Besides the use of cell phones, camera and laptops, I Spit on Your Grave’s premise mirrors its predecessor. After leaving the city to go to a secluded cabin to write for the summer, Jennifer (Sarah Butler) makes the nearly fatal decision to stop by the gas station in the country and becomes a target to a group of locals who are looking for a sick and twisted way to cure their boredom. After being followed and taunted, Jennifer is beaten up and sexually assaulted many times by the locals and disappears into the woods.  While the assailants assume Jennifer died in the forest, Jennifer plots her way to get back at her attackers and she makes sure the punishment fits the crime…..and then some.  Brutality, stomach-churning moments and a grisly castration ensue.

The original I Spit on Your Grave (initially titled Day of the Woman) was one of the first shocking films ever made.  It is a movie that made Mary Whitehouse almost have a stroke and at the time of release, it sent people in a frenzy due to its unrelenting brutality and degradation towards the female lead 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 troubling film that is only meant to be watched once because the effect of it should be that lasting.

Like last year’s remake to Wes Craven’s chilling directorial debut The Last House on the Left, this year’s I Spit on Your Grave focuses far more of its energy on reversing the elements in the original film that made it so unbearable in the first place.  Instead of showing a grueling 45 minute rape sequence with only less than a half-hour to show the revenge, Monroe’s version makes sure that the revenge angle is front and center in this disturbing remake and he does so with an alarming force.  Torture porn has never been so satisfying.

Sarah Butler’s portrayal of Jennifer in this updated tale of horror is much different from Camille Keaton’s, but personally this reviewer enjoyed her character change. No longer does Jennifer feel the need to dress up and lure her assailants by seducing them by lakes and in bathtubs. She is raw, beat up and full of hatred and fury.  She has no time to test her gag reflex. All she can do is kill and she does so in very inventive ways…ways that even made every woman in the theater cheer. (Ironic, considering how statistically the original film was rented out nine times out of ten by young males.)

Despite the fact that this remake is entertaining, to some it is arguably more offensive than the original for the remake glamorizes rape in ways the original did not. I Spit on Your Grave is a soft-core version of the original, but it makes sense in this day and age that it would be. 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. There was no extended sodomy on a rock and rape scenes featuring extended shots of nudity. Instead, the audience gets an Alexandre Aja-inspired shot rape scene and gruesome Saw-like 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, however it does not mean the remake should be taken lightly as it’s a hard-hitting remake that goes places Platinum Dunes would never dare go near.

Although not as effective and as frightening as its predecessor, I Spit on Your Grave is a sleek yet good old’ fashioned revenge story that although may not send out the best message, is still a very well executed remake that will surely terrorize unsuspecting newcomers.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

The Last House on the Left

Revolutionary Road screen writer Justin Haythe put together the script for this version of the classic tale. Since we reported about how soon Sidney Kimmel Entertainment wants Pay the Ghost to be put together, we might not be seeing Jekyll hit theaters for quite awhile.

Story kicks off on Halloween night, when a couple’s young son is mysteriously abducted. A year later, they begin to sense his presence in frightening ways. A string of terrifying clues draws them to search for the boy throughout New York, where they uncover ancient secrets and discover a vicious, vengeful spirit (Variety).

Producing the picture is Mark Gordon, Sidney Kimmel, Jordan Wynn and Ian Levy with Midnight Kitchen and Mark Gordon Productions attached to the flick. Filming is expected to commence in the summer with a yet to be announced release date. Sidney Kimmel Entertainment has been attached to several projects, some of those being Synecdoche, New York, Adventureland and Death at a Funeral.

It is Life of Brian which was voted the most controversial film of all time besting films like A Clockwork Orange and The Last House on The Left with the polls spokesmen stating:  “The success of films like Life Of Brian proves that scandal sells.”

