because it's so recent. I desperately looked for tickets to one of the few 70mm roadshow releases to no avail (but maybe that was OK because I saw Dunkirk in 70mm and it was no great shakes).

My opinions on movies that will live as classics:
The Lord of the Rings: More so than the later Hobbit trilogy, this series actually accomplished the telling of one of fantasy's most enduring stories in film format. Sure, some of the CGI hasn't aged well, but that's true of almost all movies with CGI in them eventually. The reason I exclude The Hobbit is because LOTR stayed more true to the books (although it diverged some), and it maintained the seriousness of the original story, whereas The Hobbit was, at least in some parts, a little too zany (some of the action sequences belonged in Pirates of the Caribbean or something). One thing both sets of movies did well (and why I love them both so much) was set and prop design. The level of detail was absolutely incredible, and really helped bring the stories from the books to life.

The MCU (all of it): In the future, you won't be able to have a discussion about movies in this era without mentioning the MCU a lot. I'm sure it has influenced cinema as a whole on a huge scale. I won't name any particular ones over the others, because I feel like they are a package deal, even though some were better than others.

Interstellar: What really amazes me in this movie is the level of scientific realism. Seriously, there's a book about the science of this movie, and it's really amazing how well the moviemakers did their homework. The visuals were amazing, the story was great, it really was just an all-around good movie. I think this will be one of those thought-provoking movies that people will occasionally be reminded of, kind of like 1972's Silent Running has been for me ever since I saw it.

Dunkirk: A very interesting way to tell a truly great war story will make this one stand out for a long time.

Mad Max Fury Road: See the OP, I agree with that opinion 100%

 ZergSmasher wrote:


Interstellar: What really amazes me in this movie is the level of scientific realism. Seriously, there's a book about the science of this movie, and it's really amazing how well the moviemakers did their homework. The visuals were amazing, the story was great, it really was just an all-around good movie.

That is because the original concept of the Interstellar was first conceived by Nobel Prize awarded Kip Thorne and he was one of the main drives behind the whole endeavor. What is worth remembering, Interstellar is the only film which actually contributed to science - the visualization of the black hole is actually 100% accurately simulated, a feat that no one ever attempted before, resulting in two published papers on the behavior of spacetime near the event horizon.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 SkavenLord wrote:
I can’t say I understand the appeal of Sucker Punch however. Most reviews I have seen bashed the movie mercilessly.

Most reviews are based on the theatrical Warner Executive cut, which shares the same wrong-headedness behind the theatrical Warner Executive cuts of Batman vs Superman and Justice League and Suicide Squad. They kept the superficial stuff, and cut out the meat. The Director's Cut is quite good, but very few people saw it and reviewed it. If you started with the DC (which restores 17 minutes), you'd draw very different conclusions.

I, for one, look forward to the Directors Cut of Justice League a.k.a. Snyder Cut.

Sorry, Snyder?!? As in, Dark Nights Metal and New 52 Batman Snyder? Shucks, I’m with you on that one then.
Will give Sucker Punch another go too. If Warner really carved out the meat of that one, it might be pretty good.
Thanks for the answer!

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
I haven't seen the director's cut, curious about those extra 17 minutes, but throughout the film the women are repressed and abused by the men (and enabling women) around them, yet still find a way to maintain a part of themselves and resist. The protagonist lands in the situation she is in defending her younger sister from rape, and then proceeds to presumably get raped throughout her tenure at the hospital/brothel she is left in. I could see some feminist message tucked away in there

So the story has plenty of rape in it and that makes it feminist? Does that mean every other WIP film is feminist too?
Even Thriller - A cruel picture feels less exploitative than Sucker Punch, and Thriller (THE MOVIE THAT HAS NO LIMITS OF EVIL) has literal pornographic inserts. But at least when Thriller does fight scene, the heroine doesn't stick to sexy poses in a sexy costume so that we can all enjoy how sexy that rape victim is. Because sexy is somehow how Sucker Punch want to frame rape victims as…
Sucker Punch is basically bringing the worst aspect of exploitative female characters from comics and video games into a live movie.

