Honestly, I am so tired of Hollywood trotting out new movies based on old material that has already been on the silver screen or the idiot box. I've pretty much decided that I won't see any more movies that are remakes. TV shows are the worst remake vehicle in my mind. Even if I was a fan of the original show, I don't care to spend my money on an 'updated' version. Dukes of Hazzard? No way. Bewitched? Nope (I don't think I was alone on this one).

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is a tough one. I love the original, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. And, generally, I like Tim Burton and Johnny Depp. So, maybe I'll see this on DVD.

But when is a remake/rehash acceptable? The Star Trek movies seemed to be less of a remake and more of a continuation. Multiple movies based on a book or play don't really seem to be remakes, just reinterpretations, like a play would be when produced on stage by multiple companies. So, Romeo and Juliet or West Side Story or Romeo + Juliet probably wouldn't count as a remake. And Hamlet has been done numerous times. That's why I wonder if I'll be willing to see Chocolate Factory.

The main offenders seem to be comedies, even if the original version wasn't really a comedy. Brady Bunch, Starsky and Hutch, Beverly Hillbillies, Flintstones, etc. Usually, the movie is nostalgiac but not really that good overall.

And, when is a remake just a cheap way to make some money on a movie and when is it homage? Why re-do Psycho, shot for shot? Which was better, the original Thomas Crowne Affair or the remake?

I will offer up some remakes that were worthwhile and better than the original. Two that come to mind are Ocean's 11 and Little Shop of Horrors. However, in both cases, the original movies, while having a good idea, were limited by the production, technology and other factors at the time they were made. The remakes were able to show that a good movie could be had.

So, what characteristics would warrant a remake?

Fer"McQueen is the man"rick