anyone gonna check last house on the left ?

[tsmooth31]

this is one remake i will watch and expect it to be better then the original

[Evil Dave]

Oh yeah Im definitely gonna see it! Im just hoping its as rough a watch as the original so I get to watch all the tween-agers and soccer moms that show up for "date night" get offended as hell and walk out during the rape scene. It'll be worth the 8 bucks for admission just to see that, lol! ;D

[lazario]

Feb 28, 2009 20:24:47 GMT -5 tsmooth31 said:

this is one remake i will watch and expect it to be better then the original

No chance of that. The original is too good to be outdone by a New-Millennium Remake. As were- Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Dawn of the Dead, The Hills Have Eyes, Black Christmas, and The Fog.

And Dave, they've already changed the plot DRASTICALLY. So, I would be surprised to see that it resembles the original at all.

[Evil Dave]

Hmm interesting. What changes do you know of?

[lazario]

1. www.imdb.com/media/rm3010693632/tt0844708

2. Mrs. Collingwood's name is Emma now instead of Estelle.

3. Phyllis' name has been changed to Paige.

4. Weasel and Junior's names have been changed to Giles and Justin.

5. The taglines and plot synopsis are changing the status of what happens to Mari and Phyllis as "hurt and attacked" rather than "raped, tortured, and killed."

6. Junior's age has been changed. The actor is also much younger. (Sorry but I always thought it was very creepy for Last House '72's Junior to look as old as the father!)

7. Krug is the only one here to escape from prison. In the original film, both Krug and Weasel were in prison.

8. The Collingwood family go to the mountains on a vacation. Instead of living in the woods anyway.

9. Mari goes to meet "Paige" in a convenience store.

10. Mari and "Paige" meet "Justin" (Junior) in the convenience store and go back with him to his motel room.

11. Mari and "Paige" give "Justin" a make-over.

12. Mari and "Paige" are caught in the motel room by the "gang."

13. Havoc insues in motel room - gee, that's nothing like The Devil's Rejects AT ALL.

14. The gang leader is portrayed as a savvy criminal who tells the girls they'll have to be taken with them because they "can't risk" that the girls will tell, etc. In, of course, action-thrillery "stern man's" cold and calculated voice rather than Krug's very intimidating, very creepy, perverted dark voice.

15. During Mari's death / shooting scene, the "gang" talk to each other.

16. Mari lives or stays alive in a state of shock long enough to give her parents a positive I.D. on who attacked her.

17. The parents decide to discuss their options and their situation at length before doing anything.

18. It rains.

19. One of the "gang" is sedated by the doctor father. The mother and father then place him under restraint and clearly, some kind of operation takes place. Gee that's nothing like Masters of Horror: Family AT ALL.

20. The house is broken and destroyed in a very long sequence of destruction.



Some other problems:

www.imdb.com/media/rm3212020224/tt0844708
Gee, look- she looks like every other girl in a New-Millennium Horror Movie today. Dusty, sand-colored dirt-skin and a frilly white nighty. I can see this movie's going to be the most original thing to ever hit the horror genre!



What exactly is the difference between this gang of people:
www.imdb.com/media/rm3195243008/tt0844708

And this gang of people:
www.imdb.com/media/rm4227306496/nm0226813
?

I'll tell you the answer - dirt and fog!



More images from the movie. OOOH, lookie!:
www.imdb.com/media/rm2960361984/tt0844708
www.imdb.com/media/rm2977139200/tt0844708

Gee, it's normal people... but only a little dirty and wet! How SCARY!


Another image:
www.imdb.com/media/rm2993916416/tt0844708

The photography and forest look exactly the same as every other horror movie this decade. WAIT- it's Wrong Turn part 2...3...whatever. It's all the same.


This movie is going to be a COPY. Just the same as every other horror movie this decade.

[Evil Dave]

Well, most (but not all) of those seem like fairly minor changes. In fact, I'm not sure why they would have chosen to make some of those changes anyways. I guess just to make it "look" like they tried to put their own stamp on the story, lol. But then again this movie should never been remade in the first place. There's no way to improve upon the original.

One thing I really agree with you is the appearance of the gang. These new versions they went with are terrible! Especially Junior. I ABSOLUTELY AGREE with you about how the original Junior looking as old as the father made him much scarier!

So just judging on their cast selections alone, I'd have to say this looks to be a failure. But I'll try to go into it with an open mind. Besides, it's another damn remake so I'm going into it with such low expectations that just the slightest theatrical achievement will probably seem like a monumental success, lol.

In other words, like the new F13, Im just hoping its not that bad (read as "Black Christmas remake bad").

[lazario]

Mar 1, 2009 8:44:16 GMT -5 Evil Dave said:

Well, most (but not all) of those seem like fairly minor changes.

But they were changes that were made with the filmmakers thinking they are improvements on the original movie. They are not improvements and are not quality reasons to remake a movie as good as Craven's Last House.

