Review: Last House On The Left (2009)
by John NolteThe remake of Wes Craven’s classic 1972 low-budget gut churner gets itself into trouble almost immediately in an early sequence. Krug (Garret Dillahunt) is on his way to jail when his very own Manson Family (a wild-child girlfriend and slithering brother) spring him. But a successful escape doesn’t satisfy these sickos and rather than call it a day and run like hell, they pause to sadistically murder two police officers already injured way beyond being able to give chase. Within the first few minutes the full horror of what this vicious crew is capable of unfolds.
But the best horror unfolds slowly. This is what made the first half of the original so watchable (the second half is even better). We knew the 1972 gang was dangerous only through radio reports, but when we meet them they’re obviously twisted but also rather buffoonish. Even the girls don’t take them seriously when they’re first kidnapped. Because we haven’t seen with our own eyes what the kidnappers are truly capable of, until the final, awful moments we hold on to the idea that the girls might be let go or even outwit their captors. Unlike the remake, the visceral is emotional, not visual. The horror comes from the death of hope and the slow realization that this depraved nightmare isn’t going to end.
When it comes to horror, there’s good dread and there’s bad dread. The former is the fun version when you put your hands over your eyes dreading what’s coming next. The latter is when you just want the punishment to end so you can go home, which unfortunately defines the redo of “Last House on the Left.”
Dad (Tony Goldwyn), Mom (Monica Potter), and daughter Mari (Sara Paxton) head out to their beautiful but secluded lakeside home. Mari can’t wait to get away. Mom’s not too sure, but Dad gives her the car keys and some spending money so she can hang out with her local friend Paige (Martha Maclsaac). Paige is a little wilder than Mari, who’s given up some earlier bad habits to concentrate on swimming, but when Justin (Spencer Treat Clark - Bruce Willis’ son in “Unbreakable”), a shy, troubled boy their age, overhears Paige wish she had a little weed, he offers to hook them up.
He takes them to a local motel and they get high and just start to bond when the Manson Family walks in. Seems Justin is Krug’s son. On the run and with their pictures on the front page of every newspaper, the girls can’t be set free. The original idea is to take them along as hostages, but things happen that I won’t spoil and the nightmare begins.
The central and most controversial is scene is a horrific and relentless rape that’s both exploitative and gratuitous. After all, we can’t hate these people any more than we did in the opening sequence and so there’s no dramatic purpose to serve. In the original, this scene is much uglier, still gratuitous but actually serves a couple dramatic purposes (it’s also the second rape, the first happens earlier off camera). The competence of the staging and shooting of the moment also works against the remake. Instead of the documentary feel of the cheapie original that only heightened the you-are-there horror, this feels slick – like someone’s doing it because they can, not to move the story or deepen the drama.
**Spoilers coming**
Things improve somewhat when the killers, without knowing it, look for shelter from the storm in the home of Mom and Dad. You don’t need me to tell you this makes for some tense moments. But after a promising beginning this sequence eventually falters and falls prey to the tropes of the genre: Dark house, stormy night, electricity out, phones not working — and to heighten the horror, Mom and Dad doing a lot of dumb things like splitting up when they shouldn’t but of course returning just in time to save the day with a potted plant or some such thing.
The best scene is a prolonged killing where every gruesome household item you can imagine (and a few you can’t) comes into play. The taking of this life is long, bloody brutal, mostly silent and probably inspired by Alfred Hitchcock’s “Torn Curtain” (1966) where the master decided to show audiences how difficult it is to kill a man with a protracted sequence involving Paul Newman that ends (if memory serves) with Wolfgang Kieling’s head in a gas oven.
Ultimately, for this kind of film to pay off – meaning, for all the nastiness we’ve been forced to watch to be worth it – the revenge scenes must make it worthwhile. We have to feel for the parents and also feel the sweet release of watching bad guys get what they got coming. But this never happens. There’s one moment where Dad girds Mom for battle and you think it’s finally on, but it’s a feint. What I wanted was to see was the parents plan, plot, scheme, grab control, turn the tables, and then without a hint of mercy take those bastards down one by one for what they did to those girls. Instead we get the standard dark, scary house – cat and mouse nonsense, you can see most every night on the Lifetime Network.
