The Last House on the Left – Threesome Review

 

What are your feelings on the original?

Serena: The Last House on the Left was the seventies’ Irreversible. It is a movie that made Mary Whitehouse sh*t bricks and at the time of release, it sent people in a frenzy due to its unrelenting brutality and degradation towards the female leads in the film. It took me years to work up the courage to sit through the movie and even when I finally watched it with the bright morning sun shining on the television screen, it didn’t disguise the horror I was witnessing and the feelings of disgust I was experiencing. The original was not a pleasant movie at all and although well done, it is not something I would like to show to my friends. It is a bleak and disturbing film that is only meant to be watched once because the effect of it should be that lasting. 

Wes Craven dared to expose the ugliness in humanity and even though I was one of those people that frantically muttered, “It’s only a movie..it’s only a movie…it’s only a movie!” The feeling of terror never escaped me because the events that happen to poor Mari and Phyllis are unfortunately everyday headlines in our reality. The movie didn’t deal with a seemingly invincible masked serial killer who has a thirst for dumb and one note teenagers, but rather it dealt with predators lurking on our own streets.  There is something very terrifying about reminding viewers how unsafe the world really is and I commend Mr. Craven for taking that risk. 

Besides the idiotic cops, (who must be cousins of the bumbling officers in Halloween 5) I thought it was Wes Craven’s most powerful film to date.

Jon: Despite its crude production values, the goofy “Keystone” cops, I like the original a lot. You can tell now in hindsight, that Wes Craven was going to be a good director; there’s elements in Last House on the Left that are interesting, and while certain scenes are tough and rough, in terms of violence, he had some areas of discussion worth talking about. I think that’s why it became a cult classic; the nature of violence is always an interesting question to debate, especially in film. Sure, his film is nothing more than an exploitation version of The Virgin Spring, I think how it was constructed provides us with more than just repulsion or horror.

Look, they rape, brutalize, and have no compassion for the victims; Krug (David Hess) is one heartless bastard. Frank is equally evil. They go so far in their acts of terror on the two girls, that in a pivotal scene after they rape her, cut Krug’s name into her chest, and force her to swim in that state, only to shoot her, they too come to realize that maybe they have gone to far. How far is too far? What’s the nature of their violent acts compared to what the parents are going to do? These are interesting questions, and like I said, the film is rough in terms of execution, it works and is topical. The cops are goofy, they do offer us, the audience, and a breather after what we have witnessed from time to time, but those scenes don’t work. The casting is important though, as none of these actors in this film are names, and with little music, only songs sung by Hess, offer us any break from the film, Last House on the Left is a classic regardless of its flaws. 

It took the audience back then by storm; none of them are sensitized like we are nowadays to violence, rape, tone, that it affected them more so. Innocent times, in terms of movie-going experiences, because as tough is it to see the girls get violated, raped, stabbed, degraded then, somehow us post-9/11 movie-goers have seen it all, somehow, as sad or sick as it is. This remake has a lot to live up too.  

Donny: I know I’m going to get eaten alive for this, but I’ve never really cared for the original Last House on the Left.  I don’t agree with Jon’s argument that the nature of violence is always fun to debate in movies.  I think that when it comes to horror movies, violence is a tool that the filmmaker uses to move the story forward.  I’m not saying that I don’t like violent films either.  I love violent movies, but I don’t like violence for the sake of violence.  Violence that is used purely for shock value.  The statement that the original Last House on the Left was like Irreversible is exactly the reason I’ve never cared for Last House. 

In my opinion Last House is nothing more than exploitation for the sake of exploitation.  Lets face facts here, Wes Craven is not a psychologist, and I’m pretty sure most of his choices had a lot more to do with shock value than they did questioning the morals of man.  I understand that those questions are inevitable, but I also understand that during that time movies that could shock an audience became benchmarks for future profitable films (The Exorcist).  

I do enjoy Wes’s future works, and I also want to note that it didn’t take many films for for him to leave the exploitation scene behind, but as for my feelings on the original, I’ve never understood its popularity (maybe it’s just cool to say that you dig uber-violent films), and for what it’s worth the fact that this flick got the remake treatment didn’t bother me all that much.   

What did you think when the trailer was released?

Donny: I dug the trailer.  I thought it looked interesting, and the microwave scene at the end looked pretty unique.  Add Tony Goldwyn to the mix and the trailer totally sold me on seeing the flick. 

Serena: Honestly, I was not expecting the awesome trailer and before actually viewing  it, I was convinced to not watch another needless remake; especially one dealing with such controversial subject matter. Although, after watching the trailer and hearing the creepy yet fitting rendition of Sweet Child O’ mine in the background, I had a little change of heart. After seeing Tony Goldwyn look completely bad ass… my interest was piqued. However, it was the image of Krug’s head in a microwave at the end of the trailer that had me completely sold. 

Jon: I immediately yelled, “The girl lives?!?!” I didn’t dig it at all. Unfortunately, I feel as if horror fans are quick to judge, so I took a step back, watched it again, and thought about the possibilities that this remake could offer, be, and do. 

What did you think of Last House on the Left (2009)?

