Can't wait to see this flick, i LOVE hardcore horror violence

I like how some of the posts in this thread are from people who havn't seen the movie calling it torture porn/rape horror...all that crap. Then you say how terrible this movie is without even seeing it. Are you the same ones that protest movies based on what you think they are without ever actually seeing/knowing them?

I am not defending this movie, I do plan on seeing it, then i'll add my 2 cents. I actually look forward to it based on the ReelViews review. As of late there has been a lack of decent R rated horror movies and this may not be a huge step in the right direction, but it is a step regardless from what i've read. I'm sick of dulled down crap made to fit the teen market.

As opposed to emphasizing the porn aspect, which would have garnered the film a quick NC-17 rating. I hate the MPAA and it's cruel, black heart.

See "This Film Is Not Yet Rated". Pretty much sums it up.

You do realize I'm talking about the 70's version...the one where there was no NC-17 back then. But if it makes you feel better it did get slapped with the X rating.

Excellent writing as usual Mr. B.

I just finished reading Mr. Ebert's review and I get the impression as if both of you have the same feelings toward this film.

He also gave it 2.5 stars "in the silly star rating system."

Roger and I don't agree and we have disagreed more frequently in recent years, but I believe we are on the same wavelength for this one.

When you're a film fan and you have a chance to stick it to the MPAA, you take it.

amen.

I had no interest in this film as modern horror and remakes do nothing for me. But James' review has caught my interest. I love finding examples of the complete breakdown and hypocricy of the MPAA.

With all due respect James, do you REALLY have to ask that?

I mean we live in a society where parents take their six-year-old children to see Watchmen (I witnessed this opening night), and instead of complaining about they complain about Dr. Manhattan's CGI blue penis. It's no longer surprising at all.

I used to see stuff like this all the time when I worked at a videostore. I remember a woman who wouldn't let her son rent Jay & Silent Bob because of the sexual stuff but she rented Freddy vs Jason and GTA: Vice City.

When I saw Friday the 13th a woman with her 5 year old looking son walked out during the sex scene but the grisly death was just peachy.

That's ridiculous........

I enjoyed this film very much, but I'm almost hesitant to tell people. The pejorative "torture porn" label seems to be thrown around to dismiss out of hand any films that fall into this category. When I see a good movie, I love to share my experiences and encourage others to see it. I admit it's hard to do with THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT due to what's on the screen. Is it wrong for me to disclose how much I liked a film that includes the rape of a minor? The scene was unpleasant to watch to be sure, but I don't feel it was gratuitous. Bergman's 1960 production of THE VIRGIN SPRING was uncomprosing in its depiction of rape.

The bottom line is this. Is THE VIRGIN SPRING not considered "torture porn" because of the director's stature? Is the black-and-white photography to blame?

I don't consider either film to be "torture porn." The phrase has become overused. It's meant to signify an orgy of gore and violence with the sold goal of getting the viewer off. There are films that fall into that category (I would argue that the Hostel films qualify), but Last House on the Left is not among them. I have issues with the rape scene but to call the movie "torture porn" on the basis of it is erroneous.

Leigh Whannell, co-writer and co-star of the first SAW film (as well as the writer for the first two sequels) recorded an excellent solo commentary for the director's double dip cut of SAW III in which he admits to a sense of disdain over how he and James Wan are credited with the advent of torture porn despite the fact that they never intended for SAW to be anything like that.

I agree. The first SAW is a very different film from its successors. If anything, we really do have Eli Roth to thank for indulging in the kinky side of the torture horror genre. On the other hand, I remember watching SAW II for the first time and noticing from the first scene that the "venus head trap" apparatus was attached to the victim with black, studded leather. I think it's safe to say that Darren Lyn Bousman is the one who nudged SAW over the edge from grisly Hitchcockian thriller to something a bit more fetishistic.

Although, to Bousman's credit, his films have a nifty s-&-m romance between Tobin Bell and Shawnee Smith buried in the grue and his fetishistic aesthetic served him well in the tongue in cheek goth industrial musical (!!!), REPO: THE GENETIC OPERA. And besides, he's the only director who ever managed to get a watchable performance out of Paris Hilton. Surely, that must count for something. Now, if only he could squeeze her into the business end of a SAW sequel.