LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT remake (coming soon)

KYGOTC · January 14, 2009, 07:18:12 PM

Thoughts? Opinions?

The Burgomaster · January 14, 2009, 10:50:54 PM

Another unnecessary remake.

skuts · January 15, 2009, 07:47:56 AM

Why?

Javakoala · January 15, 2009, 09:03:50 AM

Oddly enough, there is no reason to watch this movie, even if you haven't seen the original, as they tell you the whole freaking story in the trailer. Utterly stupid. I would be curious to see if they actually dip into the deep savage tone of the original. I doubt that. And the thought of watching Sara Paxton being raped and then shot...not so much. But then the previews make it out like she is trying to escape when they shoot her, and she apparently LIVES!

Another message I get from these movies is that it seems to be a good thing if you are plain and dumpy as a woman because it is only the pretty girls who get chopped up, beaten to death, raped, burned, gutted...okay, why is it that I'm starting to question my love for horror films and the value of society as a whole if this is considered entertainment?

Allhallowsday · January 16, 2009, 01:36:14 PM

If ever a movie did not need to be remade...

Javakoala · January 16, 2009, 05:38:16 PM

Quote from: Allhallowsday on January 16, 2009, 01:36:14 PM
If ever a movie did not need to be remade...

I would add "Ishtar" and "Citizen Kane" to that list, but I'm not suggesting I think they are comparable. Ooh, ooh, and "Bio-dome". Yeah.

Underbelly · January 16, 2009, 06:05:23 PM

It doesn't matter. I get a little tired of this, "Doesn't need to be remade" crying. It doesn't matter. remake 2001 or Kane for all I care. I don't have to watch it, but I might. It's only a movie. Hollywood and film making in general is there to make money, and without it, they wouldn't make any movies. If these remakes and re-imagining didn't make money, they wouldn't get remade. I saw the remake of Hills Have Eyes and I thought is was a lot better than the original. But so what?

KYGOTC · January 16, 2009, 10:57:30 PM

Quote from: Javakoala on January 16, 2009, 05:38:16 PM
Quote from: Allhallowsday on January 16, 2009, 01:36:14 PM
If ever a movie did not need to be remade...

Ooh, ooh, and "Bio-dome". Yeah.

GOOD CALL!!

Allhallowsday · January 17, 2009, 08:37:19 PM

Quote from: Underbelly on January 16, 2009, 06:05:23 PM
It doesn't matter. I get a little tired of this, "Doesn't need to be remade" crying. It doesn't matter. remake 2001 or Kane for all I care. I don't have to watch it, but I might. It's only a movie. Hollywood and film making in general is there to make money, and without it, they wouldn't make any movies. If these remakes and re-imagining didn't make money, they wouldn't get remade. I saw the remake of Hills Have Eyes and I thought is was a lot better than the original. But so what?

You're on a different topic, my friend. LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT is a cultural A-Bomb, changed much, if not everything, an important and loathsome film that certainly does not need to be "remade" as if that were warranted...

Get a new idea or rip off an old one, but spare me the remade rape movies.

The Burgomaster · January 18, 2009, 09:51:17 AM

I just got around to seeing the trailer for this. Even the trailer looks dull and dumb, so imagine what the movie must be like. However, out of curiosity and stupidity, I will probably see it anyway.

Jim H · January 19, 2009, 01:33:30 PM

It's a remake of a remake (granted, Last House on the Left is waaaay different than the Ingmar Bergman original). Eh. I'll probably wait for it to come to the premium channels.

On a side note, I'm betting the girl makes it home alive just so she can tell her parents who did it, then promptly dies. It's a more believable way of doing it than just having the parents over hear the killers talking.

Skull · January 19, 2009, 02:14:56 PM

What would the remake offer that the rip-offs didnt?

Rev. Powell · January 19, 2009, 06:47:41 PM

Quote from: Skull on January 19, 2009, 02:14:56 PM
What would the remake offer that the rip-offs didnt?

A built-in audience and a marketable title?

Javakoala · January 19, 2009, 07:15:57 PM

Quote from: Jim H on January 19, 2009, 01:33:30 PM
It's a remake of a remake (granted, Last House on the Left is waaaay different than the Ingmar Bergman original). Eh. I'll probably wait for it to come to the premium channels.

On a side note, I'm betting the girl makes it home alive just so she can tell her parents who did it, then promptly dies. It's a more believable way of doing it than just having the parents over hear the killers talking.

The trailer seems to make it out that the girl is in the house alive and one of the killers see her. Then again, maybe her body was being used as bait, and if that is the case, then this film is a whole different level of sick.

ds21 · January 21, 2009, 11:57:25 AM

Re-makes aren't always bad (the Tim Burton version of 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory', for instance), but I'm ready for a horror movie that a) is not a remake b) isn't torture porn and c) actually has some craft put into it. I sincerely doubt that this will be that, considering that the original was essencially a forerunner of torture porn.