‘Last House On The Left’: A Remake To Anticipate
by John NolteThe comments in yesterday’s “Melrose Trek” post ran about 9 to 1 against me, which begs the question of how so many can be so wrong…. Honestly, I don’t oppose remakes on some sort of general principle, it’s the meterosexualizing of iconic characters and lack of respect for the source material that galls, and if “Superman Returns” existed that would be my prime example of what can go so horribly wrong.
–
This Friday comes a remake to look forward to; a do-over of Wes Craven’s “Last House on the Left” (1972), one of the all-time classic horror flicks. Some have come close, but when it comes to the pure art of creating a sense of oppressive, grinding dread that stirs the guts with a spoon, there’s no other film like it. Just watching the trailer again (it’s only a movie, it’s only a movie, it’s only a movie…) gives me the willies, and anyone who knows me will tell you I don’t throw the word ”willies” around lightly.
On the DVD commentary, listening to Craven explain the left-wing overtones he aimed for is nearly as entertaining as the film itself. Explain it all you want Wes, but all the blah-blah-blah in the world can’t change the fact that what we’re watching is hippies get theirs with a chainsaw, which is one lovely way to spend an evening — not unlike the many memorable evening’s spent re-running ”Easy Rider’s” final moments.
In the horror department, Hollywood’s failure rate with remakes – at least when it comes to some of my favorites — isn’t so bad. Recent retreads of ”Texas Chainsaw Massacre,” “The Hills Have Eyes,” and “Dawn of the Dead” were all worth the price of admission, and along with “Last House on the Left” represent four of my five favorite 70’s horror classics.
For the record, number five is “Halloween” (1978) which Rob Zombie– …Well, unfortunately, for Lent I’ve given up both what needs saying about Mr. Zombie’s film and how to say it. We’ll talk after Easter.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
83 Comments
Damn! This will be popular for the same reason "Taken" was: audiences still love to see scumbags get their comeuppance.
Not to kiss up or anything, but I agreed with you on Star Trek. By the way, "hippies get theirs with a chainsaw" is one priceless line!!! Love it.
I usually check out all the horror movies, re-makes included. Few have been worth it. The Thing is probably a noteable stand out. I have hopes for this movie, though the Guns and Roses remake they use in the tailer made me want to slit my wrists with a bandana.
The only thing that bugs me about the trailer is the GnR cover. What the hell? Was awesome till the dewy, treacle, Sarah MacLachlan sounding version of Sweet Child O' Mine..
Umm….don't you think you should SEE a movie before judging it so harshly? I'm talking about Star Trek. To me it looks very exciting, and I don't understand why you think this cast looks so much like children when they're about the same ages as the original actors were when they started out.
Per Star Trek – my barometer will be how well Karl Urban plays the Southern Country Doctor (my fav STOS character). Will he downplay what was an essentially masculine character to the level of the metros around him or will his Dr. McCoy be the only Real Man in the room? How good will his Georgian accent be?
Rob Zombie RUINED Halloween. First of all, we don't need a violent upbringing to explain why Michael is "pure evil" or have the audience sympathize with him. He's evil! It doesn't need an explanation! It defies explanation!
And then there's the total lack of sympathy for Laura, the one we're supposed to be rooting for. She was a little brat who I got sick of real quick.
I agree, it made my skin crawl. I had to listen to the original just to clean out my ears!
On THIS we can agree. But Zombie didn't ruin HALLOWEEN because his version simply… does… not…. exist..
*poof* it's gone. *wrist flick* it's disappeared
You're all welcome.
Gentlemen, gentlemen. I agreed (sort of) about John's previous piece, but don't pick on Guns N' Roses. Any band that can come up with the lyric "I used to love her, but I had to kill her, and I can still hear her complain" can't be all bad. OK, so I'm divorced. I did say that I would use NetFlix for the new Star Trek only because I love special effects on my new big screen TV with my surround sound. I wouldn't consider paying to sit in a theater to see it. One small plea from me, John. Please stop using "begs the question" to mean "brings up an issue" or "that raises [another] question." I hear the phrase being misused all the time on TV. Its actual meaning is more like "I asked you a question, and your answer dodged the question." I know its a minor quibble, but I enjoy the pieces you write, and that usage has become like fingernails on a blackboard to me.