-The Mirror

1. The Life of Brian

2. A Clockwork Orange

3. The Last House on the Left

4. The War Game

5. Pink Flamingos

Now of course this is not the first, nor will it be the last time a most controversial film of all time list is done, so the fact that films like Caligula, The Cook The Thief His Wife and Her lover,Salo,The Last Temptation of Christ,Crash,Kids,The Birth of  a Nation, The Passion of the Christ,Lolita,Deep Throat or Bad Lieutenant were forgotten to be mentioned is heresy.  It does though make you wonder who, in fact, classifies a film to be controversial or inappropriate.  Is it mere coincidence that 2 of the films mentioned are comedies while the other a pseudo documentary and not a full length  narrative film, or does it say more about ourselves that films of that nature or ‘quality’ do not get made today?  It is more often than not religion and sex, more so than violence that seems to anger certain viewers such as is the case with every film mentioned previously.  With the sole exception of The War Game which was deemed too frightening and graphic so much so that the film was made for television viewing back in August of 1966 and the same year won an Oscar for best documentary but was banned by the BBC for viewing until 1985 a full 11 years later due to ”the effect of the film has been judged by the BBC to be too horrifying for the medium of broadcasting”.

Or maybe its the filmmakers themselves that are too afraid to make controversial films like in the case of Theo Van Gough who directed the 10 minute film Submission about muslim women which got him stabbed to death (as seen below)

There is even to this day rampant discussion as to whether Pier Paolo Pasolini had been murdered out of sheer vengeance from his captor or if it in fact had been done due to his final film Salo: The 120 days of Sodom.  Either way it is up for debate that if films that can cause such outright hate and debate are more controversial than a biblical comedy by the famed British troupe.

Time flies when you are watching movies-a lot of movies, and 2009 has already reached its halfway point. Here at Killer Film, we try to catch as much of the films being released as possible, and we would like to present our 2009 Mid Year Report. Keep it mind, this is only what we have seen, and we can safely say we wish we’ve seen more, but we do still have the second half of the year to catch up. Without further ado, here’s our take of 2009 so far.

Quick Thoughts on the Year so far…

Donny: While I love horror, drama, documentary, and every other genre of film out there, my favorite by far is comedy.  In my opinion there is nothing better than watching good joke unfold on screen, but on the other hand if said joke doesn’t work (Year One) then my beloved genre falls flat on its face.  Luckily, this year we’ve had some amazing comedies grace us with their undeniable funny.  So far my favorites include; The Hangover, Adventureland, I Love You, Man, and the awesome direct to DVD 18 Year Old Virgin.  I’m also looking forward to Funny People and I want to see mega-hottie Megan Fox in Jennifer’s Body.  Lets hope the rest of the year offers up the good to make this year more than mediocre.  

Jon: I think so far, it’s been a decent year as of July 1st. A few select films are really worth seeing, others are okay. I suspect the rest of the year will have great documentaries, as I haven’t seen much so far released this year. I have enjoyed seeing studios taking chances on unique films like Watchmen, Observe and Report, and The Hangover, and that’s refreshing. 3-D films have been big and constantly pushed, a trend we will see more of. For the most part, 2009 started off slow, for me, and is just now picking up. See you all at the end of the year!

Serena: Being a huge horror aficionada, I was disappointed by the initial lackluster horror films slashing their way to the big screen, but I was quite surprised by how exceptionally well done the mainstream horror fare was this year. I also was blown away by some hidden gems like Pontypool, Dead Snow and The Children (my fave film of 2009 so far) that all reminded us why foreign films are owning the horror genre these days.  However, most of the big budget anticipated action films of 2009 have all left a bad taste in this reviewer’s mouth.  So far 2009’s films are a far cry from last year’s jam-packed list, but I’m looking forward to being entertained by Jake West’s Doghouse, Diablo Cody’s anticipated horror follow-up, Jennifer’s Body and to see how Juno is going to react to being left for dead in a cave in The Descent 2. 

Now, to the good stuff….

