|
|
Post by drblood on Dec 14, 2009 18:01:14 GMT -5
Like a lot of people, I have never been overly enthusiastic about Wes Craven's "Last House on the Left" (1972). I have it in my collection for completeness but it's not exactly brilliant, is very mean-spirited and is really quite embarrassingly bad compared to other movies from the same year. The funny thing about "Last House on the Left" was that, despite its awfulness, it was banned during the UK's "Video Nasty" purge in the '80s and remained that way for over 20 years. Although a few slightly censored versions came out, it was only this time last year (March 2008) before it was even legally available as a fully uncut DVD and a lot of people were very disappointed that its notoriety couldn't match up to its content.
So it was obvious that something had to be done and Greek director Dennis Iliadis (previously known for directing "Hardcore" in 2004) obviously set out with good intentions to make a version of "Last House on the Left" which horror fans would actually like. With even more hype than the original ever received, everyone was onboard with this film and wanted it to be the most brutal, horrific thing that they had ever seen. But did Dennis Iliadis succeed where Wes Craven failed? Well, yes and no.
To begin with, "The Last House on the Left" (2009) is not a scene by scene remake but with added gore. That would have been the easy way out and probably wouldn't have been any improvement. It's not a total re-imagining either because, as we all know, the likelihood was that the whole project would have turned into something as hated as Rob Zombie's "Halloween". Instead there are subtle storyline changes, slightly more likeable characters and a lot more realism.
With quite a spiteful opening scene to highlight the nature of the villains, the rest of the characters are all introduced well and enough time is spent on them to get to know them but without creating a lot of empathy or overdoing it. There's room left for them to create their own exposition. While the Collingwood family still remain mostly two-dimensional, some subtext about a dead son, Ben, is brought in to flesh them out but it's never fully realised. It does provide a useful plot device later on and helps to explain a little bit of the motivation behind the way they interact with each other and the gang/family of criminals but I wanted to know more about their previous tragedy and it just wasn't there. This was a lot different to the beginning of the original "Last House on the Left" though and at least showed an attempt to subtley create a more credible flow to the story.
More important changes occur with the rape scene. It's one of the nastiest rapes that I've ever seen on screen and is definitely up there with "I Spit on Your Grave" (which is also due to be remade this year). Having said that, its realism is somehow marred by being a lot less graphic and it's all over a lot more quickly than you'd expect. It's probably the building tension and the absolutely inescapable certainty of what is going to happen that makes it all seem a lot worse than it is and Sara Paxton (as Mari Collingwood) is very convincing. What makes it different to Wes Craven's version though is the final outcome of the victim and how it effects the rest of the story. Without giving too much away, this obviously changes the motivation of her parents later from purely revenge to a need to protect and survive at all costs. That was a nice touch.
The parents are played by Monica Potter (as Emma) and Tony Goldwyn (as John). If they look familiar to you it's because, like the rest of the cast, they have both done a lot of TV work. The irony of the actor who played a modern day Jesus in the film "Joshua" (2002) now killing the bad guys was not wasted on me.
Similarly, Garret Dillahunt (as the psychotic Krug) is better known recently for playing the robotic Cromartie in "Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles". Once you start to identify any actor with a previous role it spoils the "willing suspension of disbelief" and no amount of make-up or beard-growing is going to change that even though I must admit that even I didn't immediately recognise any of them. Garret Dillahunt is a lot colder in the role than David Hess but unfortunately doesn't come across as at all scary when compared to his lecherous brother Francis (played by Aaron Paul). Spencer Treat Clark (as Krug's son Justin) was the one who gave the best performance in the film perhaps because he is the least recognisable and can be judged more on his own merits.
One fake recognition for me was with Riki Lindhome who played the evil Sadie and was the only one of the beautiful girls in the film to get her boobs out. From certain angles she looks just like Juliet Landau from "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" but, amusingly for me once I'd found out my mistake, she played a completely different character in Joss Whedon's series. She's absolutely gorgeous though and has a great topless fight scene near the end which is almost worth buying the eventual DVD for just to keep repeating it.
The practical effects, camerawork, music and overall production values are very good. The only major problems with "The Last House on the Left" which stopped it from being a lot better than the original are the average dialogue and the lack of satisfying kills when it comes to the gang of criminals getting their cummuppance.
