5 Classic Fantasy Movies That Deserve a Modern Remake Now

Long before 1939’s “The Wizard of Oz” became a landmark in movie history, Hollywood had already made several trips down the Yellow Brick Road. L. Frank Baum’s “Oz” stories inspired earlier screen versions, including 1910’s “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz” and Larry Semon’s 1925 feature, also titled “The Wizard of Oz.” Other pillars of fantasy literature, from “Alice in Wonderland” onward, likewise drew filmmakers back again and again across different periods of cinema. With stories this enduring, repeated adaptations were inevitable — and they helped establish an important rule of fantasy filmmaking: no classic fairy tale ever truly belongs to just one movie.

These tales keep changing shape, returning in remakes and reimaginings that introduce familiar worlds to audiences who may be discovering them for the first time. The fantasy movie remake has become a reliable part of the film industry, making room for wildly different artistic approaches — and, admittedly, wildly different levels of success. Since Hollywood’s appetite for fantasy adaptations is unlikely to fade, it is worth asking which beloved fantasy films are most ready for a fresh interpretation. A movie can be cherished, influential or critically admired and still contain plenty of room for a bold new version.

The five fantasy classics in question would not all benefit from remakes in the same way. Some invite richer world-building, others call out for a stronger visual identity, and a few simply deserve to reach modern audiences through a new cinematic lens. Taken together, they would continue a tradition of fantasy film remakes that stretches back almost as far as the medium itself.

Released in 1984, “The NeverEnding Story” brought Michael Ende’s 1979 novel to the big screen through the vision of writer-director Wolfgang Petersen, who co-wrote the adaptation with Herman Weigel. The film gave children an unforgettable fantasy adventure, complete with a tactile, lived-in world — and, of course, a quicksand swamp sequence involving one very unlucky horse that scarred a generation. That combination of wonder and childhood trauma is part of why “The NeverEnding Story” still lingers so powerfully in pop culture. Yet Petersen’s film covered only part of Ende’s book, leaving major portions of the novel, including the entire second half, untouched.

That gap alone makes the case for a new “NeverEnding Story” movie. For years, fans have wondered whether a reboot or remake might finally materialize, and there is no shortage of reasons it should. Beyond giving long-ignored plot points their moment in live-action cinema, a filmmaker with a distinct sensibility — someone capable of the scale and seriousness Denis Villeneuve brought to “Dune,” for instance — could make Fantasia, known as Fantastica in Ende’s novel, feel startlingly new. The remake should preserve the original film’s commitment to practical effects and its willingness to embrace darkness, but it should not be afraid to chart its own visual path.

There is enormous creative space for a fresh interpretation of this imaginary realm, from its creatures and landscapes to its emotional undercurrents. Besides, it feels only fair that today’s kids get their own chance to experience the kind of awe-struck, nightmare-fueled wonder that only “The NeverEnding Story” can deliver.

The best movie musicals often thrive on color, movement and a sense of heightened reality that only the genre can provide. Yet too many recent musicals have chosen murky lighting, muted palettes and strangely joyless visual worlds. Films such as “Cats,” “Dear Evan Hansen,” “Joker: Folie à Deux” and the 2026 “Moana” remake appear determined to strand their characters in dim, washed-out spaces where exuberance goes to die. Modern cinema could use more shamelessly ridiculous spectacle. In other words, it may be time for “Xanadu” to roll back into view.

On paper, the 1980 roller-skating fantasy musical starring Olivia Newton-John — and featuring Gene Kelly’s final film acting role — might seem like an unlikely candidate for a remake. But the hit 2007 stage musical adaptation proved that “Xanadu” is not trapped in its original decade. Big-hearted musical numbers, gleeful camp and songs associated with acts such as Electric Light Orchestra still have plenty of power when handled with confidence. Put the material in the hands of a sharp modern queer cinema voice, perhaps Angela Robinson, Alice Maio Mackay or Alice Wu, and let the screen explode with color worthy of Powell & Pressburger or Jacques Demy. Done right, a new “Xanadu” could become an even more dazzling fantasy musical than the cult favorite that inspired it.

