Talk:The Last House on the Left (2009 film)

Disambiguation
Now that this movie has been made, a disambiguation page should be mad for "The Last House on the Left", which currently redirects to the page of the 1972 movie. Tad Lincoln (talk) 05:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It already exists.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Where did this info, from the 3rd paragraph, come from: Audience opinion ranked the film at a "B" level, from a scale of "A to F"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.154.65 (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Emma or john
I'm pretty sure I saw john put a bullet in Sadie's eye. Someone clarify this. I don't believe it was Emma.--Darkness2light (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It was Emma. She had the gun and John put his hands on her hands to calm her down. John was fighting Sadie at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.44.212 (talk) 04:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Daughter's survival
In the article for the original film, it notes that dialogue was dubbed in to give the viewer the news that the daughter was dead, even though she was seen to be alive as the scene occurred prior to the dub. Is there any consistency or word from Craven/etc. documented that this was a change they insisted upon or was she originally intended to be left alive just as she is in the remake? --99.186.111.95 (talk) 04:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

So letme get this straight
The idea was the parents killed the people who beat the shit out of their daughter: wouldn't their crime be worse then the antagonists?--Ssteiner209 (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a forum, so please try and keep all topics to improving the article. If you wish to discuss the film, IMDb has a forum section for the film, which you can find here. Thank you.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't use IMDb, just wanted a little clarification from somebody as to that concept. And I know that rule; but sometimes rules get in the way of progress and must be ignored.--Ssteiner209 (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The Virgin Spring
I tried to add a brief mention of the relation between this film and Ingmar Bergman's 1960 The Virgin Spring using an article in The New York Times as source, but got it reverted with the motivation that the relation only exists between TVG and the 1972 Wes Craven film. I find that confusing since this is a remake of the Craven film, and thereby a remake of a (loose, but still) remake, which definitely would be worth mentioning. Also, even if Ulla Isaksson isn't listed in the ending credits of this film, I think she should still be included in this article as the de facto original writer of the story. There are obvious differences, and the films aren't set in the same period, but still it becomes kind of like if the 1976 soft porn Alice in Wonderland, which is based on Disney's adaption of the story, wouldn't mention Lewis Carroll and the original novels. Smetanahue (talk) 14:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * First, I know the NY Times says "remake" for Craven's film, but it wasn't The NY Times article says "...genre movie based on the same ancient tale as Ingmar Bergman’s “Virgin Spring,” it immerses its viewer in cruelty, abuse and bloody revenge", which does not insinuate that it was a remake. Craven was inspired by The Virgin Spring, he didn't remake it. Otherwise he would have had to say "based on the Virgin Spring screenplay" in his film's opening credits, which he doesn't. This movie is a remake of his, not of The Virgin Spring. It's not like how Peter Jackson remade King Kong, or even how Pride & Prejudice has been remade a thousand times. In Jackson's case it is a remake, the in P&P case it's just a new adaptation of the source material. Neither is exactly what this film is. This film uses Craven's movie solely, not The Virgin Spring. This film in no way gives credit to the writer of The Virgin Spring, because again, this is not a remake of that movie, nor was Craven's film. People say "remake" for The Virgin Springs because of something Roger Ebert said in 1972, when he famously compared the two films. It was in no way an accusation that Craven remade the other film. The 1972 film should be the one to mention The Virgin Spring not this one. You don't see The Lord of the Rings mentioning the idea that they are actually a remake of the animated adaptation of the original source material?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Genre
There appears to be some dissention over whether this is a horror film or a thriller. I'd like to open the page up to discussion about it, so that we can end these silly edit wars.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * According to Thriller (genre), a thriller is a "broad genre of literature, film and television that mainly creates the feelings of suspense, tension and excitement". According to Horror fiction "Horror fiction is a genre of literature, which is intended to, or has the capacity to scare its readers, inducing feelings of horror and terror". I'm not a genre expert, but I would classify this as horror. However, I am not exactly aware of all of the aspects of the film, never saw it, and just read the description on the page which helped me come to this conclusion. Chaos Master Chat 16:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've never seen the film, but Box Office Mojo classifies it as horror and allmovie classifies it as horror and sadistic horror. BOVINEBOY 2008 16:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not the only film with this problem on wikipedia. Personaly I see The Last House on the Left as a horror movie (And creator / producer Wes Craven does too. He says so in numerous interviews and documentaries about both the original and the remake). I think the problem is horror is a "dirty" word nowadays and 90% of mainstream horror movies are always labeled as thrillers etc. by the studio and there are