The Last House on the Left (2009) Though this reworking of 1972's Last House on the Left-- that itself was a reinterpretation of Ingmar Bergman's The Virgin Spring-- may not quite reach the emotional impact and terror that Wes Craven's original unsettlingly achieved, this reimagining (for once that term has real modern justification) is perhaps the best version that could have been done by a major Hollywood studio for such a film of this narrative nature. As although the original is a fine example of underground novice filmmaking that won over a cult audience in grindhouses and on video, the 2009 version that hit major multiplexes in wide release adds its own unique take on the same story.
The original was about the rape and murder of two girls by a group of viscous convicts on-the-lamb is still the main facet of this remake's story... with a twist thrown in concerning the fate of one of the girls. The last block remains essentially the same too: the convicts end up at one of the girls parents' homes. The adults soon find out about who there guests are and take it upon themselves to get revenge.
Both films have a simplistic plot. Yet, where the original relied on contrivances to get its plot going, the 2009 version makes logical reasons for these strokes-of-luck and oftentimes the storytelling, if sometimes feels Hollywoodized, is much more natural and organic, that is, at least until the tacked on shock ending.
The film, even if it runs much longer, at nearly 2 hours still feels lean-and-mean. There are no scenes of policeman buffoonery like in the original and this 2009 white-knuckle version feels more like a work of an auteur than an amateur. However, the original still has a few major advantages over this remake.
Since the original was very low budget, and was directed somewhat pedestrian, its documentary style approach added both a sense of realism and sleaze to that shocker. In that way it made the film have a captivating, snuff quality to it that added to it take-no-prisoners approach and made it downright disturbing.
In the 2009 version, however, uses a much bigger budget, and even if its director Dennis Iliadis has a great visual eye, he does not create that much fear even in the most ghastly scenes. Instead, the film feels more like an action picture, and due to its polish, it just does not have a kind of diabolical, dread-ridden atmosphere. Also, not even the most conservative right should really question the moral frame of mind he was in for making this picture. While Craven and Cunningham's venture took more of a nihilistic tone and defeatist approach that one almost could picture certain moral police groups think of them as sadists.
Also, in this 2009 version the villains are much more clean-cut looking and not as memorable. Moreover, can one really find a better psycho than David Hess as the original's Krug? Probably not. Hess brought an aggressive intensity to his role that made him one of the most intimidating and scariest antagonists in all of film. Garret Dillahunt who plays Krug in the remake may do a good job, but it is not a particularly captivating one.
For that matter, really none of the cast in the remake leaves much of an impression. The cast is capable and natural, yes. Yet, despite an added half hour of character interaction, the cast just does not take it a step further with their parts. Thus making the 2009 film completely Iliadis' show.
When the credits role, one wants more Hollywood horror remakes to follow in this films footsteps. The film is much better than expected, especially given the subject matter. Yet, it also shows a horror fan something they have always known: the best go-for the-jugular fright pictures are always made underground and out of the system.
RELATED LINKS
|
