Entertainment
The All-Time Worst Year For Hollywood Remakes
By Chris Snellgrove
| Published
From Star Wars to Dune to Nosferatu, it’s clear that modern filmmakers are downright hungry to remake some of the most fascinating movies in Hollywood history. Because of that, you might a more recent year was the worst for remakes, but you’d be wrong. As it turns out, the worst year for remakes was 1998, which brought us four Razzie-nominated flops: Godzilla, Lost In Space, Psycho, and The Avengers.
For genre fans, the most notable movie on this dubious list is Godzilla, the Matthew Broderick film from Independence Day director Roland Emmerich. It ended up earning $379 million against a budget of about $150 million, but that’s not the whole story; you see, this movie had such kaiju-sized marketing costs that it needed $240 million domestically to be considered a success.
The Rainiest Godzilla Movie Ever Made
Unfortunately, it only earned $136 million, and while it made some bank overseas, the movie’s awful reputation among both critics and fans destroyed any hope of creating a lasting, uniquely American take on the most famous monster of them all.
On Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an astonishingly low 20 percent, with critics complaining that this passionless film with such terrible characters was a complete affront to Godzilla as a brand. Such savage reviews, along with the disappointing box office, ensured that Roland Emmerich’s planned trilogy of Godzilla films died on the vine, with this 1998 stinker getting no direct follow-up films. Adding insult to injury, the film was nominated for five Golden Raspberries (designed to award the very worst in Hollywood films), ultimately taking home the Razzie for Worst Remake or Sequel (it tied with The Avengers).
Avengers, Disassemble!
Speaking of which, The Avengers had nothing to do with Marvel; rather, this was a remake of the television show of the same name, which featured Diana Rigg at her absolute sexiest. In this remake, Uma Thurman and Ralph Fiennes do their best to recreate the stylish sex appeal of the legendary TV show, but it was all for naught. The movie ended up earning $54.7 million against a budget of $60 million, transforming what should have been a surefire remake into one of the biggest flops of the ‘90s.
On top of the financial failure, The Avengers was also a critical dud, earning a 5 percent (yes, you read that right) on Rotten Tomatoes. Critics dragged this movie for filth, complaining about everything from its inept writing to its astoundingly bad casting. Accordingly, this movie ended up with the dubious honor of getting the Razzie for Worst Remake or Sequel (hey, they couldn’t let Godzilla have all the fun).
In Space, No One Can Hear You “Whoa”
Another major flop from 1998 was Lost in Space, the high-flying remake of the beloved sci-fi television show from the ‘60s. Earning $136.1 million against a budget of $80 million, this film wasn’t as much of a financial disaster as, say, The Avengers. But in an age where Star Wars Special Editions and the upcoming prequel trilogy had audiences hyped for big-budget, interstellar theatrical adventures, Lost In Space just didn’t earn enough of a box office to warrant a sequel.
It didn’t help that this movie, too, was absolutely savaged by critics, earning a woeful 27 percent on Rotten Tomatoes. Critics claimed that the movie lacked the campy charm that made the original show such a hit, and more than a few made the tongue-in-cheek observation that “lost in space” is the perfect review of this meandering mess. It ended up also receiving a Razzie nomination for Worst Remake or Sequel, but it “lost” (if that’s what you want to call it) to Godzilla and The Avengers.
This Remake Is Completely Washed
The last major bomb from 1998 is a movie that arguably should never have been made: Psycho, the Vince Vaughn-starring remake of the Alfred Hitchcock masterpiece. Director Gus Van Sant decided to film this movie as a shot-by-shot remake of the original, so it effectively added nothing new to the formula for horror fiends craving innovative scares. The movie went on to earn $37.2 million against $25 million, which is a modest profit at best, and Van Sant later claimed he felt the movie broke even after factoring in things like promotional costs.
On Rotten Tomatoes, the Psycho remake earned an abysmal 40 percent (boy, you really need a shower to wash off that creative stench!). Critics generally agreed that the remake felt completely unnecessary because it simultaneously failed to do anything new or offer any trenchant insights into the earlier Hitchcock film. Psycho was subsequently nominated for the Worst Remake or Sequel Razzie, ultimately losing out to Godzilla and The Avengers.
The Year Of The Worst Remakes Still Cuts Deep
There you have it, folks: even though it feels like we are constantly inundated with modern cinematic remakes, 1998 was the year that this lazy Hollywood habit reached its apex. The greatest films and TV shows of the ‘50s and ‘60s all got sloppy remakes that served only to remind audiences of just how good the source material really was. The worst of these remakes also taught audiences an important lesson: Ferris Bueller may have many skills, but fighting Godzilla ain’t one of them!
Entertainment
The Last NCIS Has One Fatal Flaw
By Robert Scucci
| Published
NCIS is one of those ride-or-die franchises you’ll have a shaky relationship with for the rest of your life if you started watching at a certain age. I remember sitting with my parents watching the flagship series when it first came out, and over the years I’ve kept tabs on its many spinoffs. Now that NCIS: Los Angeles, New Orleans, and Hawai’i have run their course, and the one-off Tony & Ziva miniseries totally screwed the pooch, we’re back to just the flagship series and its prequel, NCIS: Origins.