And the best thing is that even if we completely overlook this, it's still pandering to geeks in a way that's incredibly demeaning imo. “Oh you nerds like dragons I'll put some dragons! You guys like mechas I'll put some mechas! You guys like zombie nazi and can't tell WW1 from WW2 I'll put some in there! You just like all those things for their most superficial aspect so I don't need to do anything deep with it just put them there and it's enough!” Thanks for calling me a shallow idiot Mr director, I guess…

I'll stick to more honest pandering movies like Mayhem that goes to simple, honest to god power fantasy .

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Soundtrack was awesome, though.

Honestly don't remember .

The Usual Suspects and The Departed are two that spring to mind immediately for me.

Edit: I’d say Passion of the Christ as well.

The Usual Suspects was my favorite movie for years. I used to try to dress like Keyser Soze, but I just ended up looking like a Chasid. It took an intervention to stop me.

I wonder how it will affect future audiences seeing Kevin Spacey and Bryan Singer collaborating on the same film...

Dude, whenever I’m alone in an office, like when I’m waiting for my boss, or in a doctors office, I’ll craft a story in my head from magazine covers and paintings and what not. If I need some gak for small talk that I have no interest in, I spin my tale.

Then limp off into anonymity.(not really, but its a fun mental exercise when you’re bored as feth!)

I also think people will look past Spacey/Singers history.

My friends and I were just discussing how Event Horizon really holds up as a sci-fi horror movie.

While 12 years old, "V for Vendetta" is a classic in my mind. Near perfect adaptation of the comic, and Hugo Weaving's acting. You need to consider, you can't see his face. It's all voice inflection and body language. You never see his face.

Skyfall. It may seem odd to choose a Bond film as a classic, out of all of them, but Skyfall is in my not so humble opinion, the best telling of a Bond tale. Somehow making a cliché into something fresh and relevant.

The movie Dogma. Yes, it came out in 99 but the thought and ideas (see what I did there?) are still poignant today. Particularly about beliefs and ideas.

Gran Torino was good. I like redemption stories.

The Hangover. I had such a good time with that movie.

True Grit. I liked the original take, but I very much enjoyed the "closer to the book" take of the 2010 remake.

The Purge. It seems to just kind of pushes things through to an unrestrained conclusion, regarding American society. Or at least, perceived American society.

Pan's Labrynth just about tore my heart out. Beautiful, and sweet, and sad, and scary.

Despicable Me. Seriously. You know what a Minion is for a reason.

Big Fish. I'm a story teller. Part-time exaggerator, and occasional showman. Most people just don't realize how interesting their lives are until they try to tell the story. Most people's lives are incredible. It's just how you tell it.

nou wrote:

 ZergSmasher wrote:


Interstellar: What really amazes me in this movie is the level of scientific realism. Seriously, there's a book about the science of this movie, and it's really amazing how well the moviemakers did their homework. The visuals were amazing, the story was great, it really was just an all-around good movie.

That is because the original concept of the Interstellar was first conceived by Nobel Prize awarded Kip Thorne and he was one of the main drives behind the whole endeavor. What is worth remembering, Interstellar is the only film which actually contributed to science - the visualization of the black hole is actually 100% accurately simulated, a feat that no one ever attempted before, resulting in two published papers on the behavior of spacetime near the event horizon.

Wait, the film resolved with, basically, "the power of love" has a high level of scientific realism?

 Yodhrin wrote:

nou wrote:

 ZergSmasher wrote:


Interstellar: What really amazes me in this movie is the level of scientific realism. Seriously, there's a book about the science of this movie, and it's really amazing how well the moviemakers did their homework. The visuals were amazing, the story was great, it really was just an all-around good movie.

That is because the original concept of the Interstellar was first conceived by Nobel Prize awarded Kip Thorne and he was one of the main drives behind the whole endeavor. What is worth remembering, Interstellar is the only film which actually contributed to science - the visualization of the black hole is actually 100% accurately simulated, a feat that no one ever attempted before, resulting in two published papers on the behavior of spacetime near the event horizon.