people who have their (usualy negative) view on the genre not realizing how wide it really is. You certainly can´t put it into the same category as Irreversible etc. The movie explores horror and terror of this specific situation along with universal fears. The Last House no doubt belongs to the horror genre same as the original it should at least be acknowledged as one or put into horror / thriller category since some people might think it blends the genres. Luki8701 (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm personally torn. The film is designed to both scare and create suspense (which is what horror and thrillers do, respectfully). Thrillers are an offshoot of the horror genre, something created later for exactly the reason Luki speaks of...because of the negative gut reaction to typical "horror" films. This film kind of blends the two more than most, but saying "horror/thriller" seems to me like saying "superhero/action"....it's two peas from the same pod plant (not the same pod though). I'm fine with it either way, though I probably lean more toward "horror" simply because if it contains both elements, then my opinion is that you use the father of the genre - in this case, horror is the father of thrillers...and many others. But, just to throw this out there: "Characters in thrillers include criminals, stalkers, assassins, innocent victims (often on the run), menaced women, characters with dark pasts, psychotic individuals, terrorists, cops and escaped cons, private eyes, people involved in twisted relationships, world-weary men and women, psycho-fiends, and more. The themes of thrillers frequently include terrorism, political conspiracy, pursuit, or romantic triangles leading to murder."   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In that case I would also lean towards the horror genre. As someone who studied it for many years I believe the movie itself even without analyzing every aspect fits easily within the genre. More importantly the original was always considered horror movie and I don´t think just because the times have changed we should requalify each movie that was considered horror back then. Maybe it´s just me personaly but I´m kinda sad over the fact so many great genre movies are being reclasified just because they don´t fit some people´s view of it. Horror is very wide and personal genre, it evolves but never changes.Luki8701 (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The question isn't what do you think it is, but rather what do reliable third-party sources say it is. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In that case, allmovie,Box Office Mojo, Wes Craven here for example and horror move publications like this book all say it is a horror movie.Luki8701 (talk) 05:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Then include at least one of those references in the article. Because genre is so subjective, we really can't use our own interpretations in lieu of published material. See WP:V for a detailed explanation of why. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 05:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I included all the refferences at the end of the first paragraph so they wouldn´t be in the middle of the first sentence.Luki8701 (talk) 06:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't need them. You'd never be able to tell what was being cited in such the case, because "genres" are not typically cited directly like that. A hidden note pointing out that officially it is listed as a "horror" film is all that is needed. All Movie, Box Office Mojo, IMDb, they're all listed at the bottom of the page anyway.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  06:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, you do. Any possibly contentious material needs to be cited, and obviously this is contentious. I've moved the citations so they are very clearly about the genre. May not be pretty, but it is needed. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 06:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Everything is contentious, but the MOS for citations says that citations go at the end of punctuations. There is no need to just link to ALL MOvie or BOM when we have them on the page already. You'd never figure out what was being cited, and it would look weird to see a source next to such an obvious genre piece like "horror". A hidden note is all that is needed in these cases, because you're dealing with something that is being challenged more out of personal opinion of what someone thinks the film should be listed as. The point being that everyone here is in agreement over what it should be listed as, which is supported by all of the film database links that we list in the EL section of the article. A hidden note to random editors explaining why it is "horror" is all that is needed, otherwise they're still just as likely to change it - they'll just leave igore the citations listed next to it. One last point. It would be equivalent to putting a source next to every individuals name in the infobox (or lead) to verify that they indeed worked on the film. You could do that, or you could let the film database websites listed in the EL section act as the source, since the infomation is nothing more than basic data about the film. The same is true for the genre. It's just basic data about the film, and we have links to sources that support that genre identifier.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  07:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Robert McKee covers the elements of the horror genre in his seminal book Story (p. 80). One of two aspects need to be included to make the cut: the uncanny or the supernatural. Based on the plot summary, this movie doesn't have either aspect. Supernatural includes something from the spiritual realm. For the uncanny he mentions three examples: space visitors, science gone wrong (monsters), or a maniac. And what's a thriller? McKee mentions [87] that the criminal must "'make it personal'... To deepen the drama, the criminal goes over the line."