Mar 1, 2009 8:44:16 GMT -5 Evil Dave said:

One thing I really agree with you is the appearance of the gang. These new versions they went with are terrible! Especially Junior. I ABSOLUTELY AGREE with you about how the original Junior looking as old as the father made him much scarier! So just judging on their cast selections alone, I'd have to say this looks to be a failure.

Hallelujah! Finally another horror fan starts speaking the language of Common Sense.

Mar 1, 2009 8:44:16 GMT -5 Evil Dave said:

In other words, like the new F13, Im just hoping its not that bad (read as "Black Christmas remake bad").

Well, the remakes of Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Dawn of the Dead were pretty darn bad.

[Evil Dave]

Mar 1, 2009 8:49:23 GMT -5 @lazario said:

But they were changes that were made with the filmmakers thinking they are improvements on the original movie. They are not improvements and are not quality reasons to remake a movie as good as Craven's Last House.

I'm not sure they were made because the filmmakers thought they would be improvements. I think they chose to make them because they were minor things they could change that would have little or no effect on the overall story, just to show they didn't make a "carbon copy" of the original. In other words, they were chicken-shits. To make a remake good, you have to be willing to take some chances; really put your stamp on the story. Like I've always said, the only time a person should want to remake a previous film is if they have a new twist or idea that they think would make it an even better film. To just change a few settings or dialog is just glorified plagiarism in my opinion.

Mar 1, 2009 8:49:23 GMT -5 @lazario said:

[Well, the remakes of Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Dawn of the Dead were pretty darn bad.

Haha, yeah I figured they would be so I never even bothered watching them. And now that you've validated that thought, I never will!

[lazario]

I think a remake is valid if the original movie sucks. Shocker is one I'm dying to see and I believe it's been canceled!

[Evil Dave]

Hmm too bad they canceled it. You're right, that would have been a good candidate for a remake.

Hollywood should think abou that. Instead of remaking movies that were already good, but really can't be improved upon, they should look for movies that maybe had good ideas but were just not executed that well. That way you dont have all the die-hard fans getting pissed and the directors could have more free will to add/cut things from the original that were missing or just didnt work. Or then again, they could just stop remaking movies all together and actually start producing some original ideas.

Oh and dont worry about calling the lawyers. A remake of Rabid has not been made......................yet.

[lazario]

I think the Friday the 13th remake could have worked. And any remake, technically, could work. But they have to stop copying every other horror movie. I want to kill some of these smug fuckers saying Dawn of the Dead '04 was good. I didn't see ONE thing in that movie that hadn't already been done before. Dead Alive already did the zombie baby. Cabin Fever already did the greenish-white fluorescent light in hospital set-up. 28 Days Later already did the "wake up and you're in hell" approach to a zombie epidemic. And, of course: Land of the Dead coming out- who could tell the 2 movies apart?? The characters weren't interesting, the dialogue was dumb, it wasn't creepy. So, at best, what you've got is 28 Days Later 2 years later.

[tsmooth31]

i didnt care for the original and i love revenge movies so im deff looking forward to checking this one out

[lazario]

Mar 1, 2009 15:36:28 GMT -5 tsmooth31 said:

i didnt care for the original

Well, it was a very psychological movie. You probably missed all the important stuff. Smarter people do better with this movie. ;D

Mar 1, 2009 15:36:28 GMT -5 tsmooth31 said:

and i love revenge movies so im deff looking forward to checking this one out

There have been so many revenge movies that there's nothing left to get revenge FOR. Except there are almost no revenge movies where the Bad-Guys who get taken-down in the end are members of the Bush Administration.

[tsmooth31]

revenge for rape or murder always works for me, i dont care how many movies about that i see, it can never get old

[lazario]

Because, you being a white heterosexual male living in America who talks like a child - you have so much to rage against and want revenge for. You're so oppressed. The man keeps you so down.

[tsmooth31]

i dont have much to rage against and have nothing i want revenge for, that would be you, a gay male who thinks everyone is against him

because i like revenge movies that means i have stuff in my life i want revenge for?? thats a pretty dumb assumption, i guess since i like watching zombies chomp people that means i would like to see an actual zombie invasion and watch myself get chewed alive

[lazario]

Mar 2, 2009 4:15:44 GMT -5 tsmooth31 said:

i dont have much to rage against and have nothing i want revenge for, that would be you, a gay male who thinks everyone is against him

You wish. Again, that would make it look like you were right for once which you never are.

[tsmooth31]

talking in the third person AGAIN!?, you sure are on a roll

[lazario]

Mar 2, 2009 17:33:40 GMT -5 tsmooth31 said:

talking in the third person AGAIN!?

You are such a retard. You have no idea what anything literary means.

CHECK the definition again, idiot. You're jealous that I'm not a stupid monkey like you and while I actually know something - you're just picking your butt and smelling it. It takes a real genius to always wish you could get away with "I'm rubber and your glue" but you're so stupid, you think you can say people are talking in 3rd person.

You have no clue what that means. Go hump someone's leg, you dumb ape retard.

[tsmooth31]

and yet you continue to do it