The problem with
Spoiler:
her living is that it creates a sort of juggling situation for the parents. They want to get their daughter to safety but also get back at Krug and company for raping/torturing her. It took away a lot of that desperate 'i'm gonna **** you assholes up because I've lost everything' aspect that made the original so great - we didn't witness the parents in this lose their decency and become pure savages, instead they kept their decency, morality and humanity and there is no conflicting emotion in this one, which misses the point of the original entirely.
Originally posted by BackFire
The problem withSpoiler:
her living is that it creates a sort of juggling situation for the parents. They want to get their daughter to safety but also get back at Krug and company for raping/torturing her. It took away a lot of that desperate 'i'm gonna **** you assholes up because I've lost everything' aspect that made the original so great - we didn't witness the parents in this lose their decency and become pure savages, instead they kept their decency, morality and humanity and there is no conflicting emotion in this one, which misses the point of the original entirely.
Perfectly stated.
Probably the best horror remake I've seen to date... kinda ruined it with the dumb microwave thing though. Oh yes, the original was much more brutal in my eyes for many reasons:
1) Girly #1 didn't die
2)Mom did not eat sausage
3)No playing with guts
4)No forced lesbian sex
5) Tweeny #2 got to die without being raped
The girls in the remake got off easy.
This movie is incredible. I don't know what you b1tches in complaining about. Personally, i like to see more movies where the good guys win. I had no problem with this movie. The film itself was a thousand times better than the original. Seriously, the original hasn't exactly aged well, nor was it ever a very good movie to begin with. The concept was brilliant but it was executed horribly. I thought this rape scene was much more powerful than the original and it even came close to Irreversible for me. I don't think the movie missed the point by having the daughter survive. The parents still embraced the savage side of humanity when they decided to systematically murder the culprits. Most people would have been more concerned with getting their daughter to safety and away from danger. They didn't simply kill the criminals, they tortured them. There would have been a difference had they simply walked up on them in their sleep and shot them, no, they made them suffer...,big difference. The girl surviving also gives a powerful message for people, that, anything is possible as long as you don't give up. I really don't think there is any aspect of the original that is better than the remake. It is hard for me to get through the original because it's rather boring and corny, this one, however, is actually a good film.
And then of course there's the microwave scene which was too goofy and over the top and nearly ruined the otherwise decently dark tone of the film.
The corniness of the original is one of its great strengths, it means when the film gets going and we see the horrors it catches us completely by surprise because the tone was otherwise fairly light and silly up until that point.
And as said, having
Spoiler:really does alter the point of the film entirely. In the original the parents lose their decency and humanity and become pure savages no better than those they are attacking. In this they still had the moral high ground which makes it much less conflicting, actually not at all conflicting. The original you rooted for the parents but in the end when they achieve their goal you realize that it was all for nothing, the daughter is still dead and their vengeance just caused them to lose something else in the process. The remake has none of that at all, no conflicting emotions about the parents seeking revenge, no statement about the nature of revenge or its pointlessness, and none of the original's exploration of the nature of violence and its infectious way. This one was just somewhat safe. It lacked the heart and soul of the original, and that's really the biggest thing it had.
the daughter live
You're right, partner. You make some very excellent points and i really don't mean to tear apart anyones movie. I'm just very biased towards this comparison because, i personally saw very little in the original other than a shock fest. As much as i appreciate movies that push the boundaries to press the limits, i just never felt that 'Last House on the Left' had any message other than justifiable revenge. I respect what you took away from the original and and it's rather insightful but do you really think that is implied? Or is that what you took away from it? Personally, i see the daughter surviving, having a stronger message. The fact that the parents chose to do what they did raises enough questions. The brutality of their acts were atrocious, if not agreeable. I would expect the parents to take revenge immediately after finding out about their daughters death. The fact that she survived in the remake, however, showed that they chose to embrace that hatred, anger and urge for justice over the safety of their daughter.
Look, you find out your daughter is dead, you don't care. You don't care what happens next. all you want is justice. You want the people responsible to suffer. You don't think about consequences. If your duaghter is alive, however, and you know that all she needs in order to get better is the care of a hospital. I believe you have much more to think about. I think the consequences of your murderous ambitions would weigh a bit more clearly in your mind, not only for the sake of your daughters future, but also for her immediate safety. So, for you to choose to seek justice and revenge before finding safety, i think, shows just how bloodthirsty our sense of justice can be.
and yeah, the microwave scene was a bit much, but it was still funny, eh 😉
Yes, you said it right there. If your daughter is dead you don't care, you just want to inflict harm. That's exactly the point of the original, to show how pointless such revenge is. I love the original cuz no one gets off the hook. The villains all die, and the parents still suffer. It all just becomes a big messy violent disaster for everyone involved.
That was the point, really. It attempted for the first time really to show violence as truly messy and without much purpose and without satisfaction. It was made during the Vietnam War when horrid images were streaming to people on their TV's and they go right on eating their dinners, these guys wanted to make a film to try and show how awful violence really was, and with it how pointless vengeance is.
The original has some very large flaws, obviously. The remake is more well made - better acting, a larger budget and a stronger atmosphere, but the rawness of the original only worked in its favor, gave it a sorta of rough documentary feel that was very important to the film's success.
All that I just said is definitely implied in the film. It's a film with a meaning and a point and that attempts to explore themes and ideas.
I dont know partner. I'm still not convinced that Craven is that deep of a guy. I know he speaks these things but i think the thoughts came after the fact. To me it is nothing more than a vengeful shock flick. When i say that you wouldn't care, i mean you would no longer care about societies morales or laws (at least i would assume). Knowing that your daughter was raped and murdered would and should instigate a sense of rage and an urge to find personal justice. I understand that the parents felt shitty after doing what they did and that is one thing the remake lacked but i don't think the original did any better at implying that. I really do not think that Craven knew what he wanted to say with that movie and everything that people took away from it was due to their own insight. The message should have been, Violence begets violence and it;s only after the fact that you have acted on these instincts that you realize you would have been better off taking the more righteous path. Both movies are nothing more than fun rides to me and i see the latter being more entertaining. Obviously, it is better because it's more professional but thats thanks only to the amateur ambitions of the first.
I respect what your saying and i dig it, i just didn't see it when i watched it. I tell you what though. I'm going to watch that bastard again tonight. Maybe now, i will see something i didn't before. I'm gonna let you know if i see anything different, knowing your perspective...,not that you would be wrong if i didn't. I'm glad it blew your skirt up but i just don't see it being as important a movie as everyone makes it out to be.
Craven's earlier films definitely have meaning to them. Hills Have Eyes does as well. It's not like he's Shakespeare though. For Last House he was basically a young frustrated hippy who was sick and tired of violence and war so made a film to show how awful it actually is.
But, perceived meanings aside the movie is absolutely, on a historical level, very very important to the genre. It's important to keep in mind when it was made. Nothing like it had come before it, when it came out it pushed the envelope further than anything else in both the violence is showed and the tone in which it was shown. It was made before TCM, Halloween, and all the other big ones that get credit.
It's cool that you're giving it another chance, but really the film is not one for everyone. Lots of people just don't like it, and that's fine.
One thing that I don't get is calling the orginal cheesey or tacky.
The first part of the move ( to me ) was an obvious satire of the happy-go-lucky American family that was shown 50's-60's sitcoms like Leave It to Beaver and The Brandybunch. The corny music and corny acting were all a set-up in order to make the last part extremely, shocking violent and perverted.