The Last House on the Left (2009)

Back in the dark ages of 1972, an unknown director wrote and released a picture that managed to nauseate audiences worldwide with sadistic violence and horrifically uncomfortable scenes of humiliation and pain. Inspired by the atrocities of the Vietnam War, this film sought to shake up movie goers by portraying the true face of senseless violence; mean, pointless, and indifferent.

This film was called The Last House on the Left.

Dashing forward to the modern times of 2009, the great city of Holly "Remakes are Great!" Wood has finally boiled its sludgy cauldron of old horror films all the way down to the frothy bones of this old brutality. Other films have since come and gone conveying similar themes of realistic humiliation and violence; can a remake of this very effective film from the 1970's offer anything new?

Mari (Paxton) and Paige (MacIsaac) really aren't all that bad; typical cute townie girls who's only bad habits might lie in a compulsion to smoke pot with seedy looking young boys. Unfortunately for them, seedy looking boys sometimes have downright scurrilous fathers, who themselves have sadistic brothers and sociopathic girlfriends. The two girls soon find themselves swept up with a violent gang on the run from the law, and they rapidly begin to suffer from the villains' sadistic attentions.

Following the strongest beats of the original, the gang later meets up, quite coincidentally, with the parents of one of the two girls. The parents let the hoodlums into their home, without realizing the horrible fate their daughter has suffered, and permit them spend the night. Late in the evening, the parents realize the nature of their guests, as well as the state of their daughter, and so begin to exact their terrible revenge.

Cosmetically, The Last House on the Left of 2009 rather closely follows the structure of the original. The criminals are portrayed as unrepentant monsters and the parents the ultimate dealers of vigilante justice. The film does, however, fall far short of retaining the same impact and power. This is mostly due to some pulled punches and, even more importantly, a loss of the same context that made the first film so painfully effective.

By far, the most uncomfortable segments of Craven's 1972 film were the torturous segments featuring the gang's sadistic treatment upon the two young women. There was something about how it was portrayed that led the viewer to believe the criminals were testing their own limits of sadism; they were having fun being cruel, were turned on by it, and weren't even sure how far they were going to take it until the horrible ends were met. In contrast, the savages of this remake have a much more business-as-usual approach to their pain-dealing; you get the feeling that they've done this numerous times before, that it is old hat, and it doesn't really turn them on as much as it used to.

This is a significant difference. The first forced the viewer to see vicariously through the hoodlum's eyes as they experienced joy and exuberance in their cruelty; it made you want to shout at the screen for them to stop, please, stop! Like more recent films, such as Haneke's brilliant Funny Games, the film made you feel party to the crime by simply being its witness, and feeling a sense of disgust and horror for your voyeuristic involvement. The film's remake loses this powerful context by establishing the career of violence early in the story. The criminals here are already completely jaded by violence, treat it as routine, and while they do have joy in it, it is about as joyful as their morning beer.

Also missing from the remake are some of the more notorious scenes that many might have burned into their troubled brains. Gone is the famous urination scene; though the sequence introducing the chief hoodlum (played well by Dillahunt), who at the time really had to take a leak, might be a tiny nod to the original's most humiliating moment. In the revenge sequence, also gone is the infamous castration, though at one moment it almost seems to be warming up to it. The bad guys do suffer their lumps, this is without a doubt; but their ends are less controversial and even stumble into the realm of being too thought out and silly (last 15 seconds, I'm looking at you).

My only other strong complaint, besides those mentioned, is that the middle sequence suffers a loss of energy as the hoodlums play nicey-nice with the girl's parents. It takes a little too long for things to get rolling again as the parents finally realize the nature of their guests. There is such an air of predictability and imminent conflict that it fails any hair-raising sense of suspense or creation of tension.

To its credit, 2009's The Last House on the Left isn't an otherwise bad film. It is well put together, rather well acted, and does have some entertaining sequences. Its failings mostly lie in that it is a bit of a missed opportunity. By changing the 'thrill kill' attitude of the original into the 'business-as-usual' style of the remake, they lost that horrible edge of sick sadistic bile that coated everyone that watched the 1972 horror classic. This isn't really a bad film; it just fails to fill the boots of its inspiration.