'Last House' was a cultural phenomenon of it's time; gory revisionist takes on horror became quite the rage in the 70's after the rather tame Hammer film period of the 60's It was revulsion to the wanton killing in SE Asia and the loosening of morays that really brought these things to life; one suspects they will not resonate as well now. But, since they are cheap to produce they'll still crank these things out… maybe I shouldn't have weighed in because other than offering a historical context I have to admit most of this stuff is pretty awful in my book- loved Romero's 'first
two 'Dead' films but the remakes offer nothing new except better prosthetics. Good horror should have at least as much drama as gore, and 'Blair Witch' succeeded at that.
Agree with Mr Nolte on 'The Thing'. Kurt Russell and John Carpenter at the peak of their craft. really enjoyed 'They
Live', too… kind of Carpenter's unknown classic.
That is one good things about a lot of these remakes. When they're not very memorable. So when I go back and watch the original, my movie watching experience isn't polluted with the flotsam and jetsam of the remake.
That is one good thing about a lot of these remakes. When they're not very memorable. So when I go back and watch the original, my movie watching experience isn't polluted with the flotsam and jetsam of the remake.
That is one good thing about a lot of these remakes. They're not very memorable. So when I go back and watch the original, my movie watching experience isn't polluted with the flotsam and jetsam of the remake.
Oh I agree. When I rented that terrible Halloween remake I had to go back to the video store and rent the original just to get that garbage out of my mind.
However, the Dawn of the Dead remake ruled.
I think the problem is that the new Star Trek looks like it may be the first thing to get me really excited about Star Trek since DS9 ended, and here you are telling me that not only do you disagree with me, but I'm totally wrong for how I feel about it. I also find your reasoning for why it will suck to be flawed, and mainly has to do with the fact that the new cast isn't the old cast (elitism) and that the new cast looks too young.
The "too young" argument is the tiredest tactic to take.
Fact: The first time you saw Shatner as Kirk, Nimoy as Spock, et al, you were a child. Naturally they looked like adults to you and the impression stuck.
Fact: Shatner and the others trekked many years longer than they should have, and the general memory people have of the original cast now is of men and women in their 50's and 60's. Anybody under 40 is going to look young when you compare them to how the cast looked in the movies.
Fact: Despite the fact that the new cast members are all adults, in their late 20's and early-to-late 40's, the fact that the actors playing Kirk and Spock are now younger than you (no offense, but you don't look 31), naturally you see them as kids, whether or not they actually are, and you think they look younger in their roles than Shatner and Nimoy did, whether or not they actually do.
Fact: Deciding that the actor cannot be seperated from the character pretty much meant that you were doomed to hate this film before you saw frame one of it. I used to think this way about certain films and characters as well. Perhaps being a Doctor Who fan changed my perspective on that.
I meant early-to-late 30's.
Oops! LADIES and gentlemen. No offense intended, Lola.
The original was a badly directed, badly acted ripoff of Bergman's Virgin Spring which got attention only because of its extreme violence- i doubt this one will be any better. Yet more evidence that Hollywood, left or right, has become nothing but a dog eating it's own vomit.
Again, how old they are doesn't matter. Certain people can look like child all their lives.
Gary Cooper and JohnWayne looked like masculine men in their early 20's — Shatner and Nimoy looked like grown ups when the show started.
I don't care how old they are, I care what they look like, and they look like little kids playing grown up.
Oh, and you being excited about the film is judging it before you see it.
For. Shame.
Not picking on GNR, picking on the putrid remake of a GNR song that I've belted out a million times in my car.
Can you stretch that into a screenplay?
I LOVE John Carpenter movies. Prince of Darkness… The Fog… The Thing…
They Live: "I'm here to kick a.. and chew bubble gum, and I'm all out of bubble gum." Rowdy Roddy Piper.