 * So then the question: is Krug the type of maniac that fits in the horror genre to the same degree as Freddy, say? To me, it seems that this movie is only a thriller, because the plot is very close in form to movies like The Desperate Hours, which are more easily classifiable as pure thriller. Krug makes it personal with the family, as happens in a thriller. I'm not seeing the conventions of horror used in this film, but I'm interested if there's a convention of horror utilized here. Hope this helps. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So you have a source claiming this, or is it just your own original research? BOVINEBOY 2008 18:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course it would be wrong for an encyclopedia to include something that's false simply because someone said it was so. If the genre here is a question, some sort of criteria are going to be applied to the competing claims. McKee is well-respected and reliable, so it wouldn't be wrong to take his views into account in evaluating the issue. (btw, Freddy is not an example of a maniac, as I implied above, because of the dreams. Jason comes closer.) --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe in the end it´s always gonna be someone´s interpretation of the genre. In this case I would stick to what Wes Craven says since he´s not only the one who wrote the original LHOTL and produced this one but is also well respected persona amongs the horror genre fans. He intended the movie to be horror (ie. my source with his interview and numerous others videos and documentaries). I don´t fully agree with McKee´s interpretation but just like I said everyone´s diffent view on the genre(s). In this case I think we should stick to the parent genre (ie. horror - which both this movie and the original are generally known as -see before mentioned source links) as was previously discussed. If we should take this movie apart it easily meets all the genre requirements.Luki8701 (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you compared it to The Desperate Hours? Craven has his own reasons for saying things. He's not disinterested. Marketing people have reasons for their words, too, that are not encyclopedic. They want the film to come to the attention of a certain audience. Is there a rush on this? --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I did. While The Desperate Hours covers all aspects of the story from police searching for the criminals, tension and relations amongs the occupants and awaiting much needed money, The Last House focuses solely on the rape and following clash of both "families" and horrific situations the already horrific thing escalates to. It´s point is to scare the audiences and play on their common fears, question their morality. There´s quite a big difference between both movies (For one Hours is much more expansive movie with numerous storylines and character traits.. the focus and point of the whole story differs completely) not to mention while certain plot elements might be a little similiar the overall themes explored in both are vastly different. If I should simplify my deduction I would say that House focuses solely on the horror of the ordeal (which also differs greatly from the one in Hours) while Hours actually tell a dramatic crime story where the conflict between the criminals and their victims plays very different role.Luki8701 (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Though I think that Ring brings up a good point that the film probably meets the definition of a "thriller" - it even does so by our own definitions as I copied and pasted, Wikipedia is not in the business of reclassifying film genres. I think we should just stick to what was officially used, and not try and say "this is the definition, so we should change it because it's different than what the studio used".  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * These are all good points. I have a concern that the original source of an imdb genre assignment may be Wikipedia which we then cite as reliable when they were relying on one of our mistaken editors. It doesn't matter too much in this one hard case but I wouldn't be shocked to learn that imdb googles a movie if they wonder about the correct genre and get Wikipedia listed first which they then record as the best conclusion. Some movies are hard to classify, that's why definitions like McKee's are good backstops. (Distributors are not in our business.) People (e.g. me) rely on this encyclopedia to be more than correctish. Not that it's worth losing any sleep over, but I think we can agree we want to be accurate. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I feel your concern, but Box Office Mojo, All Movie, and Craven call it "horror". I know that IMDb owns BOM, but from what I've seen they don't share the same brain considering how many descrepancies the two sites have within each other with regard to financial information.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem with IMDb lies elsewhere. As you can see in threads like this and this even pure horror movies where there´s no doubt about them being in the genre, are being deleted. The Last House had "Horror" in the genres from the get go but it was deleted last month and despite dozens of people trying to get it back it still is absent from the genres. I agree with Ring Cinema, that we shouldn´t always listen to marketing and distribution but honestly it´s a little miracle when they decide to call a horror movie actually a horror movie because in this day and age everything is labelled as a thriller no matter if it´s one or not. I think I stated my reasons and I still stand behind The Last House being a horror movie. Whatever happens happens.Luki8701 (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * On the merits, Last House... is not horror. It's an intense thriller, but intensity doesn't dictate genre. Genre is about the form of the story and a set of conventions that are identifiable because of their historic repetition. In this case, I think the title is misleading, because it sounds like a horror title. Formally, the conventions of the film echo the thriller. The film was marketed as horror to reach the horror audience. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually both story and set of conventions easily meet requirements for both horror and thriller. This movie wasn´t marketed as horror it was just generaly accepted as one because the original not only was one but it was also one of the stepping stones of modern American horror cinema. It works as a horror movie and it belongs to the genre. It´s not like I´m making up all the facts. When you watch Last House and Irreversible or The Desperate Hours there´s a huge difference (in the story, themes, focus of the plot etc.) between the House and the latter ones even though they deal with similiar themes. I don´t think there´s any right or wrong in this case really.Luki8701 (talk) 16:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it fits in horror. There's no monster. Krug is just a sadistis criminal. (Irreversible? That's drama.) It's easy to understand imdb's decision to remove the horror label since it's got everything for thriller and seems to miss something for horror. Re-read Thriller (genre) and Horror film. Psycho was once seen as horror, now it's understood as the thriller it is. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * IMDb is not the end-all-be-all of genre determination. Perhaps it would be best if we leave this out of the lede sentence and let the reader decide, maybe categorize it as both? BOVINEBOY 2008 16:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Horror is much wider genre than that. (BTW I mentioned Irreversible exactly for that reason because it shares similiar themes like House yet is completely different) There´s no need for monster and never was from early 60s. The genre evolved far beyond monsters and supernatural now. I don´t really see any point in re-considering genre for older movies and Psycho can still easily be seen as both. Bovineboy2008@ I agree that would be the wisest decision. Anyway I´m done here while I enjoyed the disussion I must say I have nothing more to add.Luki8701 (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for contributing. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'm ok with removing the genre from the lead sentence. Clearly there is some confusion based on the difference of what the studio is calling it and the definition of the genre. I don't see a problem with removing it and having two categories for horror and thriller.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Just my two cents...I think LHOTL is more of a thriller than a horror film. There are no ghosts, monsters, slasher killers etc in the traditional sense, just a bunch of sadistic depraved criminals, like Ring pointed out. 203.82.87.86 (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There's no clear cut genre it's classified in, and we cannot list every possible one, so it's best to just leave it blank. It doesn't hurt the article to not have it listed.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh-kay. Sounds like a good compromise. You know, at first I wanted to type in "rape and revenge film" but that would be giving too much away too soon. ;) Maybe we can add the "thriller films" category down there, just to be fair. I'm too sleepy to do it right now (it's 1 a.m. where I am), so see you in the morning. 203.82.87.86 (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC) (Ack, it's there already. Terribly sorry, I'm such an arse. Good night.) 203.82.87.86 (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Country
What are wikipedia's policies regarding using content from the movie for the article ? For example, the 'plot' section comes directly from the movie. Can the credits (which is also part of the movie) be used as the source for the names of actors, directors, producers and country of filming ? (Please link to relevant Wikipedia policies) -- Nic Roets (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The description of 'country' in the Template:Infobox_film refers to "countries of production". Plural. One of the most important steps in the production of this film was the filming. My research show that all filming was done in South Africa. So South Africa was one of the countries of production. This is why, for example, New Zealand is mentioned as one of the countries for The Lord of the Rings and Austria is one of the countries for The Sound of Music. Maybe we should come to some compromise where we include a 'dubious' tag or a 'disputed' tag after South Africa ? -- Nic Roets (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The template is talking about the countries of the production companies. If it was merely filming locations then there would end up being a ton of countries listed for big budget films that film in multiple locations. For instances, Quantum of Solace would have a ton of countries listed because they filmed all over the world. It just lists United Kingdom, because Bond is owned by a British company. Here are some sources that identify the coutry: IMDb (unreliable, but just pointing it out), NY Times, MetaCritic, YahooMovies. Where you film a movie does not dictate the country of origin for it.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that it does not make sense to list every single country where filming took place, but in this case only 2 countries are involved.