Best Films

Donny: The Hangover, I Love You, Man, Adventureland , Che

Jon: Pixar’s Up, Goodbye Solo, and Che

Serena: The Children,  Pontypool, The Last House on the Left, Drag me to Hell

Worst Films

Donny: Paul Blart: Mall Cop, Bride Wars, Street Fighter: Legend of Chun-Li

Jon: Pink Panther 2, Paul Blart: Mall Cop, and Street Fighter: Legend of Chun-Li

Serena: Bride Wars, Obsessed and Transformers 2 (sorry Donny! )

One Honorable Mention Pick

Donny: Downloading Nancy

Jon: The Girlfriend Experience 

Serena:  Downloading Nancy

Best Comedy

Donny: I Love You, Man

Jon: I Love You, Man

Serena: I Love You, Man

Best Horror:

Donny: Drag Me to Hell

Jon: Drag Me to Hell

Serena: The Children

Best Limited Release/Direct-to-DVD

Donny: 18 Year Old Virgin

Jon: Medicine for Melancholy

Serena: Pontypool

Best Direct-to-DVD Horror Film

Donny: Laid to Rest

Jon: Laid to Rest

Serena: Acolytes

Best 2008 Film Seen in 2009

Donny: How to Alienate People and Lose Friends

Jon: Waltz with Bashir

Serena: How to Alienate People and Lose Friends

One Film We Regrettably Missed 

Donny: Pontypool

Jon: Hunger

Serena: Adventureland

One Film We are Glad We Missed

Donny: Dance Flick

Jon: Dance Flick 

Serena: The Unborn

Well, we said ours, so what are yours? Tell us in the forums, comment below, or email us at donny@killerfilm.com and jon@killerfilm.com . Keep it here at Killer Film for more reviews, features, interviews, and news, and see you at the movies!

Source: Den of Geek

How does one become a Lovable Character Actor?

After watching the bad ass Tony Goldwyn shine in the recent release of The Last House on the Left, I started to wonder as to why Mr. Goldwyn has earned this “bad ass” status that many movie fans have given him recently.  It’s not as if he’s in tons of movies and the parts he usually plays are intentionally unlikable, so why the love for this actor?  

I talked to my close group of movie fanatics and they too had put him in the “bad ass hall of fame” pedestal and talked about him as if he were already a household name.  I never questioned them about this since most of them are horror aficionados and they idolize anybody involved in the genre from Goldwyn to the horny male orderly that was getting it on with Pamela Susan Shoop in Halloween 2. (The one and only Leo Rossi by the way.) 

It then occurred to me that not only horror aficionados are capable of admiring little known actors, because mainstream filmgoers also put random character actors on pedestals. Sure, in reality they don’t want to admit that they only know their extensive filmography because of IMDB and they brag about the fact that they know their names like they’re “celebrity tryptophan,” but the inexplicable love the filmgoers have for the actors is genuine.  So how does one go from “the bad guy from Ghost” to “I love that guy” to finally a well known name in the industry? 

The Nostalgia Factor

In a lot of cases when we like a certain character actor, it’s because they have appeared in a film that we have treasured when we were children. Take Bruce Dern for example.  After watching and becoming infatuated with the eighties cult classic The Burbs, I have always associated that actor with that film. So, every time I see him in a film like The Glass House or Monster, I always point him out and the obligatory “I love that guy” phrase usually is regurgitated out of my mouth.  My theory is that certain actors we don’t see very often will remind us of memories from our childhoods…which is something you will only truly appreciate once you get older. 

Become a Director

Like Tony Goldwyn, some actors only truly shine in front of the camera once they’ve been behind it.  In fact in most case, it’s only when they direct a film when they really get recognized for their work.  Actor/director Peter Berg, who was most recognized for his roles in Wes Craven’s Shocker and The Great White Hype, is now world famous for directing films like Very Bad Things, Friday Night Lights, and last year’s blockbuster hit, Hancock. Other like actors like John Turturro and Jon Favreau (the comedian responsible for directing Iron Man) are also actors who have benefited from being in the director’s chair.

