The Last House on the Left(1972) VS. The Last House on the Left(2009) (scenes, action)

[ironpony]

The original is a movie I can go two ways about same as the remake. The original is very effective in the suspenseful and dramatic scenes, but I can never understand why the two dumb silly cops were put in the movie.


SPOILERS

Some people criticize the original for having jarring shifts in tone, but I think in some scenes it works, such as the intercutting back and forth between the horror of what happens to the two girls, with the parents making a birthday cake.

Some criticize the movie for this but I think that Wes Craven was going for a dark satirical vibe, especially with the music, kind of like what Tarantino was doing with Natural Born Killers, for example.

By having satirical music, and camera shots, it makes it even creepier. But the two cops just keep taking me out of it. There are parts that are very effective though, such as when the villains have dinner with the parents, and judge them by how much silverware they keep, for example.

The remake cuts down on the not having the dumb cops. Those two cops in the opening might have been them, but if it was, it was wise to kill them off right away, and in a way that works for the plot.

I don't think the subplot about the family already losing a son did anything for the movie really though. I guess them saving their daughter was suppose to be some sort of retribution for that? But even so it feels perhaps unnecessary.

One thing I didn't like about the remake though, is how the revenge is perhaps taken on such a positive note. In the original, the parents still expressed some mixed emotions about what they have done after it was over, where as in the remake, they seem completely pro-revenge, and not sure if that is a good thing for the movie, or at least it gives the movie less emotion to play with there.

In the remake, the gore may have too graphic though, to the point where they show more than what we need to see, and in close up shots, too giving the violence a perhasp fetishistic quality. The original had gore too, but not in real close up shots, compared to the remake, and you can hear the violence in more amplified sound effects in the remake as well. I mean they literally show everything, compared to the original where some is left to the imagination

So that is possibly a downside compared to the original.

The remake also has remarks as to how the villains judge the parents richer lifestyle, but it wasn't done as well here. I also feel that the remake was much more action focused, such as Mary running from her kidnappers, to prevent from being killed, compared to the original where she just chose to accept being killed and gave up, which was scary as hell for me.

The revenge acts are more action focused as well perhaps, than drama focused. This may be a weakness too, unless I am looking at it the wrong way.

But what do you think?

[AFtrEFkt]

No debate. The original's better.

Now, Wes' other movie, The Hills Have Eyes, was outdone by the remake. It's better in every way. All it lacked was Michael Berryman.

[Dude111]

I havent sen the original but I do not like the rape scene in the remake!!!!!! (But one of you guys told me the original also has this)


I would say the original is BETTER because of when it was released (People had thier own minds,could think for themselves,etc)

[ironpony]

Oh yeah. I'm curious as to why you think the original is better, if you haven't seen it... just because of the time it came out. How do you know it's better, just because of that?

As for the rape scene, in the remake, if you saw the 'uncut', version which went to dvd, of the rape scene, the rape scene is far too graphic in that one in my opinion. The theatrical release version is better, in the sense that it's not as graphic, so I was wondering which version you saw, if you would know?

[Dude111]

It was one 1 of the pay channels,I dont think it was the unrated one.. (Although maybe Im not sure)