I assume people who didnt like the rape scene in this and walked out, not that your supposed to like the rape scene but I assume they also walked out of The Hills have Eyes I and II. Considering those movies BOTH had rape scenes. And anyone who saw the original had to know there was going to be a rape scene in this.
Just saw this. Fan-****ing-tastic! Overall, probably one of the best-directed horror/thrillers with the best performances I have seen for years! I absolutely loved it. Great, great stuff.
Saw this movie yeaterday. I was fantastic, I have to say. It's a very intense/edge of your seat film. The parents gettin revenge was amazing, IMO. The rape scene worked, if you ask me. It showed enough for us to feel bad for her. There was lots of blood, but it's realistic so, it worked, too. Overall, a great film and even if there wasn't an original, this still would have worked.
I haven't seen it, but I saw the original recently and guess I'll post what I thought here.
The original is a deeply uneven film. The contrasts between broad humor and cruel, evil, evil torture did not work and every scene the cops were in just hurt it. The acting was mostly mediocre as well.
But the thing about Craven's first film is...it is unflinchingly brutal and unforgiving. There is no joy in it. And it is shot, possibly due to its low budget, but also possibly because of artistic viscousness, like a documentary. The camera just lingers on the cruelty, the torture and the rape. The use of that '70s song "Road to Nowhere" and the long shots of a girl getting the words "Krug" carved into her and just walking away slowly saying a prayer before getting gunned down in the water....it is completely painful to watch.
However, it is straight exploitation. Yet, Craven unlike most of those older movies forces the audience to root for the torture when these scummy lecherous bastards stop at the last house on the left. The revenge is messy, poorly executed by the parents and completely satisfying. When Krug is cornered and the father is coming down with the chainsaw...it is soooo satisfying. It also very clearly influenced the following years Texas Chainsaw Massacre (which was a better film, however) and may have been the great-granddaddy to the torture porn of today (though perhaps better in that it does not let the audience enjoy it in an overlystylized way).
So, it was a movie worth seeing, but I would never watch it again.
Now that leads me to a question for those who have seen the remake...how does it compare? Personally the story set in the post-60s youth revival movement in the early '70s was quite effective. But does it have the same impact. I know the girls look younger, but I hear it is a more stylish sleek movie that pulls its punches without the in-your-face brutality of the rape scenes or torture (such as forced lesbianism and where the second girl is stabbed, etc)? Is it too much like Hostel?
One other question about the ending:
In the remake does Mari live? And does the heroine-addict son blow his head off after suggestion from his father? I have a feeling those two things were changed and if so, the movie really did castrate itself, because the family is supposed to have lost everything and if the daughter is alive it doesn't quite work, IMO.
Call me sick, but occasionally I like to see the brutality that is in the original version.
If your movie is about Care Bears, then it should be whimsical and fun.
If its a film about the deadly revenge taken out by the family of a girl you just raped, I want it to be absolutely brutal and uncomprimising in what it shows. When its over I want to leave the theater (or sit in front of my tv) shocked at what I just saw.
I just looked up the ending of the remake. They def. took the bite out of the story. But at least it apparently lost the annoying cops from the original.
i saw this, and i must say, i loved it.
i'm really into edge-of-the-seat type of movies.
only a few movies do this for me, and this was one of them.
8/10
I was disappointed in the revenge part because it just didnt seem as vicious as I was kind of led to believe it would be. I dont know. That part of the film was lacking in my mind, especially after witnessing what came before.
I didnt find the rape scene too over the top. It seems like something that is being used effectively these days are scenes like that where instead of a few graphic, brutal seconds, they are extending the scenes...not really showing much, but lingering on the screams and the disturbing nature of what is happening. This really makes the audience uneasy. People are complaining about it, but really...it did what it was intended to do. People knew a rape would occur going in...but they werent ready to be pulled deep into the moment and left to linger. Where was the quick cutaway? Instead, the scene continued on as if it were real life and we as the audience had no choice but to sit through it. That is what made it so effective, because the thought of something like that happening to someone we love is not only very painful, but possible. This same concept was used far less effectively in Watchmens non-rape sex scene. Just as in this scene, it went on so long that most of the crowd became uncomfortable being in the moment...but unlike this film, the crowd was not supposed to be that uncomfortable.
The acting was fine. It was a pretty good remake, and Im glad it didnt have any goofy cops in it.
I've now seen both. The remake does a lot of things better. It has a much more progressive and well-constructed narrative without the gaping plot holes (other than the happy ending). It doesn't have bad acting and actually has really good acting, particularly Dillahunt and it also cut out all the inconsistent and poorly conceived comic relief from the cops and chicken farmer. As a story it is far more satisfying as a whole than the original.
