Movie Review: The Last House on the Left (2009)
Where am I supposed to look for enjoyment in this?
Photo: Rogue Pictures
I've never seen Wes Craven's directorial debut, the 1972 version of The Last House on the Left, but I have seen Ingmar Bergman's The Virgin Spring, which served as the inspiration for Craven's thriller, and given the majority opinion of Craven's original makes me believe it is just as worthless as the 2009 remake. At the end of Bergman's feature God "speaks" to the protagonists giving reason to the brutality that has been witnessed. At the end of the 2009 remake a head explodes giving reason to why the films of today don't stack up to the classics and why today's horrors rarely manage to do anything more than gross out an audience.
The cast includes Tony Goldwyn, Monica Potter, Sara Paxton, Rhys Coiro and Garret Dillahunt. For more information on this film including pictures, trailers and a detailed synopsis choose from the following menu.
Review
"The Last House on the Left" is a Rogue Pictures release, directed by Dennis Iliadis and is rated R for sadistic brutal violence including a rape and disturbing images, language, nudity and some drug use.
The story begins as two young girls are kidnapped, raped and eventually murdered by an escaped convict, his girlfriend, brother and unwitting son. Following such pleasantries as a 44-year-old brutally raping a 20-year-old, the four brutes find themselves stranded in the woods and unknowingly seeking refuge in the home of one of the victims. Clues soon lead the parents down the path to what has happened, which is when they set out to take the law into their own hands and mangle the living hell out of the thugs sleeping in their neighboring guest house.
Nothing I have told you is all that terrible when it comes to horror films. It's standard for the genre and is meant to be horrifying, but this isn't horrifying, it's pointlessly disturbing as two sweet parents ultimately become more despicable than the degenerates they are chasing. Horror films have turned into exercises in coming up with creative kills — the mindset appears to be the gorier the better — with little concern for the story being told or keeping consistency with the characters created. Last House on the Left meets all of these goals as the film ends and you don't care about anyone except for the female victims and if they hadn't been trying to score some weed at the beginning of the film none of it ever would have happened.
Finally, at the end of The Last House on the Left an additional scene begins to play. It doesn't fit in with anything we have seen to that point and as an audience member you look on and think, "What the hell is going on?" The scene ends, the credits roll and you realize what you have just seen is a perfect example of why most horror films no longer resonate. It's the goriest scene of the film and it plays like a deleted scene from an abandoned storyline. It's blood-soaked and startling, but at the same time worthless, just as is this entire feature.
Showing 22 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New CommentNOTE: The Facebook login option has been disabled. We apologize for any inconvenience. |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
The original was a classic. All they are doing is ruining the integrity of the original films with these dumb remakes. They dumb them down just to make them gorier I guess. The mom bit off one of the guys dicks at the end! Classic cinema!!!
I wonder if home boy gets his dick bit off like the original? Crazy bitches!!!!
I not saying your wrong because your points are valid and one could easily hate this movie, but I was personally entertained. I didn't really care about motives of the characters (as I don't with most horror films), but I just had fun watching these people avenge their daughter. That girl from Superbad was the definition of a character they had no idea how to get rid of haha.
P.S. Have you seen Eden Lake? I loved that fils as it did truely scare me, and the premise reminded me of Stephen King meets this new generation of horror film.
When I was a university undergraduate many years ago I was required to read the semi-autobiographical novel The Painted Bird by Jerzy Kosinski. It is the story of a Jewish boy in Eastern Europe during WWII whose parents find a rural Christian family to hide and care for him thinking that they have found him a refuge but have in fact condemned hiim to an increasingly depraved and cruel existence. By the end we are left with a young man who is little better than an educated, coldly cruel savage. As nauseating as this story is, it arises from the experiences and conclusion drawn from Mr. Kosinski's own life. People can be enormously cruel.
Why someone, living in a comfortable, well cared for environment would want to
#1 Make such films as The Last House on the Left
#2 Pay money to see these films
is beyond me. I'm sorry, this genre is not about scaring people but about showing fictional torture and cruelty taken to such an extent that it is described as pornographic.
@Patricia: …and this is where the balance comes in and why I mentioned Bergman's film and what happens at the end of it. Bergman's film includes everything this 2009 feature has including rape, murder and revenge (obviously not to the same extent), but the difference being it carries meaning at the end and is really about the question "does God exist?" as opposed to just watching people be mutilated for 90 minutes.
The brutality of the rape scene in the beginning of the 2009 film is so disturbing it would lead you to believe there must be more of a reason for it to exist outside of just showing torture, but alas nothing comes of it… at all… and how someone can find any enjoyment in it is beyond me.
I understand, Brad. I also understand that this is the third film based on Mr. Bergman's film, the other two being the 1972 film of the same title and Chaos from 2005, at least that's what Roger Ebert says. Each a further decension into offensive gore. Can I ask, who in God's name thinks it is good filmmaking to take a work by Ingmar Bergman and remake it thinking, lets take out all that meaningful stuff and add more gore? But as much as I acknowledge that freedom of expression must allow such films as this to exist, why WHY?! do they keep playing and replaying the trailer on television? I don't want to see even an instant of this crapola.
AT BRAD: Thanks for spoiling the ending!
@rolling_streetcar: What are you talking about? How did I spoil the ending?