Best of all, a modern maximalist “Xanadu” remake would show all those dreary “modern” musical movies the rich visual possibilities of this genre. We need more “Xanadu” mayhem in this genre and fewer “Joker: Folie à Deux” disasters.

Today, 1996’s “Dragonheart” is considered a cult classic and one of the 50 movies about dragons you need to see. Universal Pictures has certainly gotten a lot of mileage out of this property, given that the studio has made four direct-to-video follow-ups to the original “Dragonheart.” However, there’s still glaring artistic flaws with this production, a fact especially apparent to Patrick Read Johnson, who penned the film’s original screenplay (he only received a “Story By” credit in the final film). Among the many alterations to the saga of dragon Draco (Sean Connery) and human Sir Bowen (Dennis Quaid) that Johnson despised was the removal of any nuance or compelling drama in the human characters, who were all incredibly arch in the final film.

Remaking “Dragonheart” closer to his original vision is something Johnson has constantly talked about with enthusiasm. Certainly, there’s something to the idea of remaking a movie that had a cool core concept but didn’t hit its full potential. Whether it’s Johnson stepping behind the camera or somebody else, a new “Dragonheart” incanration would undoubtedly benefit from having a better director than the original film’s helmer. Rob Cohen. This filmmaker responsible for “xXx,” “The Boy Next Door,” “Stealth” and so many other clunkers zapped this production of its energy from the get-go.

With a better filmmaking steering the “Dragonheart” ship, not to mention a more consistent and weighty tone, this property could finally live up to all the potential Johnson imbued into his initial draft.

The original “Magic Bedknob” and “Bonfires and Broomsticks” children’s books by Mary Norton were first published in the 1940s and existed separate from the P.L. Travers “Mary Poppins” books. However, Disney’s 1971 adaptation of the Norton texts, entitled “Bedknobs and Broomsticks,” was clearly trying to ape the style and success of 1964’s “Mary Poppins.” The “what would Walt do?” mantra guided all corners of the Disney empire after Walt Disney’s passing and that extended to motion picture endeavors like “Bedknobs and Broomsticks.” This feature even contained a lengthy set piece where the live-action human characters traveled to an animated world, just like in “Mary Poppins.”

Decades later, “Bedknobs and Broomsticks” could have a chance to be adapted once more, but this time as a project with more of an identity than “we have ‘Mary Poppins’ at home.” A blueprint for how to remake this fantasy feature can be found in another update of a live-action 70s Disney movie: “Pete’s Dragon.” That 2016 David Lowery directorial effort just took the title and starting concept of the original Disney musical before making a deeply moving standalone exercise. The result was one of summer 2016’s best movies. 

Going the same route for a new “Bedknobs and Broomsticks” movie would be a boon on multiple levels, including in offering moviegoers something they already haven’t seen and avoiding the exact same problem plaguing all live-action Disney remakes. Plus, “Bedknobs and Broomsticks” could finally have a cinema-based identity that isn’t rooted in “Mary Poppins.”

“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” was one of the best reviewed movies of 2008 and the recipient of countless Oscar nominations. Unfortunately, the movie itself was a slog, a rare pre-Netflix misfire for director David Fincher. Despite its intriguing high-concept premise promising something deeply specific, the final version of “Benjamin Button” came off as domestic distributor Paramount Pictures wanting to fuse together pieces of two of its biggest hits. Specifically, “Benjamin Button” is just the tragic romance of “Titanic” stitched together with the “one guy wanders through multiple decades of history” conceit from “Forrest Gump.”

Constantly reminding audiences of other movies doesn’t help “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” stand on its own two feet. Amplifying the film’s problems is that the CG effects turning back the clock on Brad Pitt’s Benjamin Button stand out as a glaringly obvious example of de-aging technology missing the mark in movies. F. Scott Fitzgerald’s original 1922 “Curious Case of Benjamin Button” short story had both a wryer sense of humor and a killer starting concept that deserve a better movie. Remaking this title into something more whimsical and comedic that lets human performers inhabit Button at different stages of life could finally unlock the fullest potential of this saga.

Despite “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” enjoying a revered reputation in 2008, the passage of time has made it clear there’s plenty of ways a remake could excel where this Fincher title floundered.