Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's one of those movies I am sure if I like or not. One the one hand, it has a pretty good revenge story to tell, and gives it's villains more depth, than you would expect from a movie like that.
But on the other hand, it tries to throw in a lot of comedy. I suppose We Craven was trying combine serious with satire, kind of like Tarantino does, but I'm not sure a lot of humor was really necessary here to tell the story.
I did not enjoy it, but I don't think that it is a bad film. The brutality was very realistic, and it leaves the audience very empty. Both were intended. Not well know that it was based on Ingmar Bergman's THE VIRIGN SPRING, and it hits on a lot of the same cylindes in discussing violence as a cycle.
Yeah it's for me to decide on whether or not I liked it, same with the 2009 remake, as the both have their pros and cons. I did see The Virgin Spring after and liked that one.
It's one of those movies I am sure if I like or not. One the one hand, it has a pretty good revenge story to tell, and gives it's villains more depth, than you would expect from a movie like that.
But on the other hand, it tries to throw in a lot of comedy. I suppose We Craven was trying combine serious with satire, kind of like Tarantino does, but I'm not sure a lot of humor was really necessary here to tell the story.
What do you think?
The original is a classic, and the remake is disposable.
'70s suspense-horror seemed to be more effective than those made in subsequent decades because they had many budgetary limitations to work around. It was all acting and camera work. While movies are a visual medium, there's still a "theater of the mind" element at play as you anticipate what may come next.
Starting in the 90s, the setups got more and more obvious. Once a gimmick was blown, like with Saw, the sequels tended to be more of the same, though Saw 2 did have a good twist.
I kind of like the remake but I thought it was overboard in some parts towards the end, that became too silly and over the top, like the microwave scenario.
I was shocked the first time I saw the movie. Being a Wes Craven fan I didn't know what to think. Is this a bad movie, is this a good movie? After watching it a few more times, I can say its not that bad at all. The characters, music, and atmosphere are all over the place. The movie goes from cheesy and lighthearted to dark, intense, and disturbing. And it all works somehow. Great director I guess. The disturbing content is not much in duration though, its 5 to 10 minutes of the film, but it is definitely very disturbing in that short time.
This movie is not quite Nightmare on Elm Street or Scream, but you can see a bit of LHOL in those 2 iconic horror movies., as this was Wes Craven's first movie.
The remake I watched 30 minutes or so, then I turned it off. It wasn't holding my interest. LHOL is a unique, quirky horror film, the remake was........not that, and decided not to continue watching.
Last edited by Ericmrtt; 03-03-2021 at 05:50 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