I agree on "The Thing." I loved the fifties version with the ending that showed them frying the giant carrot (aka Marshal Dillon). I'm old enough to have seen it at a theater. But a few years later I read the short story "Who Goes There?" which was the inspiration for the film and realized the earlier version, though fun, was not the real story. The Carpenter version was spot on. A bit nihilistically depressing, but very accurate in relation to the original Sci Fi tale.
Which proves that yuppies are just hippies after a bath, a shave and a trip to the tailor.
That's true about the environment when LHOTL was released, but it lives on while hundreds of lousy but gory films have turned to dust. Gore and exploitation have nothing to do with LHOTL's success. It lives on because it's a powerful piece of filmmaking that, to this day, makes you want to crawl under a bed somewhere. It's a brilliant piece of manipulation thanks, in no small part, to its convincing documentary feel.
I lean left, but come onto this site to open my mind. Although I disagree with most of your guys' politics, it's good to see we share similar tastes in horror films. (Yay John Carpenter!)
This remake looks good, but the freaking trailer gives the whole thing away.
I lean left, but come onto this site to open my mind. Although I disagree with most of your guys' politics, it's good to see we share similar tastes in horror films. (Yay John Carpenter!)
This remake looks good, but the freaking trailer gives the whole thing away.
I know. But I couldn't help myself. And Lola nailed it when she referred to the song in the trailer as "Sarah MacLachlanish." Now THERE'S fingernails on a blackboard.
The only William Shatner film I like is the original Halloween…..:)
I recall the the original Last House. Wasn't a horror movie, it was just sick!
Are you calling me a yuppie? Them's fightin' words partner!
good exchange, guys… have to agree with Mr Nolte on this. Although I've seen the 'Trek' trailer over the holidays, I couldn't believe they were using B roll at that late date; it looked, and sounded cheesy. While it's true the original crew was young, keep this in mind: Shatner was a veteran actor with more than 50 films and TV series to his credit, Nimoy did sci-fi in the early 50's in Republic two reelers ('Radar Men from the Moon', a Commando Cody classic) and was a an Army vet, Scotty lost the middle digit of his right hand storming Sword beach on D-Day, and so on..
Point being is these were already men of some stature before conquering the known universe.
It's hard to describe just how 90120 this cast comes across, it is a spot on comparison. I can already hear the valley boy drawl…
Good Lord, no! I'm referring to the time frame and persona du jour of the characters in the two movies.
And innyhoo, I was a hippie and my son was a yuppie. We're both in recovery. Whew! I wriggled out of that fight.
you bet! the sunglasses thing was a great gag, and even Carpenter's looney left wing take ('Republicans from Outer Space') didn't deter from the overall great fun… "Hey! Formaldehyde face!" thought Piper was excellent, never could follow it up. Which tells you how good this actually was…
LOL!
By the way, I agree with your assessment of yuppies/hippies.
For some reason, I can't get into horror flicks…I'd make a lousy reviewer.
"Watch out, bad guy coming with a knife!"
"BLAM!!"
"Watch out, badder guy with a 12ga., and his own homicidal urge to drop the bad guy against all odds."
Too much military training…
I had to do the same when I sat through the worst remake of one of the best films of all time- 'The Day the Earth Stood Still'… I knew it was going to be bad, and was it ever- insultingly so-
but the cool part is I had a DVD with a great crisp b&w transfer on it and watched immediately afterwards to, as you just said 'get that garbage out of my mind'…
He was awesome in Justice at Nuremberg. Well, the movie was awesome.
Out current policies regarding the banning of commenters unfortunately do not include those who trash Shatner.
But there's a board meeting in the Breitbart Tower soon…. Oh, yes, there is.
And who can ever forget "Zombies of the Stratosphere?" Nimoy had a big enough part in the original "The Thing," so I never entirely understood why he wasn't in the credits. Probably one of those fifties things.
John- just wondering where the Exorcist and Amityvill Horror sit in your list of 70's horror flicks.
John- just wondering where the Exorcist and Amityville Horror sit in your list of 70's horror flicks.
