Remake a movie and it's probably going to be junk

I never understood the logic behind remaking movies.

Oh, I understand it from a financial standpoint. If a movie is popular, then a remake of it has a built-in audience. And there is certainly a history of some great stories being told again and again in Old Hollywood -- "Quo Vadis," "The Four Feathers," even "Ben-Hur" was made twice.

And these days, movies cost so much to make that it's difficult to get the money people to take chances. "Cloud Atlas," maybe the best movie I've seen in 10 years, cost a reported $102 million to make in 2012. As of two weeks ago, Internet Movie Database gave its worldwide gross at about $130 million, but only $27 million or so in the U.S.

That's considered a financial failure, although not a bad one. But it wasn't a U.S. company that made "Cloud Atlas." The Wachowskis had to get their backing from Germany.

Apparently U.S. studios were too busy remaking movies about comic book heroes. How many times do we have to see the origin of Superman before we say "Enough!" Of course the newest one killed the franchise for a lot of us by having the "Man of Steel" break Superman's No. 1 rule.

How many great movies from the Golden Age of Hollywood were redone in seriously inferior versions. "It's a Wonderful Life" was great with Jimmy Stewart in the lead, not so great with Marlo Thomas.

It isn't a feminist thing. Jimmy Stewart was one of the great leading men and could carry a story like this. Thomas was, well, That Girl.

The original "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" (1956) is one of the greatest science-fiction films ever; three or four remakes just haven't measured up.

"Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" (1968) was a classic of its time with Spencer Tracy, Kate Hepburn and Sidney Poitier (all Oscar winners). The remake of sorts, "Guess Who" (2005), could give us only Bernie Mac and Ashton Kutchner.

Maybe the most ridiculous was when "Mr. Deeds Goes to Town" (1936), with Gary Cooper was reamde in 2002 as "Mr. Deeds", starring ... sigh ... Adam Sandler.

I really like Ben Stiller, but his 2007 remake of "The Heartbreak Kid" suffered from a lack of Charles Grodin, Cybill Shepherd and Eddie Albert in the 1972 original.

The saddest one of all to me comes from one of my very favorite films. Stanley Donen's cult classic "Bedazzled" (1967) starred Peter Cook and Dudley Moore in a retelling of the Faust legend, but also with an amazingly funny satiric take on religion, one in which the Devil is basically just misunderstood and God is an egomaniac.

It's one where Cook is harassing pedestrians from the top of a building, making grocery bags break and pigeons release their load of people's hats. Moore notices something and asks Cook why he didn't abuse a vicar walking along.

"Oh," Cook says. "He's one of ours."

I'm not sure I've ever seen a funnier movie, so of course I was apprehensive when I saw that Twentieth Century Fox was remaking "Bedazzled" in 2000 with Liz Hurley in the Cook role and ... yikes! ... Brendan Fraser in the Moore role.

I'm not sure the original would have been any good if it were made in 2000. Satirically it was very much a creature of its time. Maybe the best movie ever about religion, and yes, I have seen "Dogma." But a major American studio wasn't about to make serious fun of God in the Pat Robertson Era.

Using Hurley as the Devil caused a serious plot error that the late great Roger Ebert caught. Since the goal of the Faust character is to have a particular woman love him, Peter Cook as the Devil makes sense. Liz Hurley, not so much. Ebert asked why on earth Fraser's character wouldn't just say forget her, I want you.

Remakes really just don't work.