Here's where I spoil it all for you (although the trailer above already does that quite well too). The first death is overlong, the second too short and the final one involving a broken microwave is simply ludicrous. The placement of this scene also leaves a lot to be desired.
Whereas the rest of the movie was nicely paced, the whole "revenge" section is rushed in comparison and the disjointed ending seems tacked on. I didn't get any satisfaction out of it and just felt absolutely nothing at all.
In fact, the ending of "The Last House on the Left" simply nullified the rest of the movie and the little bit of enjoyment that I was getting. The only reason that I can think of for it being that way is that the director first wanted a happy ending and then wanted it to end with a bang but couldn't think of how to put the two together.
Whatever Dennis Iliadis' choices were, he was doing well until he eventually made the wrong one and killed any chance of this film being memorable. It's a shame. "The Last House on the Left" is better than the original in many ways but just as bad in others.
|
|
|
|
Post by StevePulaski on Dec 15, 2009 6:13:33 GMT -5
Agreed dude. It's not spectacular, but it was pretty good.
|
|
|
|
Post by nopersonality on Dec 18, 2009 14:59:02 GMT -5
It was trendy shit and the original is one of the most important horror films ever made.
|
|
|
|
Post by StevePulaski on Dec 31, 2009 8:57:01 GMT -5
It was trendy shit and the original is one of the most important horror films ever made. I did like the shock value in it as well. The remake was pretty laughable. |
|
|
|
Post by nopersonality on Jan 1, 2010 5:51:03 GMT -5
The original film is NOT about shock value! It's about the destruction of the peace and love generation of young America at the hands of economic forces, government, and war. It's allegorical. Not a cheap shitty "shock" film - like the remake is.
Needless to say, I completely DISAGREE with Dr. Blood's review.
|
|
|
|
Post by drblood on Jan 1, 2010 6:44:36 GMT -5
The original film is NOT about shock value! It's about the destruction of the peace and love generation of young America at the hands of economic forces, government, and war. It's allegorical. Not a cheap shitty "shock" film - like the remake is. Needless to say, I completely DISAGREE with Dr. Blood's review.  Well feel free to post your review of the same movie then. I never liked Last House on the Left on any level but I did like David Hess when he was in Manimal. |
|
|
|
Post by nopersonality on Jan 2, 2010 21:11:52 GMT -5
I never liked Last House on the Left on any level How many times have you watched it? |
|
|
|
Post by drblood on Jan 5, 2010 17:32:21 GMT -5
How many times have you watched it? How many times do I need to watch it to know that I don't think it's a very good film? |
|
|
|
Post by nopersonality on Jan 8, 2010 14:35:33 GMT -5
How many times do I need to watch it to know that I don't think it's a very good film? That's actually not what I was getting at. I wanted to know if you thought you got the message the movie was trying to convey. |
|
|
|
Post by drblood on Jan 9, 2010 2:20:39 GMT -5
How many times do I need to watch it to know that I don't think it's a very good film? That's actually not what I was getting at. I wanted to know if you thought you got the message the movie was trying to convey. Nope, obviously not. I may have done if it wasn't for the poor direction, script, acting, camerawork and music. All that came through to me was that it was just another reworking of the ancient Greek myth of Kore/Persephone (or to simplify things for the non-Classically trained - Red Riding Hood). In fact most home invasion stories (and horror movies in general) are just extended versions of the same since they are all about what are deemed as safe boundaries being broken because of the "unsafe practices" used by the victims. As such any horror movie can be seen as a kind of social or political commentary even if it isn't intended to be. It all goes back to the ancient Greek city-state ideology, ethnocentricism and "otherness" which created the formula of "stories" which everyone has been using over and over ever since. Once you start seeing movies in those terms though it pretty much ruins anything you are ever going to watch especially drama (or aesthetics in general). |
|
|
|
Post by nopersonality on Jan 9, 2010 13:01:18 GMT -5
That's actually not what I was getting at. I wanted to know if you thought you got the message the movie was trying to convey. Nope, obviously not. I may have done if it wasn't for the poor direction, script, acting, camerawork and music. All that came through to me was that it was just another reworking of the ancient Greek myth of Kore/Persephone (or to simplify things for the non-Classically trained - Red Riding Hood). In fact most home invasion stories (and horror movies in general) are just extended versions of the same since they are all about what are deemed as safe boundaries being broken because of the "unsafe practices" used by the victims. As such any horror movie can be seen as a kind of social or political commentary even if it isn't intended to be. It all goes back to the ancient Greek city-state ideology, ethnocentricism and "otherness" which created the formula of "stories" which everyone has been using over and over ever since. Once you start seeing movies in those terms though it pretty much ruins anything you are ever going to watch especially drama (or aesthetics in general). So your point is that you've had everything ruined for you because you think in those terms? I'm sure your theories are fascinating and everything. But, they're not realistic. Nor do they apply to the time in which the film was made. American politics and American society is not governed by anything that happened in Greece. I'm sure you know this. |
