Out of all the remakes, this is one film that could use one. Trailer just went live. Check it out and tell me what you guys think.

http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/bdtv/Player.php?id=2538

I think it looks pretty good.

~Zack~

No squeals of anticipated delight from me.  The trailer actually looked a little vanilla.

Why do you think this film needs a remake?  I vaguely remember the original when it first came out.  Doing a remake of this movie would be like doing a remake of Jaws.


Phil

Hm, interesting. The first left much to be desired, and this remake is being produced by Wes Craven, who wrote and directed the first one. So different from other remakes, it has the same brain behind it. It would be interesting to see what 35 years of experience does for the film. I have little doubt it will be at least a little better than the first time around. Maybe Wes has been wanting to remake it for awhile. I would probably want to remake one of my first if I liked the story but felt it could have been better.

Remake or not, this is going to be terrible, if only because it's Wes Craven is involved. His heart hasn't been in his work for a long time and the fact that he's willing to remake one of the few things he's done right in his career just goes to show how jaded he really is. That aside, I think it'd be impossible to remake LHOTL. If I were more optomistic, I would say the remake could still be an entertaining flick but even then, it could never recapture the ugliness that put the original on the map in the first place.

I'm looking forward to it. I agree with Zack here. This is one of those rare cases when the original movie isn't that good to begin with and a remake *could work*.

Comparing Last House on The Left to Jaws is just crazy. Jaws was a quality film. LHOTL was a trashy mess of a movie. I do enjoy it, but it is no masterpiece. Far from it, actually.

(edit) On second thought, the remake looks pretty damn bad. It looks way too "clean" to convery any real grittiness or horror. The original was flawed and pretty mediocre, but it had a raw style that made it seem real. This just looks like your average thriller. I think I'll pass until I can rent it.

--Julio  

Hey Julio, I read a an early screener review that said the film was insanely violent and brutal. I heard the film almost got the NC-17 rating. The early review was very positive.

Phil, how can you compare the original LHOTL to Jaws? That's like comparing Steven Speilberg to Wes Craven... oh, wait a second. Truth be told, the original LHOTL was very poorly made. Not only did it have a very small budget, but Wes wasn't the most experienced director at the point in his career.

Just to be clear, I LIKED the original. The film had a lot of heart and the penis biting scene was horrifying.

~Zack~

I totally agree the original was sloppy as hell. The budget was peanuts and the production value was godawful, even compared to other low budget horror movies of the 70s. Still, all that ended up contributing, intentionally or not, to what has become the film's bread and butter. That's the problem with some of these old flicks. Everything that makes them what they are gets lost in translation when they're redone with bigger budgets. In the end, you get something that's completely different in all the ways that matter and when that's the case, really... why call it Last House on the Left?

My grandmother, god rest her soul, was a right old mess when she hit old age. She was as deaf as a plank, she always stank of stale piss and boiled sweets and had the memory of a goldfish. But if Wes Craven came knocking on my door to tell me that he could make her young again, better, more agile and less piss I would say "No Wes Craven, you can't remake my Gran. She serves as an inspiration to her children and her children's children and will give them the inspiration they require to be better Grandparents themselves but still retaining some of the magic that made her so good in the first place." And hopefully then Wes Craven would piss off and let new Grandmothers come along and have their chance.

Just so it's clear, Craven is NOT directing this. He is producing.

~Zack~

The first one was utter garbage, IMO, so I'm psyched about a remake. This is one of the few films I prayed for a remake of for years.

And since Wes Craven isn't directing (the man couldn't direct raffic) the chances are this is gonna be pretty decent.

And it looks like they've taken out the subplot with the bumbling Dukes of Hazards cops which was probably the most misplaced comic relief in horror movie history.

Btw. let's not forget that Last House on the Left is itself a remake of The Virgin Spring by Bergman, so one can't really call foul play on behalf of Craven's "original"...

Ah yes... the cops. They were so UN-funny that... it was funny.

~Zack~

I didn't compare the two movies; I said that remakes of each would be bad.


Phil

Quoted from Death Monkey Btw. let's not forget that Last House on the Left is itself a remake of The Virgin Spring by Bergman, so one can't really call foul play on behalf of Craven's "original"...

Wah??? I have to admit, the plots match up but I find it extremely hard to believe an Ingmar Bergman remake could just go unnoticed for over 30 years. This sorta thing seems like it should be common knowledge yet I've never heard anyone mention it before just now. Nevertheless, I'll have to check this out.

From imdb.com

Quoted Text Set in beautiful 14th century Sweden, (The Virgin Spring) is the sombre, powerful fable of peasant parents whose daughter, a young virgin, is brutally raped and murdered by goat herders after her half sister has invoked a pagan curse. By a bizarre twist of fate, the murderers ask for food and shelter from the dead girl's parents, who, discovering the truth about their erstwhile lodgers, exact a chilling revenge.

Sounds similar enough.  


