MovieChat Forums > The Last House on the Left (1972) Discussion > Original or Remake?

Original or Remake?

posted 16 years ago by BaronVictor
47 replies | jump to latest

I haven't seen the remake yet it hasn't came down to UK cinemas but I'm going to to see it the first day it comes out down here, but which film is better? I know that the new guy playing Krug is no where near as good as David Hess I knew that from the moment I saw the trailer but the rest of it does look as if it could be better though I do really enjoy the original because Wes is involved and he was involved with the Hills Have Eyes remake which I liked a lot more than the original film and by the looks of things the methods of killing look different and it seems it revolves more around the revenge rather than the girls being killed and they talk about what they should do before they attack, instead of just going for it straight away. Which do you like more the original or the remake? With reasons, instead of just basically saying "The originals the best because it's the original".

H2
AUGUST 28TH, 2009
THE DEVIL WALKS AMONG US

[–] trixarob 16 years ago

I personally think the original is a lot better. more sad and disturbing. The re-make is just another video nasty. In the original, i feel, there was a lot more atmosphere, it actually scared me in the sense that humans can and do behave in this way. tho the re-make is ok, and you do get a sense of what the girls are feeling, it just didnt hit me in the way the original did. and yea, David Hess OWNED that part, I would reccommend the re-make, but would also add to the yonger generation, get hold of and watch the original.
just my humble opinion.

[–] giovanni434 15 years ago

There both remakes.............

[–] Red_Identity 15 years ago

I liked the remake better

http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000005/thread/124607950

[–] Jesstears 15 years ago

You're right giovanni, they are both remakes. The original is The Virgin Spring by Bergman. Now, that's the movie everyone should see. I think that movie was more disturbing to me because of the time it was made.

----Nikki
http://visitorqueue.wordpress.com

[–] Lilyette 13 years ago

Wrong. The 1972 version is NOT a remake of The Virgin Spring. Wes was inspired by The Virgin Spring and came up with The Last House....

________________
I *heart* Brian Kinney- Biggest whore in Pittsburgh

[–] richard-III 12 years ago

So it's a horror remake of a tragedy story. Wes Craven would be proud to have this acknowledged.

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

[–] ScoutIsTheLead 15 years ago

Remake

[–] josh1116 15 years ago

Watched the remake the other day, and thought it was really well done. My friend bought the original yesterday for a dollar at Hastings (that should have been a tip-off)...he'd seen it before, but it'd been a long time; I'd never seen the original, but wanted to because of how everyone was saying the original was so much better...

I think the original just totally sucks. The acting and dialogue is horrible, the music is flippin' ridiculous, the subplot with the cops keeps any real tension from being built, it just seems kinda thrown together, and as someone else said on this board, it seems like it was made by someone who was used to making low budget porno films (that's about the par the acting was on).

The remake, however, had alot better atmosphere and build-up. The acting was much better from each character, and it had much better revenge scenes and fights. I felt more for the characters and the situation they were placed in, which made me enjoy the movie more.

So for me, the remake was pretty good, but the original was a pile of 5hit

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] megzorz 15 years ago

I prefer the remake. The original is more disturbing, but the remake had better acting, and the cinematography was great. I think it's one of the few movies that warranted an update. Wes Craven's involvement helped as well.

T~O
KBitch
Does that make me an accessory to cat rape?

[–] zaza_22041 15 years ago

I watched the remake with Tony Goldwyn last night and am watching the 1972 version now. I had seen the earlier version years and years ago and remember the acting, cinematography and sound as being poor to rotten. The newer version is so much better in every way and I do enjoy the ending better. The version I'm watching now is just not keeping me interested.

A lot of parents would probably do the same thing if given the chance. I'm sure I would.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] RobBase086-1 15 years ago

I have yet to see the remake of The Last House On The Left so I really cannot make a judgement right now on which is better. Now I did like the new My Bloody Valentine over the original but the original did have potential though. Just being honest here.

Dedicated to USA UP ALL NIGHT and the fans of the show! www.deefilmroll.com/usa-uan/

[–] Riverbandit 15 years ago

(spoilers) I ordered both movies from Netflix and watched the original first. I wasn't a big fan of the way the movie was shot, but it was okay over all. The Chainsaw scene really threw me off. Since I watched them very close together the original was fresh in my mind. I was very disturb at how different they were, I mean aside from the characters I don't think anything really happened the same. Both movies were worth watching, but it really didn't seem like much of a remake to me.

If you want to bash me CC me in a PM if you actually want me to see it :)

[–] RobBase086-1 15 years ago

Well the first one was more in your face kind of effect. I mean it was more graphic than the remake. That is what I liked about the original one. Now they did screw up on the Mari in the remake because she was not a blonde but a brunette plus, on how they changed it was they had the girls drive the SUV to the store where they met the son of Krug. I felt that the bad guys in the remake did not look intimidating enough or scary like the original cast. That is my opinion on it.

Dedicated to USA UP ALL NIGHT and the fans of the show! www.deefilmroll.com/usa-uan/

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] RobBase086-1 15 years ago

Yes the remake was pointless and empty. Yes the acting by the parents was great, but like you said Krug and his crew of baddies were not scary enough at all like the original film of bad group. Yes it was a mistake in making them into backwood hicks was all bad. If they wanted to do that they should have altered the location from where they were at to some Southern state.

