What's worse, a remake or a rip-off? In the right hands, both can be better than the original work on which they are based, but more often then not they fail to do so. Is it worse to tarnish a film's legacy, or to steal from it and try to hide the theft under a new title. Personally, I think that remakes are worse. If you want to see that movie, go see it, it already exists. Rip-offs provide opportunity not only for new interpretations of material but also new plot developments that differ wildly from the original work. Girl, Interrupted, while based on the memoirs of a real life psychiatric patient, the film itself is clearly a 90's feminist rip-off of the classic One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. While it doesn't live up to the originator, it's not a complete waste of celluloid.