 * Where do you get this whole "country of origin" thing ? -- Nic Roets (talk) 23:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That's what it is referring to when it says "Country". It's not talking about "What countries is the movie filmed in". It's talking about where is the movie from, and this is an American film that was just filmed in South Africa. I see you're not commenting on the fact that multiple sources identify the "Country" as USA. BTW, please respect WP:BRD. If we're engaged in a discussion about something that is being added after it was removed, then you don't re-add it to the page until there is consensus.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * My thoughts were that those multiple sources may not have a clear definition (e.g. country of first release), while the Infobox may have a very narrow, precise definition.
 * More importantly, I wasn't asking for multiple sources. I was asking valid questions and you ignored me (So don't mention WP:BRD which is an essay and not a policy). You have however not adhered to the WP:3RR policy by reverting my edits a fourth time. -- Nic Roets (talk) 01:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * To further clarify what it is the way it is, I'm going to provide a link to the discussions that took place on the infobox template page: First part and second part. You can see that what they are referring to is how to identify the country of origin for the film. Whether that is through who owns the film, or who produces the film, etc. It's not simply where the film was shot, because, as I said, films shoot all over the place.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link because it's the type of thing I was looking for all along.
 * I'm going to concede on this one. Like I alluded on your talk page: It's not nice the way you reverted my first edit of this page. -- Nic Roets (talk) 01:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The template says "use sources". I pointed to sources. BRD is an essay yes, but that doesn't mean it should be ignored. As for 3RR, if you look at the policy it says no more than "3 reverts in a 24 hour period". My "4th revert" as you say was not within that 24 hour period, as my first revert was actually yesterday. As for the idea that I was not "nice" with my revert. You added a category for something I had not seen. There were no discussions about filming in South Africa, and I'm sorry I don't read all credits to find out where films are shot. I asked for a source and you provided one, but then you added the information to the infobox. So, I took it out and explained that "Country" is for the studios that are producing the film. I don't think I was nice or mean. I just was. It was a simple edit. I'm not trying to be an ass about it, just merely pointing out what things are intended to mean.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You removed South Africa 1, 2, 3, 4 times from the 'country' variable in a period of no more than 13 hours (1pm SAST 16 October and 2am SAST 17 October). Now I am done here. -- Nic Roets (talk) 04:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You're right. I apologize. I didn't realize that one of those edits had taken place when it did, as I'm usually aware of where my limit is.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on The Last House on the Left (2009 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090413123815/http://www.moviesonline.ca:80/movienews_16467.html to http://www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_16467.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090312050005/http://www.moviesonline.ca:80/movienews_16489.html to http://www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_16489.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on The Last House on the Left (2009 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090315085624/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/film-reviews/film-review-the-last-house-on-the-left-1003951074.story to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/film-reviews/film-review-the-last-house-on-the-left-1003951074.story

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)