Jon: Well, I didn’t hate it, but it didn’t deliver in what a remake should do. I want them to explore violence, like the original, but with our current desensitized eyes. If anything, they committed a boo-boo that I was afraid they might do: they had violence here just for violence’s sake. Did it matter if Krug and company were mean bastards? No, not really. The parents chose to commit revenge. Were their acts justified? I don’t think so, in fact, one could argue that they are perhaps in more of the wrong. They didn’t question evil, violent acts, and revenge like the original, no matter how crudely Craven did it in the original.

Violence for violence sake is a question and debate, many ask within the horror community, and I have been a victim of liking unnecessarily violent films, but most of the time it works against the genre. Hostel II failed miserably because Eli Roth didn’t have subtext to its acts. It was just mean-spirited. There’s a scene of rape, that is harsh here, but Sadie looks like “wow, we are in the wrong”, then immediately gives the okay to do more. It doesn’t work. Also, the film is too slick. Like all current remakes, we’re treated to a slick production with dark cinematography with uses of cool colors, shaky camera movements, odd close-ups, we’ve seen this all before. I have no doubt that the director Dennis Iliadis is a talented guy; I’m eager o see more of his work, but I thought he over-stylized this film. Where as the original felt gritty and borderline documentary, there is no way I could ever think to say “keep repeating, it’s only a movie, it’s only a movie” with his version. 

It all felt plotted; from the (good) score, to the paint-by-numbers terrorizing scenes, it was a movie. “Don’t worry, it’s safe, the bad guys get theirs, the family survives” should be the motto here. I like the actress who played Sadie, Riki Lindhome. I thought she was good, with a few strained looks; she gave her character more depth than written, making her a more detailed than the other characters. Garret Dillahunt has popped up in films here and there, and while he isn’t a name, I like his work. Here, he is no David Hess, and while he wasn’t ever suppose to be, he wasn’t intimidating at all, which the Krug character needed to be.

I seem like I really against this film, actually, taking it at face value as a film in the context of its own existence for 100 minutes, it’s okay. But it has baggage. It’s a remake and those strings can never be severed, and as such, it doesn’t work as a remake of Last House on the Left. Add some subtext, and this would’ve worked along side the original.

Donny: Alright, I’m going to play devils advocate here and say that if your looking for justification for the parents to murder the kids that rape their daughter then look no further than the law.  If a nasty rapist like Krug comes into your home and is a threat to your family, you have the right to kill said nasty.  Now let me get into the reality of it.  I’m a father, and if my daughter came home in the same state as the poor little girl in this flick, there is no possible way they could put on screen the terrible things I would do to the people responsible, even if the movie Gods hadn’t delivered them to my doorstep.  I understand that that’s not providing the kind of message that is good for the general public (maybe we should be asking ourselves why that is), but being a father I understand the motive behind the families vengeance.  

I also understand why the violence is toned down here and I agree with the filmmakers decision.  I don’t think violence for the sake of violence is something that is needed to sell a movie, unless said movie has nothing else going for it.  The violence in this remake is used to move the story forward.  The murder, the rape, and everything else, while harsh is used to move the story forward.  If none of these events would have occurred then the Collingwood’s would have no reason to seek revenge.  It was used as a tool, and not just for shock.  The filmmakers could have pushed harder and had Krug carve his name into the victim, and the rape scene could have lasted longer, but they instead used the violence as a storytelling tool, and not just for the sake of exploitation.  

Also, I’m sick of social commentary.  I don’t care what a filmmakers views on violence are.  I just want to see a good movie.  And so far in my opinion both The Hills Have Eyes and The Last House on the Left remakes were better than the originals (go ahead and start the bashing now).  That’s right, I really had fun with this flick, and I don’t mind saying that I enjoyed it much more than I did the original.  

Serena: I slightly agree with Jon that the movie didn’t delve into serious subtext or social commentary for that matter, however I thought it was a pretty decent remake (despite the torture porn finale.)  Regardless of what the media may have us believe, we are NOT as desensitized as we think we are. It was no surprise to me that this movie was going to be softer than the original. Showing Mari live in the trailer should have been a dead give away for that fact alone. There was no forced pissing in the pants, ripped out intestines, fatal fellatio (damn it!) or carvings in anyone’s chest. Instead, the audience gets a tastefully shot rape scene and gruesome CGI deaths of the villains that had the audience hollering and hooting for more. (the deaths that is…not the rape.) 

People nowadays would not be able to take the awkward and grainy documentary style film the original was.  People need to be entertained and for that to happen, the psychological horror aspect has to be trimmed down. 

One thing I wished they played more with in this version was Krug’s internal struggle. Garrett Dillahunt did an amazing job as the sadistic villain and through his subtext it was evident that he felt forced to do what he does to the girls, yet his psychotic nature takes over him in front of his son (Spencer Treat Clark).  This is something I wish they toyed with more of this in the script, (there is only so much an actor can do) because there was something very interesting about that issue. 

All of the actors did very well, especially the vengeful Collingwood family. (played by Sara Paxton, Monica Potter and Tony Goldwyn) My hat goes off to Miss Paxton for being able to shoot such a brutal rape sequence (even though it’s far tamer than anything shown in the original) at such a young age. It’s a far cry from Aquamarine I’ll tell you that.  

Although not as effective and as frightening as its predecessor, The Last House on the Left  is a slick yet good ol’ fashioned revenge story that although does not send out the best message, is still a very well executed remake that will surely terrorize unsuspecting newcomers.   

Grade?

Donny: Rating:

Jon: Rating:

Serena: Rating: