Remakelicious

okay,

To start this off, I'm very anti remake of 70s-80s or just movies in general. It's a huge hollywood fad right now (I know there was a screenwriters strike a little while back, but really?) and I think the remake of the excellent Spanish horror movie Rec was the low point. For those who are unaware, Rec was released on November of 2007, a little movie told from 1st person perspective ala Cloverfield about a group of people trapped in an apartment complex with an infectious disease ala 28 Days Later. Nothing mindbreaking, but a fun, claustrophobic little thriller. In October of 2008, we got Quarantine... A shot by shot 'remake' that was RELEASED eleven months later. Meaning that after some studio execs saw Rec, they decided right away to make their inferior version... Rec didn't get a theatrical release in america and was just released on DVD a few weeks ago in early July of 2009 in America. People at my store actually thought Rec was a ripoff of Quarantine, when in reality... grr...

Moving on... Up to this point, my two favorite remakes have been horror movies, namely fairly flawed horror movies. Texas Chainsaw Massacre with Jessica Biel was substantially less gritty and nasty than the original, but had things like "a budget", "sets", and "professional actors" all of which I appreciated. Plus it had one of my favorites, R. Lee Erney, in a new role that filled some plot holes (if you don't know who he is... the abusive drill sergeant/cop from many movies, starting in Full Metal Jacket... bushy eyebrows, yells a lot... that guy).

I also thought the Hills Have Eyes was great... Once again fixing some dodgy acting, taming down the "superdogs" and featuring some outstanding makeup effects (although for sheer creepy factor, no amount of makeup tops Michael Berryman from the original...).

Bringing us to the actual review of...

The Last House on the Left (2009)

Now I respect the original a whole lot. For those who are unaware, horror god Wes Craven (who brought us Nightmare on Elm Street and Scream) started his career with the exploitation flick Last House on the Left way back in 1972. It was made on a shoestring budget and is famous for being banned in the UK and only getting past a "X" rating because a personal friend of Craven's was on the ratings board. Unfortunately, (and I'll piss off some hardcore fans of original) it's flawed, almost fatally by bad writing (the 'comic relief' cops belong in a different movie), bad acting (especially the parents), and cheap production values and camerawork (although the crappy camerawork does give it a true life gut punch feeling at times).

When I first heard about a remake, I thought immediately to some of the more hideous 70s remakes (I'm looking at you, Julia Stiles' The Omen and Van Wilder's Amityville Horror). I was really pleasantly surprised with what I got instead... a movie that fixed 95% of the original's flaws and improved on the first flick a great deal. Where to start??

Since the movie is a character driven piece with a pretty small cast, acting is important. The 'biggest names' in the remake are Tony Goldwyn (the villain from Ghost and Neil Armstrong in "From Earth to the Moon") and Monica Potter (the female cop from Along Came a Spider or the love interest from Patch Adams) as the parents. Okay, so maybe they aren't A list celebrities, but if you take a look at IMDB, they are fairly recognizable, yet bring a really nice grounded sort of realism to a somewhat ridiculous plot. Both actors brought an odd combination of sympathy, vulnerability, and flat out viciousness that played out well onscreen and they made a believable married couple to boot. Sara Paxton as their daughter also brought a nice "girl next door" vibe and seemed a much stronger, tougher character than the "victims" from the original movie.

For me, the two stars of the movie were Garrett Dillahunt as Krug and Spencer Treat Clark as Justin. I knew Dillahunt could play a crazy villain from his performance as Wolcott from the excellent Deadwood series (he's also supposedly quite good in the Terminator TV series, but I haven't seen that) and he didn't disappoint with his first big theatrical performance. Dillahunt was an amazingly grounded, likeable, and at times fairly charming protagonist. To me, it was a really interesting approach to that sort of character... he didn't take some of the 'obvious' choices and almost seemed like a more daunting hurdle... It's tough to talk too much about him without getting into major spoiler areas (which I'm trying not to do). Speaking of vulnerable, Treat Clark really made me feel for what his character goes through as the youngest member of the gang. I connected to his performance... a lot of impact using his body language and especially his eyes... and very little dialogue (I've seen this character before with Jared Leto in Panic Room or the hillbilly girl from Hills Have Eyes, but this might be the best version in my opinion).

Despite being an hour and fifty minutes (somewhat long for horror movies) the movie was paced quite nicely. There were some beautiful camerawork by director Dennis Iliadis, really polished and fairly stunning cinematography, and a pretty haunting score. I especially appreciated the moments of just silence... it's almost a cliche, but when the movie got quiet, it amped up the tension. Finally, the different suspenseful buildups and how tense some of the scenes got... I was glued... It was also great to see a minimum of stupid "jump" scares (no cats, birds, or unnecessary loud noises in this one) instead using music and camerawork to create the solemn, moody atmosphere.

The action in the movie was nasty, brutal, and realistic. Goldwyn and Potter... reminded me oddly of Scream as they fought more like "real people" and not like "action heroes". The movie isn't a gorefest the whole way through, but there are some pretty damn nasty setpieces... And yes, a brutal and fairly long (in the unrated cut) rape scene is present... I know that really, really turns some people off, but it is a fairly important plot point and necessary for the conclusion to have the right emotional oomph.

So what didn't I like... the setup was a little clunky in terms of exposition and plot points (yep, she's real good at swimming... yep, he's a doctor.... wonder if that might come into play later). Two of the gang members that I didn't mention with my acting recap were a little stereotypical for me, (we got 1 'bad girl' and 1 'creepy, wide eyed rapist') in a crappier movie they'd have been fine, but with the other performances at hand, they stuck out a little bit. The very last scene was monumentally stupid, (after the 'boat scene', just turn the movie off) tacked on, and felt out of place (not to mention ripping off Wolf Creek and Gremlins). This scene is fairly over the top, completely out of left field, and takes away from the gritty realism and the mood established in the rest of the movie. I hoped it was just a 'deleted scene' only in the unrated cut, but unfortunately was in the theatrical as well...

So I give this remake.... 7 out of 10 (same score I'd give Hills Have Eyes remake)

Recommend for some great acting in this kind of genre flick, some high tension :o), amazing music, and great 3rd act.

Stay away from goofy gang members, clunky exposition, a few pacing issues, and a just awful final scene.

And that's all I have to say about that.