You just don't get it at all, do you? Even if all these filmmakers did nothing other than watch other people's films before making their own then what they picked up was still based on Aristotelean criteria.
You can argue that they are directly linked. But that does not mean the filmmakers knew exactly about this essential link and why and thought that link was incredibly relevant.
None of them just made a film out of thin air or on a whim no matter what misinformation you choose to believe.
Nor were their films made with Aristotle in mind. Now it's your turn to think about what that means.
And by now going the "ad hominem" route, you've just killed this discussion because I'm not going to reply anymore.
Well... if you're going to take
that attitude...
Obviously you've got a hard on for one of the worst movies ever made
Okay - now, the joke's over. That is an insulting statement to me and one of the true innovators of the American horror film, Wes Craven. An opinion showing nothing but ignorance in spite of your higher learning and degrees. It's an ignorant opinion because if you knew anything about film - you would know there are literally hundreds of films worse than this one.
and nothing will ever change that.
Well, see- I don't know. It's a bullshit statement, so who says it ever stood unchangable in the first place?
You?
You probably like all that Dario Argento crap too.
So - you don't think film is about art at all?
You're being dismissive. Which shows stubborness and thoughtlessness. Now that you've shown your true colors (and don't try to switch that on me - ask BRIGGS, he knows this is always the real me), I'm not surprised you're sticking to your absurd excuses for why Wes Craven's legendary film isn't effective. And I'm not buying any of them.
You're right. The film is very poorly acted. Which only serves the reality of it that much better. A lot of "actors" are still using tricks to make it look like they're not acting. This movie felt real. And if you knew anything about how it was made - you'd know what I know.
And everything else about "Last House on the Left" sucks.
That's what you "think" (and I use that word very loosely in this case).
I find nothing of merit in "Last House on the Left" at all.
I'll bet you
think you looked, too.
To answer your final question (or at least the final one of yours I will answer until you go read a book or something)
Another super-asshole "opinion" comes to the surface - you think movies and books are the same. Reading books does not give one a greater appreciation of film. All it does is gives you more words - words that all still mean the same thing.
And despite all your blah blah blah, I love horror every bit as much as you if not more. The joke is that you don't know that what that is... is nothing but theories on what already exists. You can't shove that in my face and prove anything. Because it doesn't show any understanding for what is and isn't effective and why. All it does is "explain" why people make the films they make - it has absolutely nothing to do with how and why they are effective or ineffective after they're made.
what would I have done with the camera? Given it to someone else who knew how to frame a shot.
That's not an answer. That's an insult. And now you know why I've chosen to respond in-kind. I should have known this is the kind of guy you were all along. An answer would actually have been to explain what you thought the movie SHOULD HAVE been. Not just: "better" or "someone who knows how" to do it.
"Last House on the Left" is not a genre "Classic".
I rather think there are a great many people who would disagree with you. A great many more than you think there are. I never thought I would become one to use "majority opinion" against someone else - but here, the best you've got in getting anyone to agree with you is to use people who aren't big horror fans to make a point on how people only find the film gratuitous.
It's what you call "derivative" and it's a piece of crap no matter what angle or level you view it from. It's boring as shit too.
Yeah - again, watch a movie before you try to convince someone else you've seen it.
Oh, and... you made a suggestion awhile back:
The original film is NOT about shock value! It's about the destruction of the peace and love generation of young America at the hands of economic forces, government, and war. It's allegorical. Not a cheap shitty "shock" film - like the remake is.
Needless to say, I completely DISAGREE with Dr. Blood's review.
Well feel free to post your review of the same movie then.
I'll go you one better... Here's ROGER EBERT's review:
3 and a half stars"LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT is a tough, bitter little sleeper of a movie that's about four times as good as you'd expect. There is a moment of such sheer and unexpected terror that it beats anything in the heart-in-the-mouth line since Alan Arkin jumped out of the darkness at Audrey Hepburn in WAIT UNTIL DARK.
I don't want to give the impression, however, that this is simply a good horror movie. It's horrifying, all right, but in ways that have nothing to do with the supernatural. It's the story of two suburban girls who go into the city for a rock concert, are kidnapped by a gang of sadistic escaped convicts and their sluttish girlfriend, and are raped and murdered. Then, in a coincidence even the killers find extreme, the gang ends up spending the night at the home of one of the girls' parents.
The parents accidentally find out the identities of the killers, because of a stolen locket and some blood-stained clothing in their baggage. Enraged, the father takes on the gang single-handedly and murders them. Does any of this sound familiar? Think for a moment. Setting aside the modern details, this is roughly the plot of Ingmar Bergman's THE VIRGIN SPRING.
The story is also based on a true incident, we're told at the beginning of the movie, but I have my doubts; I think the producers may simply be trying one of those "only the names have been changed" capers. What does come through in LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT is a powerful narrative, told so directly and strongly that the audience (mostly in the mood for just another good old exploitation film) was rocked back on its psychic heels.
Wes Craven's direction never lets us out from under almost unbearable dramatic tension (except in some silly scenes involving a couple of dumb cops, who overact and seriously affect the plot's credibility). The acting is unmannered and natural, I guess. There's no posturing. There's a good ear for dialogue and nuance. And there is evil in this movie. Not bloody escapism, or a thrill a minute, but a fully developed sense of the vicious natures of the killers. There is no glory in this violence. And Craven has written in a young member of the gang (again borrowed on Bergman's story) who sees the horror as fully as the victims do. This movie covers the same philosophical territory as Sam Peckinpah's STRAW DOGS, and is more hard-nosed about it: Sure, a man's home is his castle, but who wants to be left with nothing but a castle and a lifetime memory of horror?"
Barring this "spat" - I hope we can still be friends.
Well feel free to post your review of the same movie then.
