The unfortunate thing about remakes of classic films is they are rarely as good as the original and often a great deal worse. But something even more disturbing is that often when a film has been redone, the original is not shown as much even when the remake—frankly—sucks. There are two unfortunate cases I can think of: "The Taking of Pelham One Two Three" and "Raisin in the Sun". The original Pelham film release in 1974 was a teriffic edge-of-your seat thriller with Walter Matthau, Robert Shaw, and Martin Balsam. You probably know it was about a gang of thugs who held a subway train hostage and it was—pardon the cliche-riveting right up the nail-biting end. The new version "The Taking of Pelham 1-2-3" despite Denzel Washington and John Travolta was poorly directed, boring, and more finger tapping than nail biting. Yet that seems to be the one version they now show on TV. Even more shameful is the remake of "A Raisin in the Sun". Again despite a good cast: Phylicia Rashad, Sean Combs, John Stamos and Audra McDonald, it is not very compelling. But even if were it could never reach the heights of the 1961 original which is a masterpiece of direction and acting. The ensemble cast of Sidney Poitier, Ruby Dee, Diana Sands and Claudia McNeil, most of whom were in the original Broadway cast perform with utter conviction and believability and deliver Lorraine Hansberry's play with perfection. But don't plan on catching it unless you watch Turner Classic Movies or order it because what is shown television for the most part is the tepid recent version which fails to inspire. What is that makes these second rate filmmakers feel that the can improve on first-class classic films?