The usual-usuals are predictably up in arms over the film’s violence as though “Last House” achieves some sort of new low when in reality there’s nothing more graphic here than watching a 13 year-old Linda Blair masturbate with a crucifix in “The Exorcist“ (1973). In fact, the murder/rape scene in the original is much harsher, involving the worst kind humiliation before the rape, which is even more sadistic. The problem isn’t what’s shown or done on screen, the problem is that the film is such a dramatic failure that the brutality feels as though it’s there for the sake of brutality. Piously railing against violence is missing the point. A better approach might be to advocate for better movies.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
34 Comments
This actually brings to mind an interesting side point. If all the "creative" people are supposedly in Hollywood right now, why the huge number of remakes coming out in recent years? (This isn't even getting to the point that almost all of them are worse than the original.) I mean, we always hear about how cliche everything is and how new movies should be, you know, "new" and all, but we're still getting remake after remake, not to mention the never-ending sequel craze.
In any case, I agree that we should advocate for better movies. And, of course, we should make them too. Which reminds me, Mr. Nolte. I've heard you made a movie
Where-abouts can we purchase a copy?
Guess I won't be going to see this one. Tony Goldwyn always had a good sense for comedy, and played absolutely perfect yuppies. He's probably all wrong for this part. Garrett Dillahunt is better at creepy than he is at menacing (see "Sarah Connor Chronicles" and "Deadwood"). The original movie required a strong revenge ending to justify all the prior violence. If this movie doesn't have that, it fails in this genre. I'm sort of getting the impression that this movie is comprised largely of the pretty people in scumbag makeup doing very un-pretty things.
I know you're a fan of the original John, and I'm sure it's better than this remake, but in my opinion that's not saying much. The original wasn't anything more than an exploitation film trying to be something more than an exploitation film (political and social commentary that fell flat, an homage to The Virgin Spring, etc.). The terrible acting killed the potential for an emotional revenge climax.
Now, films like LHOTL do hold an important place in cinematic history (it's been influential on other films), but I still find it hard to see anything more than graphic violence for the sake of graphic violence. But good review, as usual John. I appreciate your articles. Now we'll just wait to see what Hollywood does in remaking Craven's most famous–A Nightmare on Elmstreet. It never ends.
Cloverfield was good, not great. You come near me with your crap, and I'll punch you in the throat–and force you to rewatch Cloverfield.
I liked Cloverfield, but it was never a horror movie to me. I thought it was sci-fi. At any rate, horror could be good again if people stopped relying on effects to scare. It seems to me that directors and writers are relying more on the gore and CGI to gin up the emotion than they are on their actors and staging.
To me, Blair Witch was one of the scarier movies of recent times because my imagination created the monster, and my imagination scares me much better than a computer critter ever could. Similarly, the remake of Dawn of the Dead also scared the living bejesus out of me, but in reality, it was only one very early scene in the scene in the movie. The very first zombie we see, the little girl coming in at 6ish in the morning. The whole set up where things went from normal to so very wrong in a split second lived with me bad enough to upset my sleep for months because the staging made that place look like the floorplan of my apartment at the time. Staging, not effects.
I will never, ever in this life understand why people who are–seemingly
–normal, caring, intelligent, compassionate human beings enjoy horror/slasher movies. Blood, gore and gratuitous violence are, to me, unspeakably horrible and I will never understand how anyone can stand to watch people being tortured and killed.
Seriously, I honestly don't get this kind of movie – I saw a glimpse of Deliverance and had to leave the room, and another movie in which a semi famous character actor had to do something heinous to a woman, and I have never been able to see that actor in anything else and not think of that scene. That stuff just stays with me – why do people enjoy watching one another suffer, and this slasher genre is completely beyond me. Especially ones in which the villain gets away.
Now, the Haunting (1960), and The Others – those were scary.
Alot of these 'remakes' seem like the movie makers are both running out of ideas, and are too afraid even to take chances with contrived sequels, it's the safest of the safe bets. Rehashing these stories with a new cast of hot faces and some CG to show how much 'better we can do everything today' is not very interesting to me as a viewer. Doing remakes is like treading water, somebody needs to dive into a new idea and actually take a chance, because that way the cast/crew might actually put some effort into the project. I can't comment on this particular remake because I haven't seen it and probably wont.
I hated this film. Reprehensible.
Doing Horror remakes is especially difficult compared to genres such as comedy, drama, etc. and usually a waste of time (ie 'Psycho')….scary films seemed to have a short advent of creativity from 2000 to 2003 with the Japanese horror such as 'the Ring' being imported (or converted) to the States. But now it's a void again and if anyone tells me 'Cloverfield' was great, I'll crap on their chest.
The 70's was the golden age of horror IMO, and trying to do justice to Wes Craven's earlier work in this day and age with 'Last House' was doomed to fail
Actually I'd go farther and say that it's not merely an homage to The Virgin Spring, but the original and this re-make are themselves re-makes of that movie. To my mind that's always been the most interesting thing about this movie – that a pure exploitation gutcruncher is actually a re-make of a staid Ingmar Bergman film!!