Wait, the film resolved with, basically, "the power of love" has a high level of scientific realism?

but it was like all 'Jupiter and beyond' and deep and cle, no wait it was so inane it tarnishs an otherwise decent film

nou wrote:

 ZergSmasher wrote:


Interstellar: What really amazes me in this movie is the level of scientific realism. Seriously, there's a book about the science of this movie, and it's really amazing how well the moviemakers did their homework. The visuals were amazing, the story was great, it really was just an all-around good movie.

That is because the original concept of the Interstellar was first conceived by Nobel Prize awarded Kip Thorne and he was one of the main drives behind the whole endeavor. What is worth remembering, Interstellar is the only film which actually contributed to science - the visualization of the black hole is actually 100% accurately simulated, a feat that no one ever attempted before, resulting in two published papers on the behavior of spacetime near the event horizon.

Is that the film where the planet is brightly lit and there is no sun.............?

I haven't seen the director's cut, curious about those extra 17 minutes, but throughout the film the women are repressed and abused by the men (and enabling women) around them, yet still find a way to maintain a part of themselves and resist. The protagonist lands in the situation she is in defending her younger sister from rape, and then proceeds to presumably get raped throughout her tenure at the hospital/brothel she is left in. I could see some feminist message tucked away in there, but you aren't wrong that the film was very over the top and sensational in how it portrayed the women in their fantasy scenes.

Agreed - I understood the whole point of the fantasy scenes was that it was the protagonist escaping repeatedly into fantasy because her real life was so horrible. Yeah they looked cool - funny how no one is willing to criticise Christopher Nolan with all his effects driven movies.

WRT Sucker Punch, there are a number of explainers (spoilers!) out there. MovieBob covers it pretty well, and is a good breakdown between a first and second viewing of the movie.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
MovieBob covers it pretty well, and is a good breakdown between a first and second viewing of the movie.

but how baw-stan is he about it ? His accent noticeabley slips when he gets enthusiastic (not a slight it just tickles me)

 nels1031 wrote:
The Usual Suspects and The Departed are two that spring to mind immediately for me.

Edit: I’d say Passion of the Christ as well.

The Departed, definitely. I would say that The Usual Suspects has already reached classic status and its influence on film is felt whenever a film decides to pull a keyser soze at the last minute.

To continue with the crime and hidden identity theme, what are people's thoughts on A History Of Violence and Eastern Promises?

I don't think Mel Gibson's Jesus movie will be remembered as a classic because it is a very broad, noncontroversial depiction, about as memorable as the stained glass in an average modern church. If it was going to reach classic status, in the mainstream, it probably would have done so by now.

I always thought the Oscars should have a tradition of re-examining best picture 10 years later (or more). I mean look at the list of nominees and winner for the 2010s. Good movies in there but classics? Enduring triumphs of the filmmakers arts? Works that will speak for generations?


2010
* The King's Speech
127 Hours
Black Swan
The Fighter
Inception
The Kids Are All Right
The Social Network
Toy Story 3
True Grit
Winter's Bone

2011
* The Artist
The Descendants
Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close
The Help
Midnight in Paris
Moneyball
The Tree of Life
War Horse

2012
* Argo
Amour
Beasts of the Southern Wild
Django Unchained
Les Misérables
Life of Pi
Lincoln
Silver Linings Playbook
Zero Dark Thirty

2013
* 12 Years a Slave
American Hustle
Captain Phillips
Dallas Buyers Club
Gravity
Her
Nebraska
Philomena
The Wolf of Wall Street

2014

Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)
American Sniper
Boyhood
The Grand Budapest Hotel
The Imitation Game
Selma
The Theory of Everything
Whiplash

2015
* Spotlight
The Big Short
Bridge of Spies
Brooklyn
Mad Max: Fury Road
The Martian
The Revenant
Room

2016
* Moonlight
Arrival
Fences
Hacksaw Ridge
Hell or High Water
Hidden Figures
La La Land
Lion
Manchester by the Sea

2017

* The Shape of Water
Call Me by Your Name
Darkest Hour
Dunkirk
Get Out
Lady Bird
Phantom Thread
The Post
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

 greatbigtree wrote:
While 12 years old, "V for Vendetta" is a classic in my mind. Near perfect adaptation of the comic

Well, it was slammed by the comic's author, and consistently defanged the fascist side.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
WRT Sucker Punch, there are a number of explainers (spoilers!) out there.

Will the explainer make ANYTHING about the part where they fight dragons relevant? I mean, sure, there are plenty of movies that use the same trick of having the character have vision, or having us see the made up world the character built for themselves. But in Sucker Punch it's done in all the worst way. It's not "the real world but with something creepy that symbolize the character fears", that can work great, it's not "retreat in a imaginary world WITH INTERESTING THING HAPPENING IN THE IMAGINARY WORLD", Alice in Wonderland style. It's just a bunch of action that is entirely unrelated to... anything! None of the action sequences are thematically or narratively tied to the other action sequences, and neither are they linked thematically or narratively linked to anything happening in the other dream world brothel stuff that is just somewhat related to the real world. You could exchange any of the action sequence with any other and the movie would still work. Actually you could replace all the fighting sequences by the tripping sequence at the end of 2001 and it wouldn't detract from the movie. You could replace all those action sequences with fade out fade in and it would improve the movie.
When a movie is improved by removing the money shot, it's not a great sign.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
I mean look at the list of nominees and winner for the 2010s. Good movies in there but classics?

I wouldn't be able to judge, I've seen precisely ONE of all of those films (Fury Road, which I personally thought was a bit dull).

I have seen the complete Neil Breen oeuvre in that time. Maybe I'm not the best person ton contribute to this topic.

Edit for my own interest... seen just 4 of the entire list of nominees of the 2000s (thanks to the three LotR films), 4 of the 90s, 2 of the 80s (my favourite decade?), 4 from the 70s, 3 from the 60s, and nothing from the 50s. Do people actually watch these 'classics'?

@ Interstellar critique: the whole Gargant system is designed upon cosmological equations, with some edge case assumptions made to support the plot up to tidal waves and time dilatation on water planet and survivability of the final descent into the hole. Gargant is a fast spinning black whole with accretion disk (and that is where those two published scientific papers come from). If you can only imagine black holes as literal light sinks then it's your problem, not film's, as accretion disk provides all the light you need - it is basically a torn star falling into the black hole layer upon layer like in cosmological french puff pastry. Cosmological layer of the film can pretty much rival Hawking's "Brief History of Time" in it's educational value. I spent couple of years dwelling into cosmology and level of scientific accuracy in the film is jaw dropping. But, because of all edge case assumptions that are needed to support the notion of surviving a descent into the black hole, Gargant doesn't meet the popular imagination of black holes, yet it is 100% plausible. The only physics speculation in the film happens after the descent, but that is also "plausible" as we don't have any hard science about the inside (which is also a part of the film's plot) and theories vary wildly from that point. But visualisation of spacetime tesseract is again, as accurate as is possible.

As to "power of love" critique - this is why I did not list "Interstellar" in my previous post on Nolan's works. I'm perfectly aware, that it is the most controversial "love it or hate it" part of the film and I won't discuss this, as it would derail this fun thread completely and turn it into human psychology and Nolan's way of building films thread. Ping-pong about Sucker Punch is clouding this thread enough.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
While 12 years old, "V for Vendetta" is a classic in my mind. Near perfect adaptation of the comic

Well, it was slammed by the comic's author, and consistently defanged the fascist side.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
WRT Sucker Punch, there are a number of explainers (spoilers!) out there.

Will the explainer make ANYTHING about the part where they fight dragons relevant? I mean, sure, there are plenty of movies that use the same trick of having the character have vision, or having us see the made up world the character built for themselves. But in Sucker Punch it's done in all the worst way. It's not "the real world but with something creepy that symbolize the character fears", that can work great, it's not "retreat in a imaginary world WITH INTERESTING THING HAPPENING IN THE IMAGINARY WORLD", Alice in Wonderland style. It's just a bunch of action that is entirely unrelated to... anything! None of the action sequences are thematically or narratively tied to the other action sequences, and neither are they linked thematically or narratively linked to anything happening in the other dream world brothel stuff that is just somewhat related to the real world. You could exchange any of the action sequence with any other and the movie would still work. Actually you could replace all the fighting sequences by the tripping sequence at the end of 2001 and it wouldn't detract from the movie. You could replace all those action sequences with fade out fade in and it would improve the movie.
When a movie is improved by removing the money shot, it's not a great sign.

