Last House

I seriously hope her character survives.

You got a problem?

Considering wwhat we're dealing with here, that is HIGHLY unlikely

Tell me about it.

A remake of a Wes Craven horror movie.

That = high body count.

Bad Carpenter flicks are a treat compared with the current spate of PG-13 horror freakhouse

Have you guys NOT seen the original? If you do, you'll know the obvious answer to this question.

Fire Bat
IMDB has taken away my freedom of speech. Happen to anyone else?

Having seen the original, and dealing with the subject matter I bet we are in for some good acting thats for sure.

lol, you should reconsider; it was an excellent remake. I know most imdb ratings are biased against horror movies (the original only has 5ish stars!), but both the original and remake are good movies. The original has pretty bad acting, and it's clear that the film makers didn't have a big budget or a whole lot of time, but it's an interesting concept, and the remake really does it justice.

Martha is good in it. I won't give away the plot, but like someone else said, if you know anything about the original, it's obvious whether or not she survives. I did love her character, and she does hysterical very well (I was surprised, as she doesn't get close to that in Superbad, lol).

"I met an old man. Didn't like him. He got stuck in my teeth."
Drusilla, Buffy

The remake isn't as scary as the original. The original has a more realistic terror in it. What would you do if a knife was held up to your friend and told to do it or I cut her?

If you didn't see the original in the theaters, you haven't seen it... Even if you did, you may not have seen the entire original film.

The movie ticket booths had signs posted, stating "No Refunds".
There was a lot of psychological terror going on in the movie, and some things that were not shown on the screen were implied. If you have seen the DVD version, and the extras, that is apparently the "best effort" at recreating the original prints that were shown, gathered from wherever footage could be found, and they admitted they believed some of the footage was not recovered, and lost forever...
The fact of the missing footage came from the edited cuts in the prints, made to satisfy the local 'standards of decency'. The cut prints usually were returned to the distribution houses, minus the removed footage, and not all the prints were the same after that.

One big difference I noticed in the original versus the remake was how the group showed remorse before finding the house... In the remake, that "hit you over the head" compared to the original. In the original, the group's reaction could have been taken as a 'calm after a storm' when the group was simply exhausted from what had just happened, and not necessarily remorse. My opinion at least...


In years since, psychologists have determined that the most imitated/contagious violence shown on screen is the "righteous violence/revenge" sort of thing, and there was more than enough in the original.

In many ways, the original movie was a precursor to the present gorefests/splatter films, and is actually pretty tame when compared to the modern special effects films. At the time, the movie ratings were a new thing, and this was one film that didn't fit into the categories very well. At one time, there were only three: G, R, and X. The original was so strong on terror and violence, but had little sex/nudity, so the only choice was "R", and it may have been the strongest "R" movie I have ever seen, (aside from the pure gore/splatter aspects of the newer movies, which have a different type of terror...)