Brad didnt spoil the ending…what were you reading?
Anyways, I gotta say, the original was NOT a classic.
The original was one of the most pointless movies I had ever seen! So I'm not going to see this one. Among all the remakes of these so called "horror classics," to me "Hills Have Eyes" was only tolerable. I didn't dislike either version.
I have to disagree there is substance in this film as in all horror film. I am a film student and horror is my study. This film as in Craven's original show how much horror is in the "real" world and we choose to not view it or just pass it by. As this film, being torture Porn I do have to agree but let us remember that in the 70s this film got an X rating and "torture porn" was not a term wildly used. The term in the 70s was "revenge porn" or "revenge horror" where a woman or group of women went to a cabin, one is raped, and the others took revenge on the male rapist. Craven, made this film to show the degeneration of a simply family and how ANYONE can be horror and that "horror never sleeps, it works overtime". One last thing to note out "Sex sells".
@chris: You are really reaching here and the fact the original received an X-rating has nothing at all to do with this film. This film has nothing to do with looking at real world violence, it is gratuitous and over the top purely to shock. Take for example the opening sequence when the cops are not going to be giving Krug any kind of chase. He and his degenerates could just run away. Instead, they decide to torture them for no reason other than to "please" the audience.
There is NO substance in this film and if you find any it is because you gave it meaning, not because it had any. Oh, and saying "sex sells" has nothing to do with the argument. I'm not even sure why you said it.
If you ask Brad, he'll tell you that this has been a weekend of some effortless rebuttals from him! NO, I'm not kissing his ass.
To Alfred, whose comment has been deleted apparently, no, we're not too SOFT to "enjoy" it. Was "enjoy" the key word in there?? I can't possibly enjoy a movie where RAPE is used as the vehicle to carry it till the end just for the sake of it. Watch SALO(1975, I think) and Twentynine Palms(2003) and get back to me! Hell, just watch Jodi Foster's THE ACCUSED once more. Okay, just sit through SALO and we'll see who is softer!
@Brad Brevet: You're right. I overreacted. My bad.
By the way, I've been reading your site for over a year. I disagree with a lot of your reviews, but you have a very nice website. I love coming here for the latest trailers and MPAA ratings.
Brad to rolling_streetcar: No worries, it happens. Thanks for visiting.
The original "Last House on the Left" is a classic, it truly is. It keeps the engaging storytelling aspect to it (after all, being based off "The Virgin Spring" which is based off a 14th-century folktale, a storytelling feel is really needed) while still managing to show something truly and realistically horrific.
The remake was just disappointing. The screenplay was great, and the changes they made were good, but the actors were bad–they were movie caricatures, and they rendered all the action into a technical exercise. I was very sad to see that.
I also miss those two policemen. :P
As for me, I did go and watch this film, thinking that it would have some sort of message, or point, or whatever. It was exponentially over-gory, and disturbingly so. Yes, I agree with the review that in the end, the parents end up worse than the people they're "punishing." The problem with movies like this is that they're over-the-top without a reason. There's nothing behind it, no big picture that glues it all together. Pure gore like this is sickening. I'm really sorry I watched it. I'd just advise that no one give this movie a look. Ever.
Sounds like a great movie wasn't gonna see it till now thanks. Hardly any good rape flicks anymore
@Bomber24: Hey tough guy, it's a free country.
sooo basically i think ur very stupid… this movie was awsome… btw the girl was 17 not 20 wich yeah makes a big difference as to wut he did to her. she was an innocent young girl who was beatin and raped like no other. that rape scene is one of the worst ive ever seen bc it was so realistic… not all rapes are violent like the ones in the hills have eyes… and me putting myself in the parents shoes… FUCK yeah id kill them knowing wut they did to my daughter i mean they already lost their son. witch is probably another reason y they did do this to these horrible ppl. i thought this movie was very realistic and not once did i say to the characters "dont do that! wuts wrong w u!" i have done that in every horror movie in cluding jason, halloween, strangers, ect. i thought this movie was really good. and the scene at the end is just to make a point…
In my original post I mentioned that I once read The Painted Bird by Jerzy Kosinski. In it he describes a village that is overtaken by enemy troops who proceed to not only rape all the women but also the babies. It's description is graphically violent and repulsive. But, the story continues, the men of the village come home while the invaders are passed out drunk. What the village men and women do to those rapists is more disgusting than the original crimes. One group is as bad as the other. This is not vengeance. It is beastiality.
This film has no message, no redeeming virtue. It is violence to excite at the same level as pornography.
Sorry i am super late here, because i never read his review for this until today, although i do agree with 95% of what he is saying, i also believe that this movie does have a point. When you are reading a book and you are imagining what is happening if you have an imagination as vivid as my own it was be just as bad if not as worse as the movie. I feel the movie is saying what would you do to protect your own. I am sorry i was go to even worse measure if that was my child. If this was a book and you were reading it, it would have way more back round yes, but would it not be just as graphic and violent. I don't know i take things in small measures. I did not like the rape scene that could of been left out. Again this is a movie you can only fit so much in the time you have. Some people are that sick you can not tell me other wise, when you have seen some of the stuff i have.
hey guys can anybody tell me who actually pulls of maris, shorts and underwear, is it sadie or krug, thanks