None taken Lawhawk. None taken. And about the GnR cover I am a purist. If Slash ain't playing it and Axel (little creep that he is) isn't screetching it just isn't the same.
Despite the fact that Margot Kidder in AMITYVILLE is about as fetching a female specimen as have ever been in front of a camera, the movie's kind of dull and it gets duller as it rolls on.
The Exorcist is a masterpiece, one of the greatest films ever and probably the greatest horror film ever. I slipped in my list — I was focussed on these gut-wrenchers, these low-budget indies.
Despite the fact that Margot Kidder in AMITYVILLE is about as fetching a female specimen as have ever been in front of a camera, the movie's kind of dull and it gets duller as it rolls on.
The Exorcist is a masterpiece, one of the greatest films ever and probably the greatest horror film ever. I slipped in my list — I was focussed on these gut-wrenchers, these low-budget indies.
Hell, I don't even like the original.
TVTropes.org calls it Discontinuity.
Strauss and Howe's Generations theory introduced me to this concept. Per there theory, the next phase for Baby Boomers is Old Visionary/Prophet with Global Worldshaking War in 2025 or so….a War that remakes the whole international order like WW2 did.
Perhaps it will be the US vs. China with the US trying to save Mother Earth w/ the Prophet Gore…
I'd include De Palma's "Sisters" in great low budget 70's horror.
That's a happy thought.
That's on oversight that needs to be fixed!
I'll hazard a guess that this will be a better overall film than the original, which just isn't very good even while being fascinating: It's directed like a bad porno, the acting is terrible, the tonal shifts are awful – it just doesn't hold up.
BUT there's no way the new one will be as ballsy or interesting. No way in hell. The original doesn't work, but the way it tries to play around with what the audience will accept in a revenge story before they (even subconsciously) start almost rooting AGAINST the revengers just based on shifting perspectives around… no movie would try that today, not in the least because it doesn't really work the first time. In the original, the 2nd half is PURE "we're going to hurt you for satisfaction because you hurt a loved one of ours," in the new one I'm sure it'll be more of a "we HAVE to do this" with some manner of ticking-clock for good measure.
Why should I be singled out when it comes to commenting on a film before seeing it? The whole process of marketing a film is set up to allow for people to judge what they they think of it.
If you don't go to a film, you're judging a film before seeing it. How dare you.
Why aren't you jumping all over me for judging LAST HOUSE in a positive way? What's the difference?
What a tired straw man.
And age has nothing to do with looking like a child. DiCaprio would look as silly playing Howard Hughes at fifty as he did at, what was he 10?
And I love the SWEET CHILD cover in the trailer. It's what sold me — if I may be so bold as to get excited about a film — ie… have an opinion — before seeing it.
Very apt, and very funny. In another twenty or thirty years, Di Caprio will probably do a movie called "Young Leonardo." And it won't be about Da Vinci.
Both versions of The Amityville Horror are laughably bad, but the original had a vomitting nun, not something you see in a film each day. I finally saw the original Last House on the Left this afternoon, it does have a certain grim shock value, but the amateurishness of the presentation and those awful comic relief policemen really detrack from the scares.
The less said about ANY of Rob Zombie's works the better. What a blight on modern cinema
I love that movie. The fight between Roddy Pipper and Keith David is a classic. And some memorable one liners.
I want to jump in this. I couldn't give a rat's rear less about this movie (Star Trek), or most of the total horse squeeze that comes out of H'wood. I am a 42 yr old woman, and I find the men portrayed as well, excuse the language, P#ssies! I gag when I see most of the metrosexually tones men have. It's the whole Anderson Cooper/ Ryan Seacrest type thing for me. I would say it's just me, but my daughter is 20, and she calls the men in most movies, on tv, teh ghey. My son, 19, and his friends have way worse names than either mine or my daughters. I thought the movie looked like American Idol goes to Space when I first saw a trailer for it some time back, so I loved John's take, which was better worded than mine. I still think Clint Eastwood in The G, B, and U is the marker for sexy. Lots of John Wayne, etc. Even the commercials now, egads! Gillette has a new one for hair gunk that I hope is aimed for the 17 and under crowd, otherwise some people need to grow the Hell up, and MAN up.
