The Last House on the Left = Best Date Movie EVER!!!

[Sean Novak]

This may be one of the glossiest remakes ever - for one reason - this one actually has a budget larger than that of your local Elks Lodge chapter. If you’ve never seen the original Last House on the Left, Wes Craven’s directorial debut released in 1972, then you probably never should. It looks like a student film, it’s poorly acted and the dialogue is awful. Yet it is one of the most discomforting films I’ve ever witnessed. It borderlines on snuff and it suggests much more than it actually portrays, but the suggestions are so perverse and violent that the Saw or Hostel films have nothing on it. For a horror or film completist it’s a must but by no means is it a film I’d suggest to my grandma or her church group. And so goes the same with this 2009 remake directed by Greek director Denis Iliadis. I even had flashbacks to the sadism found in The Passion of the Christ in a scene involving the character of Paige and a knife but because teenaged girls are being tortured in this one and not the Son of God I doubt they’ll be making bus trips to the theatres.

It’s a simple plot loosely based on Ingmar Bergman’s The Virgin Spring (1960). Two young girls, Mary (Sara Paxton of Aquamarine) and Paige (Martha Maclsaac of Superbad), get mixed up with a prison escapee and his grungy gang while in the main part of a typical lake-centered town in the mountains. The gang of four tortures them and holds them hostage. Because the girls have merely seen Krug the escapee, played wonderfully twisted by Garret Dillahunt, he can’t chance them telling the police and decides to take the next step in silencing them. Mari’s parents, played vulnerably strong by Monica Potter and Tony Goldwyn, unknowingly invite the crew into their home and soon after discover the truth. Voila! You have the formula for a revenge flick. But this is not your typical revenge flick. It happens in close quarters and within 24 hours and wastes little time.

This 2009 version does its job. It’s intense as all hell; it holds that tension through 90% of its running time and it’s brutal and violent, but not ugly. By no means will this be talked about over 35 years later like we still talk about the original. It is not groundbreaking or shocking. I felt the same levels of discomfort in parts of Hostel or The Inside (2007). The tension starts about 15 minutes in and doesn’t really cease. This is no frills horror with little to no let up.

The theatre I saw it in I personally never attend. It's actually quite nice but it seems to attract those crowds movie-lovers dread. The man next to me answered his phone within the first 20 minutes and another man who apparently thought he was Dane Cook was wise-cracking every 5 minutes with his date who was half his age. Hey buddy, if I wanted Mystery Science Theatre 3000 I’d turn on Comedy f*#king Central! But the interesting thing was once the rape scene started the theatre went absolutely silent. I don’t think many had seen the original so this was a surprise for them. As soon as they thought they’d be getting a typical hostage/home invasion movie the ante was upped and no one was sure if they wanted to stay in the game.

I must say one of the kills involving a sink is one of the best kills I’ve seen in years. It is slow and unpredictable and aptly shot. We even see a sense of horror in the faces of the parents as they look at one another during this unspeakable act with an un-assuredness of what they’re doing. I believe this is an improvement over the original to where the parents acted in a sort of superhero fashion, not showing any real fear or uncertainty about attacking their daughter’s attackers.

I do love that this cast brought much more humanity and vulnerability to their roles. Krug’s son Justin, played by Spencer Treat Clark (the child from Gladiator), is portrayed as a boy screaming to get out of his cage but no one can hear him. He’s not portrayed as evil or stupid, just a kid begging for a normal life and family, except he’s stuck in hell. His father Krug is still played as cold and sadistic, but you get the sense that he can’t help himself like so many career criminals. He’s fallen down the rabbit hole so far he can’t see the light any longer and rather than turning the anger and frustration inward to look at himself, he has no patience and turns it on whomever crosses his path. You get the sense that these people are not one dimensional, that deep down they are terrified of their actions but they are on auto-pilot and can’t help but act too reactively. They give in to primal urges over rational thought. And “the crazy” is never explained, there is no back story of an abusive childhood or a wife taken from them in the midst of a happy marriage. This makes them all the more creepy and usually always makes for a better villain in any film.

And I must mention the ending. While it makes for a crowd-pleaser and a very cool effect it is by no means necessary. The film should end about two minutes earlier. This theatrical conclusion makes the audience feel good in a situation where they really have no business feeling good. This story is not about happy endings or even a just ending; it’s about the hollowness of violence. By giving it a “cool” ending I believe Iliadis has defeated the purpose of this tale.

The original as a whole is more sadistic, psycho-sexual and by far more unsettling, not only because of the original grain of the film, but also because of the odd musical choices by Craven and original Krug actor David Hess who wrote some of the score. It’s downright upbeat and goofy during some dreadful scenes and melodically serene in others, as if cueing a romantic 70’s scene. The original is simply twisted. The remake is simply brutal.

The violence and blood are definitely increased here. Obviously that results from a budget and an audience who has a much higher gore-quotient than they did in the 70’s. Wes’s original was a reflection of the nonsensical and in-your-face violence of the Vietnam War. He was angry. This remake seems to be an excuse for another remake. Although it’s highly effective it doesn’t have nearly the same meaning or impact. Even if you count the few decent horror remakes, such as Dawn of the Dead (2004) and The Hills Have Eyes (2006), it’s the same case. The directors have upped the acting and the gore, but no longer are they original in their meaning or a reflection of the times. Maybe this doesn’t matter, especially to new horror fans, but maybe we should leave these horror classics alone just because they aren’t soaked in blood in every frame. Gore was never the goal for most classic horror directors. It was a fun, scary method to talk about what was happening in the world or in their personal lives without being preachy or cliché. Gore is great, thought is better.

The Last House on the Left opens everywhere tomorrow. If you plan on dumping a girl, maybe take her to this one?

[Christina Piazza]

Great review! I can't wait to see it now! And I sort of still want to see the original.

[Craig]

As usual, great review Sean.... You wrote my exact thoughts on the film but say it in a way I never could. Well done.