|
|
|
Post by drblood on Jan 9, 2010 15:03:47 GMT -5
So your point is that you've had everything ruined for you because you think in those terms? Actually most of the time I can suppress the fact that I'm Classically educated in criticism as long as a movie conforms to Aristotle's "art is best when hidden" concept. As soon as something becomes glaringly obvious all the patterns come tumbling out then and most movies become pointless. See this thread: stevethemovieman.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=other&action=display&thread=700&page=1I'm sure your theories are fascinating and everything. But, they're not realistic. Nor do they apply to the time in which the film was made. American politics and American society is not governed by anything that happened in Greece. I'm sure you know this. Au contraire, all of Western drama and politics is based on that of ancient Greece. Everything from algebra to oratory and beyond. In fact, since America is forced to borrow from everywhere else (due to having no culture of its own) it has always relied more than anywhere else on classical civilsation for its model. Look at your political parties - "Republicans" and "Democrats"? Where do you think those ideas originated? Although it could be argued that Communism has more in common with Plato's "Republic" than anything else. Every piece of drama follows Aristotle's "rules" for the most part. It's pretty difficult not to. All the ideas about unity, characterisation and "willing suspension of disbelief" are drummed into screenwriters and film students. The more you read about this subject, the less time I'm going to have to spend explaining it all on this message board. Here are some links: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dramaen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poetics_%28Aristotle%29en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Republic_%28Plato%29 |
|
|
|
Post by nopersonality on Jan 9, 2010 20:52:30 GMT -5
The more you make things technical, the more I feel compelled to interview you on your personal thoughts.
Does all of that categorizing leave you any room to appreciate atmosphere, tension, and the entertainment value of any onscreen violence?
|
|
|
|
Post by drblood on Jan 9, 2010 22:09:31 GMT -5
Does all of that categorizing leave you any room to appreciate atmosphere, tension, and the entertainment value of any onscreen violence? Of course it does since I don't limit myself to just the quantitative and qualitative levels. That's just another part of aesthetic criticism which most people know only too well, i.e. the subjective part (which may or may not be part of the global human consciousness) to know "instinctively" when something is right, too long, too slow, or whatever the case may be. The thing is that nearly everyone who ever reviews a movie (or anything else) does it using second-hand objective formulas and then they add their own subjective spin on things which puts them in the realm of opinion. But hard core critics would argue that all the atmosphere, tension and entertainment value (since it's in the Aristotelean territory of emotion and catharsis) can all be qualified to prove the worth or failure of a movie. Personally I can switch it off to enjoy the most banal elements of movies if there's something else there that attracts me. So, to answer your question, yes, I do appreciate atmosphere, tension and entertainment value for what they are and not only in a philosophical way. It doesn't change the fact, though, that horror movies are the most formulaic genre possible (as outlined in "Scream") and there's nothing ever really new or groundbreaking even when they get as close to perfection as possible. The perfect movie does not exist and never can (in the Theory of Forms because it's thrice removed from reality). If there were perfect movies then none of us would have anything to argue about and we'd all have the same DVDs in our collections. |
|
|
|
Post by nopersonality on Jan 10, 2010 16:24:00 GMT -5
Technically, you're the perfect person to debate - you make it impossible for someone else to respond. Not that you try, but you already know that people will argue points you consider subjective. So, literally, anyone debating you are cut off after their first response.
Unless they want to argue Greek history and the Aristotelean territory of emotion and catharsis... which still has nothing to do with the vast majority of horror filmmakers. Only after the fact, where you apply it to any film you choose to.
|
|
Well feel free to post your review of the same movie then.