I thought the original was good but it seemed very strange though in my opinion. Yes you are correct about the camerawork that was handled did create that dark and seediness of the film. It was very nightmarish and the acting by the two women were great. The bad guys did play the role very well and seem very cold and heartless about what they did without any sympathy at all. The accents were perfect due to them coming from New York really did set the tone for the movie in my opinion. The soundtrack was a little strange but Hess knew what he was doing though with the soundtrack.

The original was far better than the remake I hate to say it.

Dedicated to USA UP ALL NIGHT and the fans of the show! www.deefilmroll.com/usa-uan/

[–] gimmeapenny 15 years ago

Remake is way too watered down. The only shock they grabbed was the rape scene which felt really out of place and really it wasn't that shocking, it was just awkward with the company I was watching it with. Also there really was no middle area with the parents, I didn't feel they were being too cruel or taking it too far. The microwave scene was just as bad as the cops and the black lady in the original.

The incest, the rape, the forcing a girl to piss herself, forced lesbian acts, death of the girl, the biting off of the kids penis, the brutal stabbing, the greatest revenge sequence involving a chainsaw ever, and so on made a much more enjoyable film. The acting is bad and the scenes involving the cops were dumb but I enjoyed the reality and brutality in the original(kind of original, the less happy one).

Remake is forgettable, I cannot tell you most of the events in the movie other than it follows basically the same plot as the original, it contains an awkward rape scene, a boring stabbing scene, a really out of place microwave scene and that chick from Superbad was in it.

[–] chrissy_13 15 years ago

The actors of the 1972 version were definitely better. But somehow, i like the remake more. It gave more chills, more suspense, and the directing was better too.

I kept kissing frogs looking for a prince.

[–] diezman 15 years ago

I liked the original. The remake was tepid at best.

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

John 3:16

[–] zombizombizombi 15 years ago

original but I enjoy the remake!

I'm not a lady I'm an anthropologist

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] munky_funky 15 years ago

I have to agree with gimmepenny, the remake is way too watered down. It might as well be a Disney film by comparison. There are only two things that I disagree with his/her assessment.

The first is the acting. In the original, the only bad acting was performed by the parents and the cops. Krug, Junior, Sadie, Weasel, and the two girls were spectacular performances. During the rape scene in the remake, you felt like you were watching something that would justify killing bad people in the end. In the original you felt dirty and a bit guilty cause you just actually watched someone getting raped. And there was something beautiful about the scene when after being brutally raped by Krug, the girl casually walks into the lake. The music during that scene was brilliant. The defeatist look in her eyes and even the look in three that brought her to this point was brilliant. All three them looked just as ashamed to having committed the act as the audience felt to having witnessed it.

The second point is describing the original's brutality and reality as enjoyable. The original film is not enjoyable. This maybe one of the most disturbing films I have ever watched(even to this day). But that is what makes the original so damn good. It is not a pleasant film. And no matter how brutally the parents kill the three psychopaths in the end, it still doesn't erase the horrors that were perpetrated upon their daughter.

That I think is the ultimate difference between the original and the remake. In the remake, the daughter, the parents, and Krug's kid all make it to safety and you have some semblance of a happy ending. In the original, only the parents make it out alive, and between the facts that their child has been brutally raped and murdered, and that they have performed some of the most brutal acts on the aggressors that their lives will never be the same. In the remake, they perform the acts in the name of survival. In the original, they do it in the name of revenge. In the end of the remake, the parents are just ordinary people placed within a difficult circumstance. In the original, they have become as monstrous as the ones that killed their daughter.

[–] Katz5 15 years ago

I liked the original and the remake, but for different reasons. The original was low budget, raw, and even with the silly subplot involving the sheriff and the "chicken lady" (which I read Craven added to break the tension of the movie), highly effective. The actors playing Krug, Sadie and Weasel were creepy. In the remake, only the actor who played Krug was good. "Francis" and (especially) Sadie overacted. The rape and murder scenes in the original were haunting. And the sequence where one of the girls runs through the woods and encounters Krug (who seems to pop out of nowhere) and the blade (I think it was a machete but I could be wrong) is one of the most memorable moments in 70s horror.

But in defense of the remake, the actors playing the parents (the bad guy from Ghost and the girl from Patch Adams, of all people) fared better than the ones from the original. I liked the back story of the son who died - gave it sort of an Ordinary People feel (and you also knew ahead of time that Mari would live). The killings of the villains were more satisfying (but what happened to Weasel in the original probably will never be topped). At first I wasn't sure if I would like the fact that Mari lived in the remake. But after watching the film, I thought it was a wise choice.

I'd like to see the remake and the original in a DVD two pack one day (like the original and remake of The Omen).

Dude means nice guy. Dude means a regular sort of person.

[–] SenorCerveza 15 years ago

the remake is a load of forgettable crap. why other then to cash in w/ the endless remakes that we (the lovers of the original) have to endure?
Wes Craven's verison (& his best movie) is grimy & ugly & a cult hit.
This remake should bow down to David Hess and beg for forgiveness