Honestly, I’m okay with this. The original series still has its charm despite its many personnel changes, and NCIS: Origins allows for some great retconning and callbacks that are obvious enough for diehard fans, but not so granular that newcomers can’t jump in without doing homework. It’s a perfect show if you’re a fan of the franchise, and the best thing that’s been put out in years.
However, there’s one big problem that NCIS: Origins runs into, and it’s something unavoidable: there’s no suspense. Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of thrills in the heat of the moment when the drama gets dialed up. There are also surprisingly strong action sequences for a series that belongs to a franchise that’s basically a procedural soap opera for boomers who just want to tune into their stories week after week.
One Specific Kind Of Suspense Is Missing
On an episode-to-episode basis, there are plenty of reasons to keep tuning into NCIS: Origins. We get to learn about the early days of Special Agent in Charge Leroy Jethro Gibbs, and how he cut his teeth working for NIS before it became the agency and franchise we all know and love. We see how his 91 rules came to be. We get more backstory on Special Agent Mike Franks, the best character in the series (and it’s not even close), and Kyle Schmid is a dead ringer for the older, somehow more cynical Franks from the original series (Muse Watson).
Even better, comic relief comes in the form of Randy Randolf (Caleb Foote), who, if it weren’t for Franks, would be the standout character. We also get the best kind of wise-cracking forensic nerd banter from Woody (Bobby Moynihan) and Philip (Ely Henry). I could go on, but the point is, NCIS: Origins is a beyond solid series, sans one thing.
There’s no real suspense.
Yes, people get hurt, and dangerous leads get chased, but that’s not the kind of suspense I’m talking about.
The kind of suspense the show is missing, which is par for the course when it comes to prequels, is the kind it could never have in the first place. The show stars Austin Stowell as a young and hungry Gibbs, but it’s still narrated by Mark Harmon. More importantly, we know Gibbs rises through the ranks and then has a 20-year tenure on NCIS. In other words, any time Gibbs finds himself in danger in NCIS: Origins, we know without a sliver of doubt that he’s going to be just fine.
The same can be said for Franks, and the rest of the gang to a certain degree. While I’m speculating here, I think we can guess Lala’s (Mariel Molino) fate as well. She’s never mentioned in the flagship series, yet she’s a constant presence in NCIS: Origins, the series that tells Gibbs’ entire backstory leading up to NCIS. I could be grasping at straws, but I have reason to believe something terrible happens to her that’s too painful to bring up later. The series has done an excellent job retconning the original series, so it’s surprising that they’d come up with a character who could have easily been one of the dozens of agents mentioned in the main series but never actually seen on screen or seen in passing.
In other words, as much as I like her character, I’m not going to get too attached because she’ll probably meet a tragic end at some point.
Fortunately, We Don’t Need This Kind Of Suspense
Thankfully, NCIS: Origins is worth tuning into week after week, not for the suspense, which we’ve established doesn’t exist here for obvious reasons, but because it’s an excellent character study of one of cable’s most iconic, coffee-chugging curmudgeons. We’re currently watching Gibbs’ second marriage, which has yet to fall apart, and I can’t wait to see how that whole thing dissolves, along with his (checks notes) third and fourth marriages.
Lack of pure, adrenaline-pumping thrills aside, showrunners Gina Lucita Monreal and David J. North know what they’re doing with the lore. NCIS: Origins remains a great watch for old-timers and newcomers alike. But if you’re like me and find yourself asking your wife, “Do you think he’s going to make it?” for the thousandth time in an attempt to be funny (she doesn’t find it funny), you’ll be pleased to know that Gibbs does, in fact, make it out alive, and then goes on to star in another 435 episodes.
NCIS: Origins is streaming on Paramount+
Entertainment
Lord Of The Rings Is Now In The Hands Of One Of America's Most Hated Celebrities
By Jennifer Asencio
| Updated
Just when we thought the cancellation of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert meant the end of seeing the comedian’s rhetoric, he’s rising again like Sauron trying to collect the One Ring. But this time, the target of his didactic punditry is nerddom: Colbert is penning a “sequel” to The Lord of the Rings.
One Sequel To Rule Them All
The movie’s working title is The Lord of the Rings: Shadow of the Past and is going into production after the newest entry, The Hunt for Gollum.
Colbert believes he can add to JRR Tolkien’s work with a story that begins 14 years after Frodo leaves for the Grey Wastes. Sam’s daughter goes girl-boss and makes a discovery that leads her “to uncover why the War of the Ring was nearly lost before it began.” That leads to a flashback in which the movie will cover chapters 3-8 of The Fellowship of the Ring, a story that includes exciting prospects like The Barrow Downs.
As if The Hobbit and Rings of Power weren’t damaging enough to Tolkien’s legacy, now we’re getting another shameless cash grab at the expense of the author’s work. Only this time, one of the most divisive and extremely political personalities in Hollywood is writing the script.
