When the boys in charge over in Hollywood decide to remake a film, it rarely bothers me. I get it. It makes sense from their standpoint. Remakes are generally easier to write than original material, remakes usually have an attached fanbase, etc. There's a whole list of reasons why remakes are a good business move for Hollywood's big guns. And every once in awhile we get lucky because a remake is actually good. The director cares about the original and its integrity, so we see a great new version of an old favorite. Or perhaps the film's original context applies to today's society as well, thus it is remade as social commentary. I can understand a remake as well as appreciate it along with its predecessor, recognizing that they are two separate works of art and not one in the same. 

With that said, there are some films that shouldn't be ****** with! One of those films is EAST OF EDEN. The original is near perfect, so I feel that a remake would only tarnish the memory of the original. Of course, I am biased because I am a huge fan of James Dean and his small yet powerful body of work. And yes, I realize that I now contradict myself, as I just stated that I can recognize the original and the remake as two different films that can be enjoyed separately. But I just can't get behind this one. Sorry Hollywood, but this is a time where I don't support your creative endeavors.  I hope that I am proven wrong. 

EAST OF EDEN (2009) is set to be produced by Brian Grazer, directed by Tom Hooper (JOHN ADAMS) with a script from Christopher Hampton (ATONEMENT). The film was, at one point, to be directed by Ron Howard. EAST OF EDEN (1955) was directed by Elia Kazan (A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE) and stared James Dean (REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE) as an out-of-place loner vying for his father's love. The novel, for which the film was loosely based, was written by John Steinbeck. 

Comment back with a remake that pissed you off.

Source Variety