Why? What was missing in the original that needs to be improved on? What was in it that made studio execs go "you know, maybe there's another angle here that needs to be explored"?
This is the movie with Sam Neill and Isabel Adjani made in '81 in a divided, bleak West Berlin, where a couple getting a divorce descends into a weird, maybe a little Lovecraftian (?), path that's part horror, part surrealist, part allegoric reconstitution of their marriage (this last part was kinda my take, and kinda spoilers).
Zulawski was exorcising some deep demons in that movie, and Adjani put in a performance that earned her multiple awards but also ended up affecting her mental health (you may have seen her metro meltdown scene as a meme or something - to this day I pause every time I see a picture of her around that age). People *bled* for that movie; they split open their guts and poured their innermost darkness into it.
This was a movie that affected me as a young man (simple math tells me I must not have even been 20 when I first watched it). I f*cking revere that movie for what it was, flawed as it may have been at times.
So why, Hollywood? Of all the jjuke joints in the world, why did you have to step into mine?
(I hhad asimilar hang up about Soderberg's Solaris remake because as loose an adaptation of the book it may have been, it was a perfect piece of cinema at the end of the day. I still ddragmy feet on that remake because I love the original so much. One counter-example of a good remake someone brings up in an essay is Suspiria. Perhaps. I'm gonna have to watch both versions to understand what they mean by that.)