Colbert is co-writing the film with his son, Peter McGee, and “franchise veteran” Philippa Boyens. Boyens has long been a part of the Peter Jackson productions; she co-wrote The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, and Jackson’s King Kong.
Colbert Really Is A Certified Tolkien Obsessive
Colbert has been held out as a Tolkien expert since the announcement on March 24, 2026, and that is actually fair, no matter what one thinks of his extreme political views. He has studied the author’s work extensively, to the point where he can speak both Elvish languages, Quenya and Sindarin.
The biggest question on the minds of fans is whether Colbert will be tempted to infuse the story with his personal politics, or if the writing team will try to add extra material that isn’t needed by Tolkien’s story. The Hobbit didn’t work because it added embellishments, such as the romance between Tauriel and Kili. Rings of Power doesn’t work because, on top of adding modern identity politics to the series, it also doesn’t follow the source material, earning the derision of many Tolkien fans.
Boyens has shown that when she sticks to Middle Earth and not regular Earth, she can deliver on Tolkien’s mastery. However, the inclusion of Colbert raises concerns that this movie will stray beyond Tolkien’s boundaries.
In his other job as a talk show host, Colbert has made it a mission to inject his divisive personal politics into his work. That tendency towards personalizing what he does could either strongly enhance a new Lord of the Rings project or turn it into a stain on Tolkien’s legacy by applying themes to the world of the One Ring that Tolkien never intended. Which Colbert will ultimately write the script: the political loudmouth or the Tolkien scholar?
Entertainment
Sandra Bullock’s Sexy, 90s Action Thriller Will Make You Care About Floppy Disks Again
By Robert Scucci
| Published
There’s nothing more entertaining than watching a movie about cutting-edge technology from the 90s, 30 years after the fact. On one hand, I’ll give 1995’s The Net credit where it’s due. It’s well-acted, Sandra Bullock is the hottest computer geek in cinematic history (sorry, Hackers), and the plot actually kind of makes sense because they don’t drown you in tech jargon and junk science. There’s a golden rule when it comes to technological thrillers: the less you explain the logic, the better. The Net toes this line perfectly because I know enough about computers to pick up what they’re throwing down, but I’m also dumb enough to think, “that makes sense,” while watching.
I’m not going to pause the movie and look up the technical semantics to prove this point, but the storyline is immersive enough to grab your attention without getting so convoluted that it takes you out of the experience. I don’t know how any of this stuff works at this level, and as a viewer, I appreciate that The Net doesn’t treat me like I’m too dumb to understand the implications, while also refusing to hold my hand because it’s all pretty straightforward.
Sandra Bullock Is Lost In The Net
The Net focuses on Sandra Bullock’s Angela Bennett. She’s a perfect patsy for what’s about to go down because she’s a freelance systems analyst who works from home. Most of her relationships are the kind of faceless encounters you have online, and her mother lives in a nursing home because she has Alzheimer’s disease and barely remembers she exists. It’s a lonely life for Angela, but she’s also well connected through her work. Or so she thinks.
When Angela’s coworker Dale (Ray McKinnon) sends her a floppy disk known as Mozart’s Ghost, she’s told to click on the Pi button hidden in the document, which functions as a backdoor into an application known as Gatekeeper, an elaborate cybersecurity system she’s not supposed to have access to.
Dale dies under mysterious circumstances, and Angela goes on vacation, where she meets a man named Jack Devlin (Jeremy Northam). Jack brings Angela out on his boat, but he’s outed when she realizes he plans to kill her and take the floppy disk. After a violent scuffle, Angela wakes up in the hospital three days later and learns that Jack and his nameless, faceless associates have scrubbed her identity from existence and given her a new one: Ruth Marx.
As Ruth, Angela uncovers a vast conspiracy involving a group of cyber terrorists known as the Praetorians, who are using the Gatekeeper software to orchestrate massive network failures across the country while framing her in the process. Angela confides in her former therapist and lover, Dr. Alan Champion (Dennis Miller), who doesn’t necessarily believe her conspiracy theories but isn’t going to turn down a motel meetup with her either.
A Solid Tech Thriller For The Average iPhone User
While I knew my way around MS-DOS as a kid and have kept up with tech to some degree (I have an iPhone that’s about five generations behind), what I like most about The Net is that it gets its point across without being patronizing or overly complex. There are plenty of flashes of computer screens that help drive the story, but everything is so straightforward that you don’t get lost in granular details. The main focus is the conspiracy and identity theft plot that drives The Net. While you need the occasional tech speak to get from point A to B, you don’t need to be a genius to read between the lines and enjoy the thriller for what it is.
All you need to know is that Sandra Bullock does her best computing in a bikini, everybody thinks she’s somebody she’s not, and because of this, she can’t trust anybody. It’s obviously a bit dated by today’s standards, but it’s still a fun watch because it deals with cybersecurity concepts that remain relevant. I’d imagine similar conversations about different applications are happening behind closed doors today. We’re just getting the 1995 version here.
As of this writing, The Net is streaming for free on Tubi.
Warriors aim to take season series over peaking Nuggets
Lakers star Luka Doncic suspended 1 game after 16th technical foul
