Point Break. Love it or hate it, this part-surf, part-crime, bromance-laden, quote-ridden movie is a shining example of a cult classic.

Directed way back in 1991 by Kathryn 'Zero Dark Thirty' Bigelow and starring Keanu Reeves and the late Patrick Swayze, it's a rip-tide riding, cheesy adrenaline rush that got royally panned by critics. 

Yet the tiniest mention of Point Break is enough to make us break out into violent spasms of dribbling, nostalgic ecstasy – and shortly after its release it hit its stride and became a firm fan favourite.

Which is where it's stayed ever since, gathering dust in a fond corner of our overly sentimental brains. Until last week, when news broke that Gerard Butler was in final talks to take on Swayze's Bodhi in a remake. And film fans were, to put it mildly, bloody livid.

And you know what, we completely get it. You've got every right to be nervous because remakes so often completely desecrate everything brilliant that came before. For many, remaking a favourite film is the equivalent of a drunk uncle telling your childhood self that Santa Clause isn't real. It ruins your childhood. It destroys memories. It makes us break out in angsty spots.

If The Hulk was your favourite thing ever growing up, what gives both Eric Bana and Edward Norton the right to make two rounds of green shit sandwiches? Why the hell should Colin Farrell ruin Schwarzenegger's finest moment with a Total Recall remake?

When the Total Recall reboot was announced, fans went ape shit, and they were right. The movie absolutely panned because it was dreadful. But it also made loads of people start talking about how fantastic the original was.

People were quoting it in the pub and heading out to buy the original on DVD, pushing it on to new audiences. Which is brilliant.

Without studios taking the bold move to remake something, we'd have never seen Al Pacino in Scarface or the awesomeness that is The Departed. Of course, the original 1932 Scarface is also great, but nobody talks about it in the same light as the coked-up Pacino classic. Likewise with The Departed, a modern cops and gangsters classic based on the Hong Kong movie Infernal Affairs. These were both brilliant films, and they're not the only remakes that fit the bill. True Grit, Solaris, The Fly – the list goes on...

Remakes don't need to exist under such an angsty blank cloud – they're just new interpretations of a story. Nobody moans about Hamlet popping up in theatres for the umpteenth time. In fact, theatre fans are full of intrigue and will queue for hours for last-minute tickets.

Why should films be different?  A film, like a play,  is just an interpretation of a story. And a remake is just another interpretation.

When it comes down to it, who really cares about something retreading old ground or being given a modern twist? If it's crap, at the very best it's going to go down in history as "another shoddy remake", and at worse it just won't even go down in history at all.

Even if the new Point Break is the worst thing since Vince Vaughn was in Psycho, a whole new audience will discover the original off the back of it and probably find their new favourite film. Or maybe this new one will be a Scarface or The Departed, so far removed from the original that it can hold its own and the only thing we'll remember from the original is how weird Swayze's walk is.

Words by Ally Sinyard.