That is how I felt about this movie too - in the end it leaves a feeling of Snyder not knowing how to manage his own vision (this is Snyder's first original concept film) to an extent of providing an incoherent mess. I get the concept (and "depth") behind the script, but it's delivered terribly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
I always thought the Oscars should have a tradition of re-examining best picture 10 years later (or more). I mean look at the list of nominees and winner for the 2010s. Good movies in there but classics? Enduring triumphs of the filmmakers arts? Works that will speak for generations?

Spoiler:

2010
* The King's Speech
127 Hours
Black Swan
The Fighter
Inception
The Kids Are All Right
The Social Network
Toy Story 3
True Grit
Winter's Bone

2011
* The Artist
The Descendants
Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close
The Help
Midnight in Paris
Moneyball
The Tree of Life
War Horse

2012
* Argo
Amour
Beasts of the Southern Wild
Django Unchained
Les Misérables
Life of Pi
Lincoln
Silver Linings Playbook
Zero Dark Thirty

2013
* 12 Years a Slave
American Hustle
Captain Phillips
Dallas Buyers Club
Gravity
Her
Nebraska
Philomena
The Wolf of Wall Street

2014

Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)
American Sniper
Boyhood
The Grand Budapest Hotel
The Imitation Game
Selma
The Theory of Everything
Whiplash

2015
* Spotlight
The Big Short
Bridge of Spies
Brooklyn
Mad Max: Fury Road
The Martian
The Revenant
Room

2016
* Moonlight
Arrival
Fences
Hacksaw Ridge
Hell or High Water
Hidden Figures
La La Land
Lion
Manchester by the Sea

2017

* The Shape of Water
Call Me by Your Name
Darkest Hour
Dunkirk
Get Out
Lady Bird
Phantom Thread
The Post
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

IMHO there is at most one movie each year on that list that has a chance to become classic. But this is because Oscars are not a great metric of greatness of a movie for quite some years now. And it's getting worse every year - first it was just a somehow snob division of genres "worthy" of main prize, but lately it's becoming a US political mess that has less and less impact on worldwide cinematography and is simply becoming a local film contest. It still holds value for US domestic problems, but from foreigner standpoint it is completely irrelevant now as universal human values and pure cinematography virtues of movies are no longer main criteria of Oscars.

Sucker Punch and Bladerunner 2049 will not be classics. Sucker Punch just is not that good a movie(I get what it was trying for, it didn't do it well) and Bladerunner 2049 needs a significant edit so badly it's almost crying out for it. (Saw it with about a dozen people who were all fans of the original and love scifi, more than half of us joked about almost falling asleep during it)

Classic movies tend to be ones that appeal to a wide audience, so things like the MCU are safe bets. Stuff like Pacific Rim could be cult classics but just were not good enough to be true classics. (I love the hell out of Pacific Rim though) As much as I hate to say it Avatar will likely be a classic, hell Disney has turned over a large portion of Animal Kingdom to it.

Frozen, whether you love it or not is going to go down as a classic, no question there. It's like crack for children.

I oculd I have forgotten Birdman! That will be a classic.

 Turnip Jedi wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
MovieBob covers it pretty well, and is a good breakdown between a first and second viewing of the movie.

but how baw-stan is he about it ? His accent noticeabley slips when he gets enthusiastic (not a slight it just tickles me)

Not as much as I'd like! I love it when he reverts back to his accent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 nels1031 wrote:
The Usual Suspects and The Departed are two that spring to mind immediately for me.

The Departed, definitely. I would say that

The Departed would be great, if it weren't a remake of a much better film (Infernal Affairs). Transposing a Hong Kong crime story over to Boston, where native Bostonians don't even speak Bahstin is not an improvement. Especially when it's shot ham-fistedly.

Unless a remake is substantially better (and somehow different) than the original, it can't be a "classic". That's why Ghostbusters, Ocean's 8 and Dredd can't be classics - you'd watch the original, Ocean's 11 (either version), or the Raid instead.