But it lacked the visceral bravery of the original. The torture in the original was far more aggressive, including the rape that did not comfort the audience by pulling away. The use of long documentary-styled shots were far more disturbing and searing than the rather by-the-numbers slick/glossy/quick-cut style of the remake. And most of all there is no happy ending. Mari after the rape vomiting, saying a prayer and then accepting a terrible death by walking into the water was far more moving and tragic than the action-packed umpteenth attempt to escape. And while it avoided the silliness of the parents finding her body so quickly in the original, her lying in a body of water with an open gun wound for hours and not bleeding to death is complete ridiculous and a cop out at the original. These bastards took everything from these parents. What they did was give up the rest of their lives for revenge.
The actual revenge is better in the remake for the most part. But first, letting the boy live was dumb. Plain and simple. His death adds to the level of subversion of the film and that there are no happy endings. He joining the family as the surrogate lost son is completely Hollywood sappy BS. And the parents should not be Jigsaw. Their vengeance should be swift, angry and sloppy. The chainsaw was amazing. Honestly, they should have left Krug's death as it first appeared. Going to the trouble of paralyzing him and sticking his head in a microwave is some torture porn stupidness.
So all the pieces of the remake are better, but the original was far more daring and thus the more memorable of the two films.
Universal is prepping both unrated and theatrical cuts of the film. The unrated cut clocks in at 1 hour and 54 minutes, four minutes longer than the theatrical print. Special features will include deleted scenes and A Look Inside featurette. Those with Blu-Ray capabilities will get a digital copy of the unrated version, BD-Live and "My Scenes Sharing" features.
I've now seen both. The remake does a lot of things better. It has a much more progressive and well-constructed narrative without the gaping plot holes (other than the happy ending). It doesn't have bad acting and actually has really good acting, particularly Dillahunt and it also cut out all the inconsistent and poorly conceived comic relief from the cops and chicken farmer. As a story it is far more satisfying as a whole than the original.
But it lacked the visceral bravery of the original. The torture in the original was far more aggressive, including the rape that did not comfort the audience by pulling away. The use of long documentary-styled shots were far more disturbing and searing than the rather by-the-numbers slick/glossy/quick-cut style of the remake. And most of all there is no happy ending. Mari after the rape vomiting, saying a prayer and then accepting a terrible death by walking into the water was far more moving and tragic than the action-packed umpteenth attempt to escape. And while it avoided the silliness of the parents finding her body so quickly in the original, her lying in a body of water with an open gun wound for hours and not bleeding to death is complete ridiculous and a cop out at the original. These bastards took everything from these parents. What they did was give up the rest of their lives for revenge.
The actual revenge is better in the remake for the most part. But first, letting the boy live was dumb. Plain and simple. His death adds to the level of subversion of the film and that there are no happy endings. He joining the family as the surrogate lost son is completely Hollywood sappy BS. And the parents should not be Jigsaw. Their vengeance should be swift, angry and sloppy. The chainsaw was amazing. Honestly, they should have left Krug's death as it first appeared. Going to the trouble of paralyzing him and sticking his head in a microwave is some torture porn stupidness.
So all the pieces of the remake are better, but the original was far more daring and thus the more memorable of the two films.
I pretty much I agree. I'm usually one to side with the more visceral film when it comes to horror, and the original definitely is more uncompromising...the remake is just so much better made.
Two of my favorite moments from the original are the girl saying a prayer as she turns her back to them and walks into the water accepting her death, and the gang wallowing in self-disgust over what they were after the rape. I really wish they left those in (you sort of Sadie showing hints of self-disgust, but it's not as effective).
The police academy humor and acting that ranges from ok to horrible just drags the original down too much regardless of how brutal it is, as does ridiculous choices like playing banjo music over the end credits (I loved the road goes to nowhere song, but wtf was Craven thinking having that music be what the audience is left with after what's meant to be such an emotionally draining experience).
It's a case where I appreciate the film more for it's intentions than its execution. Overall I definitely prefer the remake, because whether it's as important or not, it's just so much better.
Hey DA, do you think this movie has more in common with the Hostel and Saw flicks? afterall these movies are the modern "Last House on The Left" movies and assaulted the senses of a new audience. They are modern horror classics and unlike "Scream" by Craven, these films weren't parody or tounge-in-cheek but rather tough, raw and went right to the jugular.I thought this was an excellent remake and anything thinks it's as good as these other horror remakes?Dawn of the Dead.The Thing.The Blob.The Hills Have Eyes.Night of the Living Dead.The Fly.My BLoody Valentine 3D.The Ring.King Kong 2005.Invasion of the Body Snatchers 1978.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