Phil

Quoted from James McClung Wah??? I have to admit, the plots match up but I find it extremely hard to believe an Ingmar Bergman remake could just go unnoticed for over 30 years. This sorta thing seems like it should be common knowledge yet I've never heard anyone mention it before just now. Nevertheless, I'll have to check this out.

It's true enough but yeah a little known fact. But Wes Craven has on numerous occassions owned up to it, saying Bergman's film was direct inspiration to his film.

He doesn't give him credit though, but to most film historians it's considerd a remake in the same vein of The Magnificent Seven is the 7 Samurai or Last Man Standing is Yojimbo.

It sucks. It's another Saw (without the great ending) mixed with Halloween. It doesn't have that edginess like the 70s version. The villains look more like good guys than bad people. There's going to be a lot of cat and mouse games.

I'm wondering if they're planning to remake American Psycho. They probably are no doubt.      

Quoted from Mr.Ripley I'm wondering if they're planning to remake American Psycho. They probably are no doubt.

I think we should wait like another 10 years for that. They could make a prequel though.

While there certainly isn't a high opinion of this idea, it's also hard to judge how the movie will be when made. If you're looking for ways to hate it (whether you say you are or not) then you will find a way, even if "it looks too clean" (which is, seriously, a really dumb reason, in my opinion). There have been remakes people have hated, and after I watched both films myself, I wondered if they really thought the remake was that bad, or if they were just hating for the sake of hating.

This movie isn't out yet. It's hard to hate something based on a trailer, which is the moviemaker's way of appealing to their target audience. Let's face it, people, as writers, we aren't a target audience for anything. We're too critical. They made the trailer to appeal to current horror watchers who thought One Missed Call was "awesome!" while those people overlooked the plot holes, horror cliches, and ridiculous ending.

I disliked the original version of this, as I said. I am interested, at least, in the remake to see if thirty years of experience has taught Mr. Craven anything about producing a decent film.

i'm really excited for this, the more i watch the trailer the better it looks! i watched the original not too long ago, i really don't understand what all the fuss is about, it's really snuff-film like, i wouldn't watch it again! this one looks like it will be good though, i have high hopes and that song selection was golden, taken by trees is great!

They should rename the film industry the Remake Industry, just for the sake of accuracy.

They appear to have pretty much given up.

I'm looking forward to the remake of New Moon, myself.


Phil

Quoted from George Willson Let's face it, people, as writers, we aren't a target audience for anything. We're too critical. They made the trailer to appeal to current horror watchers who thought One Missed Call was "awesome!" while those people overlooked the plot holes, horror cliches, and ridiculous ending.

This is, sadly, true. Being a writer and a film student, I've realized the more you get into it, the more critical you become. Instead of just enjoying a movie for what it is, you're always looking for ways it could be better. It's a curse and partly the reason I haven't been writing for a while. Still, I've always resented the fact that we essentially have to lower our standards to enjoy anything nowadays. The Dark Knight, for example, was not only fun to watch but it was extremely well-written and intelligent as well and it was intended for mass consumption (obviously). As a movie fan and not a writer or student, I don't see why other filmmakers can't follow suit, even if they're not making another Batman.

Sorry to go off on a tangent, I just thought George made a good point. Honestly, I can't really hate this movie as it hasn't come out yet but I don't much care for the idea of remaking this film. Personal feelings aside, the original just doesn't have what it takes to become a mainstream film, neither in tone nor in structure. It is what it is. I just don't see how it could translate. As much as I didn't care for The Hills Have Eyes remake or don't care for the idea of remaking NOES, I don't think the same applies to either of the original films.

I know the writer of this!  Well...I met him once.

But I know his fiancé!

Quoted from James McClung This is, sadly, true. Being a writer and a film student, I've realized the more you get into it, the more critical you become. Instead of just enjoying a movie for what it is, you're always looking for ways it could be better. It's a curse and partly the reason I haven't been writing for a while. Still, I've always resented the fact that we essentially have to lower our standards to enjoy anything nowadays. The Dark Knight, for example, was not only fun to watch but it was extremely well-written and intelligent as well and it was intended for mass consumption (obviously). As a movie fan and not a writer or student, I don't see why other filmmakers can't follow suit, even if they're not making another Batman.

While I get where you are coming from I see it a slightly different way. I don't see it as having to lowering our standards to enjoy a popcorn movie but more about lowering my expectations. I have greatly enjoyed some movies that are not that good just be going into the cinema with little or no expectations. Sometimes a film will actually exceed my low expectations and that usually turns into a great movie watching experience. That is entirely different from lowering your standards.

I watched Mark Kermode Interview Angelina Jolie recently and they got onto the subject of Tomb Raider. What she said really surprised me, I am paraphrasing here but essentially she said that she wouldn't go and see Tomb Raider, it was not a movie made for her. But she still made it and no doubt got paid handsomely for it. Did she lower her standards to make that movie or did she just acknowledge that she is in the entertainment business and go do her job?