Decide for yourself if you haven't heard of the earlier film:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Spring
I an exactly the kind of person you describe, and yet, I enjoy a good horror movie. Having said that, "the torture porn" has never been my cup of tea. Saw the original LHOTL once, never saw it again. The nightmare on elm street series…saw every one muliple times. For me, I think it is exactly the same as intentionally getting onto a roller coaster that I know will probably make me sick and dizzy. A self-inflicted cheep thrill that doesn't hurt anybody but me. Plus, some of them, are really good movies.
Wow! What a beautifully written review, Mr. Nolte. How nice to read an article on this blog that does not bloviate gratuitiously. Instead this review informs, analyzes, and reaches conclusions based on experience (seeing the actual movie). Keep up the good work and please, if you actually review some of the stuff you publish here, get rid of the nonsense that reminds you of this movie–cruelty and stupidity just because the writers can. Please make sure they never can again.
And now I am calling for lessons with my gun for the times I visit my isolated farm.
For those who are complaining about all the remakes, what did you expect?
Hollywood went liberal, far left. Liberals like group-think, not much innovation. If something fails, it just needs to be redone bigger and better, keep at it until the moron public "gets it." No new ideas? Just dress up the old ones with a "modern" spin.
This will continue until we form Hollywood Right. We have the technology. We can make a hundred Blair Witch Projects, low-budget no-frills with good plots and writing. Or a hundred with many frills, even animation. We can do the music, sound, and editing on PCs, decent effects with networked clusters of PCs, with Internet distribution for a buck or two per download (too cheap to steal).
Sure we'd be starting with lots of "unknown" actors, but lots of "the best" were nobody's to start, not even actors until "discovered," and there seems to be no shortage of those willing to try it. Plus Hollywood has demonstrated you can make just about anyone look good for at least a while.
The product will go fast to market, no "show at film festivals and pray for a distributor for years" necessary. Raw capitalism, sink or swim, without the candidates being pre-selected by the "elite" of the industry, let the buyers decide for themselves. This will lead to innovation, risk taking, and the sort of entertainment the paying public WANTS to see. With arguably more money going to the innovators than the current system could ever allow. And BTW, no "trade organizations" required, or wanted.
We can do it, the time is ripe. Just needs the willpower. As things go, we're never going to see progress until we stop being "progressive."
It's just standard escapism, pent-up desires and frustration. Things that people secretly wish they could do, or distance themselves carefully by fascination with those who can contemplate such acts. You see things in porn that people accept they'd never do in real life, and likewise there are Disney-esque fantasies which people would LOVE to have happen to them. Many people would love to see a terrorist get a machete castration, would pay good money to see it on film, but would never do it if you handed them the blade and had Osama strapped on a table waiting.
Beware. Half of being a conservative is admitting we have a dark side, and knowing there are those who embrace it who we must fight. Half of being a liberal is denying it exists, that those people don't exist, or at least thinking they must have a good reason for their actions and will be decent people when it's taken care of. Conservatives also understand we must entertain our darkness sometimes, be a bit greedy and selfish, to not tend to that part of ourselves makes as much sense as only washing above the waist since that's all you see in the bathroom mirror. Liberals can deny it so successfully they don't even realize when they're indulging it, since if it doesn't exist they simply can't be doing wrong, there's no smell when you're incapable of farting.
Keep telling yourself you'll never understand it, next time you see a news report about someone convicted of raping and murdering a child. You may not want to do it yourself, may never want to see it yourself, but try admitting you'd support, for purely Constitutional reasons of course, the posting of a video of righteous payback on YouTube. Then you'll know if you should be joining Obama in the search for moderate Taliban.
Pope,
I'm more frightened by the prospect of watching 'Cloverfield' again than getting punched in the throat…plus you said 'good' not 'great' so yer off the hook for a sh#t towering on the chest
I'm not completely opposed to remakes. I liked Infernal Affairs and its remake, The Departed. I just don't see how you can successfully remake a horror movie. Being surprised is such a key element and remakes negate that.
Years ago, I received priceless advice from a writing teacher. 'Have your characters always perform at maximum capacity.' he cautioned. IOW, don't have them do something stupid. The instant they do tstupid, the audience loses compassion for them and walks out. So – when I hear that the teenager does something stupid like follow an unknown to a motel to score weed, my sympathy for her goes way down. I don't reward stupidity. Ditto with the parents who seem utterly clueless. If they're stupid, I don't care. The only saving grace is if, after doing something stupid, they roll up their sleeves to atone for that stupidity by doing something smart. But – from the sound of it, those parents don't sound like that – and the daughter sure doesn't. From the sound of it, she just whimpers and lays in the water like a dead trout. Hell, get back my respect you, your dimwit, and go after those assholes yourselves instead of letting mom and dad do it. Nope – don't think this film is one I'm going to plonk into the old Netflix queue.
Years ago, my writing teacher gave me priceless advice – 'have your characters always operate at maximum capacity'. IOW, don't be stupid. Well, stupid is following an unknown to a motel to score weed. And from the sound of the parents stumbling around, they're none too bright either. Now, the daughter could have redeemed herself – and gained my sympathy – if she'd atoned for her stupidity by rolling up her sleeves and going after those bastards herself – instead of just floating in the water like a dead trout and letting mom and dad do the grunt work. But it sure doesn't seem like that. Nope, no 'maximum capacity' here. I am so NOT going to be putting this in my Netflix queue.
I wish we could ban commercials on tv for these slasher films. I could be watching a family friendly show and these terrible images come on, guns, knives, sadistic images.
Sounds like another exercise in sadism. That´s not horror. A filmmaker who denies the humanity of his characters and simply tries to come up with ways to put them through the grinder is like a giggling boy who tears the wings off flies. We may have a bit of that boy in us but do we want to watch him for 90 minutes?
For me, the most effective horror movie must come down on the side of order against chaos, good against evil. I´m not talking about a happy ending. I´m talking about an adult knowledge and hatred of evil and death.
Right on the money!
[...] Are the Jonas Bros the Biggest Band in the World? ► Arrest Warrant Issued for Lindsay Lohan ► Review: Last House On The Left (2009) ► 1st Superman comic book sells for [...]
Thanks for letting me know what a Conservative is supposed to be. As a 62 year old, lifelong Conservative I was really getting confused as to what I should be thinking and believing and feeling. And after having lived on this planet for 62 years I know that there really isn't anything horrific and vile that human beings can't think of to do to each other and themselves. If you think that I haven't seen it, heard about, read about it, well, that's because you don't know me but are perfectly ready to throw bombs my way because I don't want to view it as entertainment.
But thanks for the lecture, kiddo.
You can call it throwing bombs if you want, I didn't even think it was a firecracker. Excuse me while I keep the plutonium in the safe house(es).
Sorry if I insulted your Conservativeness, especially since I didn't know what you were, we do get all types on this site. You were saying you didn't understand something that was basic human nature, from my view. Reminds me of those, frequently liberals, who say they can't understand why terrorists want to kill Americans, want to know what is their motivation. Their motivation for killing Americans is they want to kill Americans. Failure to understand human nature is a frequent problem on the left, else why would they think communism will ever work? To say you don't understand the appeal of these movies implies you don't understand why people slow down at car wrecks to gawk, or watch boxing and other violent contact sports. Denial and/or "willful ignorance" of human nature is frequently sighted among liberals, you'd think their leadership depended on it. I apologize for my unfortunate misjudgment based on your original statement.
Sure hope you're not one of those more-Conservative-than-thou's who didn't vote for McCain, such divisiveness has consequences.
Another crappy remake; I'll pass. However, in this instance the original is no classic, either. There's a couple of bumbling cops that detract from the realism of the other scenes. The revenge scenes at the end are also a bad ripoff of Straw Dogs. On the plus side, the cheapness of the production and lack of established actors helps to make it more realistic (and more scary) than the current crop of horror films (The Hills Have Eyes, Dawn of the Dead, Texas Chainsaw Massacre are other 70s horror movies to benefit from the same phenomenon).
cloverfield great??? uggh
saw it saturday and i agree and disagree. i thought it was worth it. ran every mile with them and punched every punch. said "shut up and run" aloud a few times. when it comes to wes craven movies, i'm always pleased. the rape scene was unsettling but necessary and they even sympathized with what would seem to be a conservative family. imagine that! the gore was very realistic looking but the torture towards the end could've lasted a lot longer.
(The Other, not Others)
I have to disagree. If "being surprised" is what makes a horror movie "good" then the writer is a hack.
I've never understood the temptation to remake films that still stand as well in their original form. Halloween, Friday the 13th and Last House on the Left didn't need to be remade. I understand the temptation to remake Romeros Dead films, but what exactly could you add to one of the most vile exploitation flicks of all time that just happened to also make you realize how desensitized to violence we are as a culture?
I guess I Spit on Your Grave is next.
Perhaps surprise is not the best word. I just think the best horror movies offer something you haven't seen before. Remakes tend to be the antithesis of orginality.
I liked Cloverfield, but it was never a horror movie to me. I thought it was sci-fi.
There is such a genre as sci fi–horror, y'know (e.g. Alien).
You must be logged in to post a comment.