Capt Lunatic
Unicron
Buttah in mah ass, lollipops in mah mouth
Posts: 3,241
|
Post by Capt Lunatic on Dec 19, 2014 7:26:06 GMT -5
Been watching a lot of dark horror movies lately(it's the season)and I have to compare these two.
The original was dark and gritty. Hard to watch and brutal. It was ahead of it's time in terms of horror movies at the time. Wes Craven's 1st feature film, it's a fair picture.
The 2009 is 100% supported by great actors. Garret Dillahunt and Aaron Paul are awesome scumbags. I 1st saw this before I knew Riki Lindhome from Garfunkel and Oates, but was always drawn to her in it. Tony Goldwyn is the freakin' Brad Armstrong of Hollywood. Guy makes everyone around him look good. That's really fortunate because Monica Potter is dead weight. She the luckiest woman on Earth to keep getting jobs. Anyhoo...it's not as dark as the original, but I feel it more than joins the club of horror remakes that topped their source. Still not a really memorable movie.
Have you seen either or both? Are you a fan or no? I can totally understand if the genre is not your bag.
|
|
|
Post by EvenBaldobombHasAJob on Dec 19, 2014 7:28:17 GMT -5
the original. though credit where it's due, the remake was one of the better horror remakes I've seen.
|
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Dec 19, 2014 7:51:57 GMT -5
I've only seen the original, but I can't comprehend comparing them. One was an ambitious, dangerous and angry movie that would have a gigantic influence on horror and has been requisite viewing for over four decades for anyone with a serious interest in the genre, and the other is yet another remake. It's apples and oranges.
That Last House on the Left might come up short in conventional terms vs a major studio release from 2009 is directly related to what makes that movie special and the other movie product. Last House spits in the face at notions of how movies are supposed to be, criteria by which things are judged as good and bad.
|
|