There is a load of fluff and remakes that are putting most of the bums on seats in theaters everywhere. Personally I think it is mostly garbage. But is it fair to call it badly written? I am not sure. It seems to work, these things make money for everyone, the writers are all living in nice houses in the Hollywood Hills. Not every movie can be The Dark Knight, maybe writing some garbage is the way to go if you want to ever write screenplays for a living.

It is all about expectations of the customers combined with the intention of the filmmaker. I can forgive some awful movies when I am clear that it was intentionally a movie for the idiot kids who lap this stuff up. What is wrong with pandering to your largest customer base?

What I cannot forgive though is movies that were made by people like M Night Shalalalalman, people who believe they are serious film makers and yet make garbage movies. I feel okay calling M Night a crap screenwriter because he believes he is an important screenwriter with something to say. If he would just come out and admit he writes garbage for the masses then I would actually have much more respect for him and cut him some slack.

Anyway, get working on those specs folks because just like every fad ever I think the remake train will be rolling to an end soon. I can see a time in the not to distant future where collectively Hollywood will just stop talking remakes and will be on the hunt for fresh ideas again. Specs could well become big again.

I think there's a difference between popcorn and crap. I love Robert Rodriguez' and Stephen Sommers' movies. I wouldn't say either of them are particularly good writers but at least they make stuff that's fun and feels genuine. There's also a couple brainless chick flicks out there I enjoy (Enchanted, My Super Ex Girlfriend). But these remakes just feel joyless to me. Anyway, to each his own. A lot of people are probably gonna enjoy this one and I'm no one to stop them.

Quoted from James McClung I think there's a difference between popcorn and crap. I love Robert Rodriguez' and Stephen Sommers' movies. I wouldn't say either of them are particularly good writers but at least they make stuff that's fun and feels genuine. There's also a couple brainless chick flicks out there I enjoy (Enchanted, My Super Ex Girlfriend). But these remakes just feel joyless to me. Anyway, to each his own. A lot of people are probably gonna enjoy this one and I'm no one to stop them.

It's funny how remakes have become a genre unto themselves now. You hear people dismiss remakes as if they have some inherent tone, style or quality to them like westerns or J-horror. But a remake is for all intents and purposes just a label we can apply to films that have been made once before, or whose premise has been done.

Most people wouldn't include Craven's Last house in the remake genre. They wouldn't include The Thing, Croneberg's The Fly, Heat or De Palma's Scarface. But these are all remakes. And with the exception of Last House on the Left, I'd say they're all good.

I do think there's a difference between popcorn and crap, but not a stylistic one; it's all in the eye of the beholder. Personally I think what Stephen Sommers does is pure crap, to me it's cookie cutter soulless Hollywood shiny-shiny gutless mindless-without-the-fun PG13 fluff. These are the most boring movies I could watch because they're so predictable and take no chances in anything. Brainless fun for me would something like Dog Soldiers or Pitch Black, but again that's just one perspective...

Quoted from Death Monkey It's funny how remakes have become a genre unto themselves now. You hear people dismiss remakes as if they have some inherent tone, style or quality to them like westerns or J-horror.

Honestly... I think they do. Following 2002, I've only seen minor variations in remakes of horror movies excluding a select few that I could count on my fingers. Of course, I'm only talking about horror remakes in the 2000s so I probably should stop generalizing.

Quoted from Death Monkey Most people wouldn't include Craven's Last house in the remake genre. They wouldn't include The Thing, Croneberg's The Fly, Heat or De Palma's Scarface.

I would.

Quoted from James McClung Honestly... I think they do. Following 2002, I've only seen minor variations in remakes of horror movies excluding a select few that I could count on my fingers. Of course, I'm only talking about horror remakes in the 2000s so I probably should stop generalizing.

Yeah but like you say, then you're not talking about remakes (even if they're just horror), whose definition is that they're remaking a earlier work; you're talking about a specific wave of remakes within a specific time periode. You might say horror remakes as of late share stylistic tendencies, at least of lot of them, but the question then becomes: Is that style exclusive to horror remakes or do we see them in other films as well?

I'd argue that the style is one that's prevalent in modern MTV horror in general, and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the fact that they're remakes.

INT. PRODUCER'S OFFICE - DAY


PRODUCER: What did you wanna tell me Jim?

JIM: Geezus, I saw a movie last nigh. A great horror man, great horror.

PRODUCER: Really? Which one.

JIM: The Orphanage? It's the best horror i've seen in years.

PRODUCER: Really?

JIM: Yeah. A Spanish movie.

PRODUCER: I think we should remake it.

Quoted Text They made the trailer to appeal to current horror watchers who thought One Missed Call was "awesome!" while those people overlooked the plot holes, horror cliches, and ridiculous ending.

Who is this person who thought One Missed Call was awesome? This person should be studied and researched in laboratories.

This might be a renter. I mean there's no way it can be any worse then the Texas Chainsaw remake and it's sequel.

Than again it's another remake, so I won't get give it any money.

And it may fall into the "Meathead horror" genre. You know, the movies where the screenplay is scribbled with crayons and the purpose is to make it as "brutal" as possible.

I anticipate a bad movie.