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

[–] THEthingOUTPOST31 15 years ago

for me its the original, dont get me wrong the remake was a decent movie but the original just had such a real feeling to it, like if your watching a snuff film cause it seemed like it was really happening. hess was the best villian no question about it. thats just what i think.

[–] pl122 15 years ago

Hands Down its the "Original" 1972 Last House for me.. True Horror! Nothing can match it in my book! Scared the Crap out of me, and Didnt I watch { And buy THe DVD} again last week with friends...

[–] zeta1983-1 15 years ago

Both were good in different ways but overall I felt the remake was better, more intense and without any comic relief. The story was more drawn out, the characters more developed and the villains more believable as was the revenge. The original was more exploitative, though the rape scene was more effective. The strength of the original was the beginning, it focused more on the rape of the girls, but then when the revenge came the film seemed to lose a lot of it's momentum. In the remake the focus is more on the revenge aspect. If they were ever to remake it again I would suggest they stick closer to the original for the rape and closer to the remake for the revenge.

[–] HenryCW 15 years ago

One very serious weakness of the remake compared to the original was the lack of character development. Except for Mari's swimming scene and the largely unnecessary back-story about her deceased brother, we know practically nothing about the characters. The original showed much more interaction between Mari and the other characters - her parents, Phyllis and Junior. There was also much more interaction between the baddies themselves. while in the remake there was hardly any dialogue between them. The characters of Justin (Krug's son) and Paige (the Phyllis character) were especially weak in the remake. In the original, Junior was a much more complex character. He was originally a bad guy but became sick of the things the gang did and tried to escape together with Mari. In the remake, Justin was just dumb in more than one sense of the word. After the girls were abducted, he hardly spoke again for the rest of the film. Phyllis (the Paige character) in the original was a very likable character. She had a tough background and was looked down upon by Mari's mother, but she was very protective of her younger and less experienced friend, always trying to comfort her though she herself had been subject to various indignities. In the remake, Paige had no character to speak of and the character was totally dispensable. She was simply the dumb broad who got stabbed to death.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fourballoons 13 years ago

Good God, the remake is by FAR superior to this lack lustre original. The remake had me captivated and pumping my fist. The original had me snoring (when I wasn't laughing at it's terrible cheesiness, that is...)

And LOL at anyone saying that the remake is "tame" or "watered down"--REALLY?? Aside from it being rated R (movies aren't rated R for no reason), I found the remake MUCH more agressive and disturbing than the original (esp. the rape and the parental murdering scenes). I wonder what drugs you have to be on to think it was "tame"...

[–] Isnam777 13 years ago

I just don't see how in the remake they could possibly have not killed off the daughter like in the original. Her heart-wrenching death is what drove the last part of the original and everything seemed to fall into place after that, creating an unforgettable climax. The remake WAS watered down and DID have a happy ending compared to the original. The remake lost the visceral power that made the original what it is.

Peace is not the absence of affliction, but the presence of God. ~Author Unknown

[–] The_Great_Pantubo 13 years ago

The remake is far, far, far superior. It isn't even close.

1 -- It doesn't give you the impression that it was filmed by an epileptic six-year-old who can't keep the people who are speaking in the frame.

2 -- It doesn't stop the story seven times to play an absurdly inappropriate song at maximum volume.

3 -- You will not get the feeling that every single line of dialog has been improvised by people who are stoned out of their minds.

4 -- The director, and more importantly, the editor, apparently gave a crap about putting together a tight, well-paced movie. The original would earn an F in freshman film class at any community college.

5 -- It has actual actors.

So yes, not only is the original far superior, it explains why the concept of a remake is a good one. As you know, the only reason ANYONE has ever heard of the original is because of Roger Ebert. And you may also know that Ebert used to be a raging alcoholic. The original is garbage, but thanks to Ebert, it is famous.

And thus, someone seized on the fame and actually made a decent film out of this disaster. Certainly not great, but decent. Craven and Ebert are therefore somewhat absolved of their sins, and I have no doubt they are grateful.

[–] DesperateHouseboy 12 years ago

Original.

[–] ry-the_stunner 12 years ago

Remake by a clean mile.

The acting in the original was a joke and almost played off as one. Junior brought the girls into the apartment and then locked the door behind him and everyone suddenly jumped out of bed and said "Got'cha!" and Phyllis non-chalantly says "Oh *beep* Really? That was probably the worst scene in the entire movie.

And then the music they played. What the hell? During the scene where the fugitives are driving down the road with the girls in the trunk, the music that is playing almost makes you think the movie is supposed to be a comedy. The same goes for the music they played during the end creits.

And then when Mari's mom and dad rush off and find her body, the dad kneels down next to her as Mari CLEARLY turns her head and opens her eyes (under her own power), and yet her dad immediately pronounces her dead. It's not hard to pretend that you're dead and Mari failed at it.

The original was a joke.

[–] balthazar_bee 12 years ago

I haven't seen the remake, but...the original.

[–] Dear_Oderus_Urungus 12 years ago

The people who are decrying the acting in the original must not have watched the same movie I did. The original is a better horror flick and the remake is a better thriller. But the original had better music, tension, and a better performance from the villain. The remake misses the things that, in my opinion, made the original great. Also, the microwave scene was dumb.

To the world you may just be somebody, but to somebody you may just be the world.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] capkronos 11 years ago

I prefer the original. I just like the grainy, documentary-like feel of the whole thing and find that it's more believable and disturbing than the polished remake.

My horror movie blog:
http://thebloodypitofhorror.blogspot.com/