Renowned horror director Wes Craven returns to the scene of the most notorious thrillers of all time in this darkly disturbing reimagining of The Last House on the Left. After kidnapping and ruthlessly assaulting two teen girls, a sadistic killer and his gang unknowingly find shelter from a storm at the home of one of the victim’s parents– two ordinary people who will go to increasingly gruesome extremes to get revenge. Loaded with shocking twists guaranteed to leave you on edge, it’s the ominous film critics call, “One of the best horror remakes ever made” (Scott Weinberg, Fearnet.com).A hot-button topic in the horror community from the minute it was announced, the 2009 remake of Wes Craven and Sean Cunningham’s controversial Last House on the Left will undoubtedly leave audiences polarized in regard to both its treatment of the source material and its level of violence. As with the original film, which drew inspiration from Ingmar Bergman’s The Virgin Spring (and was itself based on 13th century Scandinavian legend), director Dennis Illadis’ film traces the downward spiral of two teenage girls (Sara Paxton and Martha MacIsaac from Superbad) who fall prey to a quartet of degenerates. The perpetrators then seek refuge in a nearby vacation home–which happens to be occupied by Paxton’s parents. Both versions spare no quarter in detailing the torments inflicted on the two girls, as well as the ruthlessly efficient revenge metered out to the killers by the parents; the difference, however, lies with the intent. Craven and Cunningham (who serve as executive producers for the remake) sought to shock Nixon/Vietnam-era audiences by showing the limits to which the “average” citizen could be pushed by violent acts; Illadis, however, is simply content to deliver a glossy, overamped thriller that neither delights in nor condemns the atrocities committed by its characters. The result is a flat, often tedious exercise in nihilism buoyed only by its cast, especially Paxton, Tony Goldwyn and Monica Potter as her parents, and Garrett Dillahunt (No Country for Old Men) as the malevolent leader of the depraved foursome. Fans of the original need not bother with this version; newcomers should seek out Craven’s version, which has lost none of its power to overwhelm. –Paul Gaita
Amazon.com
The legendarily scuzzy 1972 shocker Last House on the Left gets all dressed up in this slick remake, which retro-fits the original storyline to an isolated lakeside cabin. This time out, unsuspecting teen Mari (Sara Paxton) makes the crucial mistake of going to buy some weed at a rundown motel room with a stranger (Spencer Treat Clark). It must have sounded like a good idea at the time. Soon Mari and her pal (Martha MacIsaac) are confronted by the stranger’s diseased posse, and the real trouble begins. The set-up of the 1972 picture, which director Wes Craven borrowed from Ingmar Bergman’s The Virgin Spring, is a blunt exercise in brutality followed by revenge, the twist being that the revenge is as savage as the initial transgression. This structure remains in the remake, although a few key plot points are changed, with little improvement. Monica Potter and Tony Goldwyn play Mari’s parents, who at some point will be called upon to put aside their merlot and their civilized constraints and get to it; Garret Dillahunt, coming off his strong work in Deadwood and No Country for Old Men, is far too qualified to be playing the stock role of the creep-in-chief. There is something distinctly strange about watching a film that took much of its original power from its cheapness, an outlaw energy that is completely lost in this dressed-up, professionally made remake. Here the scenes of rape and murder are presented not as pulpy shouts from the subculture but as necessary ingredients in a respectable machinery, which somehow makes them more dispiriting and unpleasant to watch. That this film is a technical advance on the original film on every level–acting, writing, photography–does not make it a better film. –Robert Horton


March 8, 2008
#1
only good part was the rape scene other than that it was boring. not worth watching dont waste your money
March 8, 2008
#2
Let me just start by saying i can’t believe hollywood can churn out such garbage and get away with it, it really shows how desensitized we all have become in this country. I’m sure this will be banned in many other countries because they don’t want this trash to fill there homes and give people ideas. When i started watching this i figured it was just another killers come into town, find the people in the house, everyone hides, some get killed nothing major. Well come to find out its nothing but, 2 young teenage girls, being brutally raped face down in the dirt, stabbed in the stomach and chest after already being beaten, and all this is very very graphically shown in the unrated version. Well after these scenes and me feeling like i wanted to projectile vomit everywhere i shut it off. I sat and thought to myself my god, imagine a movie like this even ten years ago, it was unthinkable. So if yours some sick twist #^#&!@ then this movie will appeal to you, but ask yourself this, would u like to know your daughter was brutally raped, while other people watched, and then shot when she tried to escape. Or any other family member for that matter. This is just tasteless garbage, and trust me i’ve seen a LOT of brutal movies. Remember Wolf Creek, that movie was The Sound Of Music compared to this, didnt even come close.
March 8, 2008
#3
I couldn’t wait for the remake of Last House on the Left to go to video. Last night I finally got to watch it. I didn’t really expect anything as edgy as the original but all things considered I did expect something more believable. The only good thing I can say about this movie is that production value was much better. That means the sound and video quality were better then the original. It was also good to get rid of that awful music and what I think was supposed to be comic relief in the form of depicting the cops as idiots from the original movie.
I didn’t expect the original script to be tightly followed. It would have been nice to at least follow the basics. There were parts that Wes obviously didn’t want from the original. If he didn’t want the terrorizing of the girls then fine. He should have gotten rid of the rape scene entirely. Most people would take her clothes off if he were going to do that. As it was, there was nothing in that part of the remake that made sense. They tried very hard to make this politically correct and sanitize it to death. The original was much more realistic. After three stab wounds most people would be bleeding profusely but not here. Any blood is left for the struggle at the end except for the blood spilled in the river from the gun shot.
The acting was atrocious with the exception of the girl who survived a gunshot in the water and managed to swim up river until she could make it home. The bad guys girlfriend was pretty good in her fight scene also. The bad guy looked like he walked off a soap opera set where he played a pretty boy. There was nothing pretty about David Hess. David was very convincing as a psychopath. All of the original characters were convincing. Hess was exceptional.
If you absolutely have to see this movie, because the original was so good that this one can’t really be that bad, then I suggest waiting 2 months. Then you will be able to find it in the $4.99 discounted DVD’s in Walmart. They have spent more money advertising this pile of excrement than they used to make the entire original movie.
Personally I’m just glad I got two brand new kittens to entertain me or the entire two hours would have been wasted.
March 8, 2008
#4
Without comparing or holding this up to the original, this film is a below average horror film that brings absolutely nothing new or exciting to the horror genre. It is well made and acted but with a budget over ten million, I should hope so.
If you are a die-hard horror fan with time to kill and are interested give it a rent.
March 8, 2008
#5
I so wanted to like this movie. I love a good scary movie, but this really isn’t it. I feel asleep twice during this movie–that should tell you all you need to know.