I am the ultimate person to market these movies to, it doesn't matter how bad they suck, they all scare the hell out of me. I was little when I saw LHOTL, and had nightmares for weeks. The one that still freaks me out is Halloween, don't know why, but my kids have always had fun coming up behind me and touching my arm, right at the worst possible time. I got nervous just watching the stupid trailer for this remake. I will probably pass on the whole movie. Margot Kidder in Amityville, terrible, but Brolin was actually just as bad IMO.
I'm glad someone else liked the remake of Hills Have Eyes. The director Alexandre Aja (High Tension, Mirrors, and the upcomming Piranha 3-D ) is probably the finest new talent in the genre. Don't know much about Dennis Iliadis, who helms LHOTL, but I've been looking forward to this movie since I heard about the project going into production.
See, I started judging the film even BEFORE I saw the preview. Top that!
The thing that I couldn't stand about the new Halloween was the way everyone talked.. so freakin' nasty and vulgar. I"m no prude. I say the F word all the time.. but it was embarrassing listening to those people talk.
The William Shatner contribution to Halloween was the scariest thing about the movie.
The first half of the Exorcist is a great example of the slow pacing of the 70s. "Oh , lets show main character walking home from work, real time. Yes, it's a 10 mile walk"
I'm with you on the new TrannyTrek, but not because it uses the most androgynous actors they could find, but because Roddenberry is garbage, and I hate the bed-wetting, diaper-dumping left-wing utopianism that permeated every single Star Trek show (the original didn't take itself seriously, so it's the most watchable). I am sick of remakes, though. Is there nobody in Hollywood who has thoughts or ideas?
Now that's just frightening. LOL. I'm serious though. What woman wants a man who grooms more than she does? Please! I dated for a while after my divorce, about 8 yrs ago, and dating guys who waxed their chests was way too much for me. Plus, I swear a guy showed up to take me out, and he had a better manicure than mine, and I had just went to the nail salon. I prefer men, bathed, hairy, and slightly disheveled. And no pointy toed dress shoes! Unless they work for Keebler.
Hey, better than Annie DeFrancoish. Euuuwww. I get the urge to harm animals after hearing the Sara Maclachlan song on Animal Planet. In the aaarrrmmmms of an angelllll. Heaven help us all.
LOL!
Yes, I live in The First House on the Right of my street – no kidding – and a story like that just wouldn't get off the ground here because the bad guys would be on the ground with shotgun shells scattered about in, oh, about fifteen seconds.
Heh. So true. I am a woman of age and I want my men to be manly. I saw in an article in the Daily Mail that European designers are bringing out leggings for men. God help us!
"Unless they work for Keelber" — that's hillarious!!
No kidding. Dear god would John Wayne have wasted time on a manicure? Now there was a man! What about Steve McQueen? Or William Holden? Clint Eastwood? NO WAY! Boys you want to get a lady's attention look like a MAN! I don't mind clean shaven, but, remember a little less time spent on eye brow waxing. The only time its appropriate for a man to "wax" his chest is if he is a Tri-Athelete or a swimmer. Other than that. NO WAY! I look at Leo DiCaprio and shudder. But hey when I was a kid the brother's Gibb guy I liked was Barry and I had a crush on Harrison Ford. Manly men should be the rule. Not teh exception.
See? See what I mean?
Not only that, but I would be terrible at the one line tag, too.
BLAM!
"Tango down."
"Sweep and secure."
"Area secured."
What the he** do you do with that?
John would be ripping me something fierce. "The first twenty minutes were a first-person adrenaline ride, but I didn't get why the dialogue was so stilted. Unfortunately, the last hour and twenty minutes proved to be a complete bore, with nothing but a sedate cruiser ride, long hours of repetitive questioning, and finally, a release from the holding cell."
"hippies get theirs with a chainsaw" is one priceless line!!! Love it.
Put that on ANY movie poster and I'd watch it! Better line might include "dull" just before chainsaw.
y'know, darnit, you're right- it was 'Zombies', not Radar Men… Doh! anyway, the point remained- although young these were men , not valley boys…
listen, no one can debate your point of the power of it's original vision and Craven's bravura low budget skills. That's why it is a classic of the genre. The best one can hope from the remake is the production values will improve, one suspects precious little else will… still, like 'Easy Rider' it was a time capsule phenomenon and even though not a particular fan of this film( or, really I must admit, the genre) I imagine the impact the original had will far surpass whatever this brings to the table…
The original didn't take itself too seriously, true – but there was something of an innocence about the idealism that has been largely absent from many of the other iterations. And truth be told, Nimoy and Kelley were underrated as actors and were wonderful in nearly everything they did on that show. ("Spock's Brain," like the Halloween remake, NEVER HAPPENED.)
In any case, I always liked Deep Sleep Nine the best of them, especially when they finally gave Avery Brooks permission to shave his head and something to do on a regular basis.
"Honestly, I don’t oppose remakes on some sort of general principle, it’s the meterosexualizing of iconic characters and lack of respect for the source material that galls, and if 'Superman Returns' existed that would be my prime example of what can go so horribly wrong."
The profound brilliance of this statement cannot be overstated.
I'm not a big fan of the original Last House of the Left. God only knows how Craven can call that liberal. It's just so repugnant and I'm not squeamish about these kinds of movies. I prefer Bergman's original The Virgin Spring. I just think it's pointless to remake a horror movie. There's no element of surprise to make it work.
another remake? God help us all!!!! Every week its another remake, a rebake, retake pile of junk. I saw Friday the 13th, the original in the theatres, I'm 42 and they remade it already. Spare us. Last original movie I paid to see was the X Files: I Want To Believe. No remake, just real acting, real story and litte FX….Instead of people flocking to see a film that Ebert applauded, they paid to see the feeble Step Brothers movie with those 2 no talent clowns. Another remake means Hollywood thinks we are all idiots and its time people fought back.
The last movie that gave me a nightmare was Fritz Lang´s "M". Really. Most modern horror movies are just artless exercises in sadism. The remake of Texas Chainsaw Massacre was atrocious, but the remake of Dawn of the Dead was good. I don´t really follow horror movies anymore, but the last one which made me feel anything like horror was The Descent, and that´s been a couple of years.
Craven desperately tried to make the point about Vietnam–somehow trying to draw a comparison with the rape and mutilation of two girls and the horrors of war. Remember the whole peace sign necklace, that whole "death-of-the-Summer-of-Love-peace-and-happiness" stuff. It fell flat. In the end, it was disemboweling and raping and oral castration all in the classic exploitation film style.
A cultural phenomenon? I don't know about that. There was a reason why so many of these films had tiny budgets and small releases. Most people in the 70s didn't want to see them. But many of these exploitation films did reflect the loosening of morays at the time. You're right about that.
Got that right. Virgin Spring was fantastic, and truly "edgy" for its time. (That rape scene was very controversial.) It was a good idea for a remake, I'll grant Craven that, but it quickly became a brutal movie for brutality's sake. Influential? Yes. Look at other exploitation films that came later, like I Spit On Your Grave, etc. And hey, it's being remade, so it does still resonate today. But continued resonance doesn't make it great.
What I love is that one of those goofy policemen was the evil sensei in The Karate Kid. You know, the head of the Cobra Kai Dojo. It had to be his first movie. Kind of like Tom Berenger's barely recognizable role at the very end of The Sentinel (another great 70s horror movie).
The last movie that gave me a nightmare was Fritz Lang´s "M". Really. Most modern horror movies are just artless exercises in sadism. I don´t really follow them anymore, but the last one which made me feel anything like dread was The Descent, and that´s been a couple of years. By the way, the remake of Dawn of the Dead was good but the remake of Texas Chainsaw Massacre was atrocious.
it was a phenomenon in the sense it opened the door to 'Nightmare', and so on. I agree with your take- having seen the real thing kind of takes the thrill out of condoms stuffed with peanut butter and jelly…
You must be logged in to post a comment.