Movies nowadays are better

I partly disagree merely due to the fact that a film like "Jaws" could never be remade and have the same impact that the original did, despite the rubber shark bits.

They have tried & failed on numerous occasions.

That's the only film I can think of that (to me) was utterly perfect when it came out & still carries the same sense of tension & fear now.

Pure technically you're right. Artistically totally not.

Well, yes, Craven's 1972 LHOTL is sloppy and amateuristic, while the remake was done professionally, with better cast and crew. Craven yet had to learn the job, and he did. The Hills Have Eyes is a better film, which I enjoy now and again. Nightmare On Elm Street I consider his best. (Scream is fun, but too post-modern in its smartness for me.)

And it all started because Wes Craven wanted to make a horror remake of the gripping classic he liked so much, Bergman's The Virgin Spring. A medieval gruesome story about a sweet girl who got raped and murdered by a bunch of marauders, who then seek refuge in a castle, where they try to sell some of the poor girl's belongings. To her parents! Father then really knows how to wield his sword. He even kills the little boy of the bunch.
This primal version is, to me, the very best of the three.


"I don't discriminate between entertainment
and arthouse. A film is a goddam film."

This film does have it's flaws, I don't think anybody can deny that. But there isn't a single movie on Earth that doesn't have a flaw even if they're just tiny continuity errors that only two or three people even noticed. But in the case of this movie, I love even it's flaws. Despite them, it is one of my favorite movies of all time. The flaws are part of what makes the movie unique. I could only get halfway through the remake because it just didn't have the heart the original had. I can't put my finger on it, but for some reason most recent movies feel empty to me. One of the problems with movies today is that they are too perfect. Any flaw can just be erased digitally if it is noticed so films lose their humanity. It's like they are made by robots rather than people. I love films from every decade (even a few silent ones from the 1920s). Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of good films made before the year 2000, but for me, films from the 1970s are much more memorable.

By the way, with the scene you mentioned with Mari moving and the parents saying "She's dead," they had originally included a scene with Mari describing the killers right before her death so the parents could confirm they were the same people that were staying in their house. I'm not quite sure why they deleted it, but I think it was a mistake and including that portion would include the scene.

Also, I think you really should watch the original I Spit on Your Grave. You never know, any movie (including that one) could be the one that changes your mind about films from the '70s so you should give everything a chance. Some movies I think I'll dislike end up being my favorites and some I think I'll love turn out to be disappointments. I personally love both LHOTL and ISOYG and believe they are good movies.

I've been waiting for you, Ben.

I had to laugh at the sports analogy, because I was just debating that with someone on another board the other day. Some people will, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary, keep insisting that the "old skool" is always better than the New Big Thing, case closed. Some dude was stating, very matter-of-factly, that Bill Russell would completely demolish any of today's basketball players. I don't even know what to say to that.

With movies it's a little different, because in sports the "product" they're selling is actual head-to-head competition. Films can't "compete" except if you want to compare box-office or Tomatometer or some other objective result. That's why I don't really get any value from debates like "TLHOTL (1972)" is better/worse than the newer version or "Gravity" will never hold a candle to "2001." Meh; OK. Whatever.

-------------------------

I have meddled with the primal forces of nature and I will atone.

You're right about sports but you can't apply that 'evolution' to film, they're totally different things. In sport the training regimes, health and diet of the players ARE better than they used to be.
The quality of film, music, painting, any art is subject to the individual. Using your logic Justin Bieber must be a better musician than Mozart, or Beethoven, or any classical composers simply due to how music has evolved. I know there are some younger people who do prefer to listen to him but you can't deny that for the vast majority, there's no question.
Do you not find it funny that most people hold originals of a series to a higher regard to its sequels and remakes? Is Terminator 3 better than the previous ones? Is Texas Chainsaw 3D better than all that came before it? How about Psycho? A shot for shot remake except it's in colour! With more expensive sets and camera equipment, did that make it better? In many peoples eyes it certainly did not!

The quality of a film is determined by a lot of things (original ideas, creativity, direction, score, affect on the audience), it is in no way determined by when it was made.

In some instances an older film is helped by its lower 'technical' quality. Would Nosferatu be any where near as creepy if it wasn't black and white, jumpy and scratchy?

I haven't seen either version of this movie, but there are two things about modern movies that bother me and cause me to prefer a bit older of movies.

1. pacing. Modern movies always seem to be in a hurry to get places, and don't give you any time to get invested in what's going on. Alien, for example, is perfectly paced to get you involved in what's going on. Star Trek 2009, on the other hand, jumps between scenes so fast that everything seems like a transition and by the end i'm always left saying "that's it?"

2. the "look". Modern movies tend to look really glossy, which i'm not a fan of. I blame the over-reliance on CGI, because movies didn't look nearly this glossy until CGI became so widespread. Older movies (and their practical effects, even if they're cheesy) always looked more realistic to me.

Perhaps you'll disagree, but that's okay. I'm not trying to say my opinion is the only correct one, just sharing it.

100% agree. I think certain movies and athletes pave the way and deserve respect. Like michael jordan and dunking. There almost amateurish compared to vince carter. But he set the bar that others that others strived to pass.
I liked the remakes almost always better than the originals, in general. Its not even that i dont like the originals, but they dont even compare. Originals usually seem creepy and remakes more intense. Like texas chainsaw. I love and own all of em, but enjoy the remakes better.
People that prefer old movies over new movies are just trying to hang on to a memory i think. Like back when the original came out and they saw it, it was more groundbreaking then the been there, seen that movies of today. Im guessing they like vanilla ice cream, afraid of change and progress and probably still dont know how to program the time on their vcr's. My two cents.

Troll alert!!!