Be a Regular on a Hit TV Show

Once upon a time, movie actors that starred in television shows were once considered to be pathetic has beens that were usually regular guest stars on Hollywood Squares. Although once HBO proved to resurrect more acting careers than Quentin Tarantino, things changed. Nowadays, being on a popular TV show can get actors far more recognition than they ever could dream of.  There are many actors right now that owe a lot to their agents for being on TV. Jeff Fahey, Clancy Brown and William Mapother are all regular guest stars on the hit show Lost, and are locking more jobs because of it. (See Brown and Mapother in next month’s horror film, The Burrowers.) Eli Roth proved he secretly had a love for the show Desperate Housewives when he had cast DH regulars Roger Bart and Richard Burgi to play the villains in Hostel 2.  Somehow in the past couple of years, these actors have developed a ‘bad ass status’ that seemed to come out of nowhere.  

Although, the show that REALLY showcases character actors is Showtime’s Dexter. James Remar, Keith Carradine, Tony Goldwyn (who also DIRECTED an episode) and Jimmy Smits have all won audiences over with their winning performances on the popular serial killing show. 

Be Canadian

I know a lot of Americans are laughing uncontrollably after having read this header, but there is a HUGE advantage to being an actor from the Great White North. As you may or may not know, a good number of “Hollywood” films are filmed in Vancouver, Montreal and the city of Toronto. (the city I happen to reside in) When you shoot in Canada, the casting department has to cast a certain number of Canadians for the principal and supporting roles in a film.  (This could explain why Malin Akerman was wrongfully cast as Silk Spectre II in Watchmen. Sorry, but it’s a FACT.) This guarantees a certain number of Canadian character actors parts in big movies. Canadian actors like Stephen McHattie, Kim Coates, and Callum Keith Rennie (who also STARRED in the second season of Californication) are one of many working Canadian actors that benefit from this. See…being Canadian actually can have its perks. 

Become Better Looking

It generally doesn’t matter how good-looking someone is to make it as a recognizable character actor, however if they happen to grow into their looks late in the game, it’s always a bonus. Tony Goldwyn has transformed into his dashing looks and now has proved he can be a leading man in a film. Unfortunately if somebody is a known character actor who is primarily known for their looks like Scarface cutie Steven Bauer, the roles will co-relate to their appearance. The more wrinkles they get….the less notable work they will generally receive. (Unless you count JaRule music videos as being “notable.”)

Be Funny

If you have noticed I haven’t mentioned women in this article, it’s because the rules unfortunately are quite different for female character actors. Unless women have won prestigious awards, the public is not as kind to women as they are to men. Instead of being adored, they are usually slammed for how fat or old they have gotten when making guest appearances on Law & Order: SVU. (Sad but true) Although, if an actress is known for her comedic talents, the rule does not apply.  Women like Molly Shannon, Carol Kane, Jane Lynch and Glenne Headly have tickled our funnybones in the past and will probably continue to do so for years to come.

Play a Memorable Villain

 For an actor to develop a “bad ass” status amongst movie goers, it only makes sense that they have played a “bad ass” villain that has left a lasting impression…so lasting that the role has been the role they are “fondly” remembered for. Take Bruce Payne for example. Anytime I see this man in a direct to DVD horror film, I always have to comment on how awesome of an actor he is, even though my main frame of reference is that he played the hijacker in Passenger 57. Sometimes it’s good to be bad. 

Have a Small Role in a BIG Movie

In big and over-budgeted Hollywood blockbuster films, there always seems to be a small part in the movie that always wins audiences over usually for being funny. Glenn Plummer, (who is one of my favourite actors) is a very talented man (*See South Central) but, only truly became up and coming (at the time) for playing the loud and wise-cracking guy who got his car taken over by Keanu Reeves in Speed.  Unfortunately doing Showgirls stopped Plummer’s once budding acting career from truly taking off, however there are many actors like Jason Segal, Dave Chappelle, and David Paymer that have become far more popular after being cast as minor roles in Blockbusters.  *NOTE to HOLLYWOOD: Stop Casting Anthony Anderson in big movies! Nobody finds him FUNNY!

So, that’s a just a few of my theories for this unexplained “phenomenon.” Could you list any of your own? 

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: 3.5 out of 5 stars

Jon: Rating: 2.5 out of 5 stars

Serena: Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars