Last House on the Left remake

As LHotL was no cinematic masterpiece to begin with, and the shockingness of the violence is now tame by today's standards, this is a remake that does have some room to improve upon the original. I will be dissapointed by the lack of cheesy 70's clothing and hairstyles though.

Meh. You won't get any uproar from me; maybe this one won't constantly undercut its horror with stupid comedy scenes of bumbling redneck cops. The original often plays more like a twisted episode of The Dukes of Hazzard than a "horror classic".

Not a big fan of the original, despite some very visceral scenes, but I'm not sure there's much point in this. Besides, it was already a remake anyway, so it's a remake of a remake, which reminds me that I need to see the origina.

I agree that Last House is no cinematic marvel, it does sort of hold a place in Horror Classics realm. The comedy and what not was horribly out of place but when that film got dark it got dark. There are a lot of great, brutal horror moments that, to me anyway, overshadow the cheese and still keeps it a film I hold dear.

But at any rate, I actually welcome a remake as long as they keep the same unapologetic, in-your-face attitude with the violence as the original did.

EDIT - and Aja's Hills was shit? You, sir, are insane.

Is it possible to dumb this down into a PG-13 mess ala "The Fog"/"When a Strangers Calls"? We shall see....

I wonder about these remakes... really, is "Last House On The Left" such a marketable name? As far as sticking to the source material- that stuff is already skimpy. Couldn't they make the same movie, save some money and call it, "Houses At The End Of The Lane"? I doubt anyone would care.

This falls into the same category as Willard for me. There's plenty of room to go up on this one. I doubt that it will go as far up as the Willard remake, but we can hope.

This news doesn't bother me in the slightest. I absolutely hate the original, and it's always amazed me that it's held in such high regard. Boring characters, a complete lack of a coherent plot, and bad performances does not amount to a classic film by any stretch of the imagination. Sure it had a mean tone, but it did nothing even remotely interesting with it, meandering from scene to scene in an attempt to shock and horrify in the most simplistic and laughable ways possible, and failing miserably every single time. I'll never understand how this film garnered Craven the reputation as a master of the genre. Even his most famous work, ANOES, was a direct ripoff of a far superior film, Dreamscape.

fab, that title you've suggested for this remake, (Houses at the End of the Lane) sounds rather conspicuously like The Little Girl Who Lives Down The Lane, which was infinitely better than TLHOTL, and it's actually a great little film.

I wholeheartedly share your opinion Alex, THHE remake is shit, plain and simple.

Craven fans, feel free to hate me at your convenience.

I wouldn't go far as to call it shit, But THHE remake didn't quite meet my expectations. At least the acting was good, the characterizations were above average for the genre, but all in all, wasn't a fan.

Last House on the Left, I am a fan of, until the opening credits stop rolling.

When in NOES does Freddy Krueger use his dream powers to save the president?

Obviously that wound up on the cutting room floor, along with it's original title:A Nightmare on Pennsylvania Ave.

It's a shame really, cause Saxon delivered one hell of a performance as The Commander In Chief in that version.

You know, the general fanboy wisdom is that Nighmare on Elm Street is a ripoff of Phantasm. I can see that one. But this Dreamscape business is just bizarre.

Incidentally, Craven must work real fast, because Nightmare and Dreamscape came out the same year.

Actually, we're living that movie right now.

See, this is an instance where a remake is needed. The original is garbage, so let's try again. Stay away from the classics, (You hear me, Zombie!)

Lose the explotation angle, the showing of the rape and go for the emotional power.

'Needed' is a bit strong wording.

This doesn't make any sense. You actually want the remake of a classic exploitation film (all personal opinions aside), heralded for its nastiness to be watered down?
I do understand why people feel the film's reputation is undeserved, but this remake is obviously going to be built on that rep, so to not deliver a raunchy piss in the face of filmgoers in the spirit of the original would be a mistake (which is what's going to happen anyway).

Personally, I'm far more partial to Ruggero Deodato's "House on the Edge of The Park", and anyone who has seen it probably knows exactly what I'm talking about.

fixed

The "People Under the Stairs" was Craven's first attempt at parody, and failed miserably in my opinon. Letting the kids live was unforgivable. I'd put the cut off at "The Serpent and The Rainbow".

They both use the exact same plot device. People killing you in your dreams causes you to die in real life. And Damn was Kate Capshaw hot in that flick.

I never really saw the "Phantasm" comparison myself.

Maybe it's just me but I thought the rape was probably the most emotional scene of the film (admittedly I haven't watched in a good while). Cassel sells it incredibly well during and when it's done and she just sort of aimlessly walks into the lake, her entire world ripped apart, you can't help but feel that. Craven was smart there, and he gave the bad guys just a hint of humanity there. I always saw them shooting her as a way of putting her out of her misery and the scene where they're bathing in the lake and you can see it all over them that maybe they went too far. They actually feel bad about that they did. It's brief, but it's a great stroke of filmmaking and incredibly emotional.

A graphic, visceral rape scene is integral to this film. It's all about primal impulses and what it would take for a modern human being to jettison centuries of civilized progress. The only way to involve the audience is to make them feel the same vengeful urges.
Ever see the Sopranos episode about Dr. Melfi's rape? We're right there with it in all of it's horribleness. We have to want to see this rapist get "squashed like a bug" the way Melphi does if we are to understand her conflict (whether or not to ask her mafioso patient for help).
Similar is material explored in Hills. I wonder if this remake will find a different angle to set itself apart from the Hills remake. Hills was exploitive in the sense that it presented no inner conflict for the protagonists.

A remake on a remake!
I wonder if Ingmar Bergman is getting any money for this?

I almost forgot about this detail-David Patrick Kelly's character (Tommy Ray Glatman:Bob Blair's dream assasin) sported finger knives in the final dream sequence. The fact that these films came out in the same year makes it all the more suspicious. Dreamscape came out several months before Cravens Nightmare.

The rape is important I guess, but we don't need to see it. Such a vile act, we never need to see stuff like that recreated. The aftermath of things like this is always more interesting.

It would be nice too if they leave out the bumbbling cops and the even worse music.

This could be a more realistic version of Kill Bill. Take a nice, conservative family, innocent young women out to have fun and BOOM! It's all ripped apart with this heinous act. Then it begins again with the parents getting their crack at revenge. Have them confused and conflicted over the thought of lowering themselves to 'that level.' Make it a believeable decent into animal instincts and frontier-style justice. I don't think the original went that way, the parents had no qualms and just did it.


The only thing I liked from the original was the chisel to teeth! Eeeeeesh.

Am I the only one who likes Swamp Thing? I think he did a decent job of a variation on the Frankenstien story and making it into a sweet love story. I watched it not too long ago and it holds up great. Still one of my favorites.

I agree on Craven though, such a schitzo career. Much like Tobe Hoopers.
I think Wes is just a very lucky guy hooked up with the right people at the right time because out of all of his films not one exhibits any particular style, like a John Carpenter for instance. None of his films feel connected to him.

Right, because we wouldn't want anything horrific happening in a horror movie. I've heard this sentiment before, and I still don't understand it. Why is it perfectly acceptable to see a dozen people eviscerated and hung on meathooks, but one rape, and it's "Oh, that's going too far"? Is rape really a worse thing to witness than murder?

[QUOTE=General Zod]The rape is important I guess, but we don't need to see it. Such a vile act, we never need to see stuff like that recreated. The aftermath of things like this is always more interesting.

You guess? You do know what film we're talking about here, right?

I find it very, very odd that you choose to evoke, out of all revenge themed films, Kill Bill.
I actually do understand the mentality when it comes to being more comfortable w/ scenes of gory violence rather than rape. A rape scene can kind of take you out of a film and make you wonder what exactly were the intentions of the filmmaker, and rape in general distorts a pleasurable act w/ sadism and brutality, perhaps taking your mind places that it may not wish to go. Whereas we're taught that killing someone is, depending upon the circumstance, an acceptable act.

All of that is really sick and fucked up, I'll give you that.

None of that, however, makes up for the dichotomy as Nigel and myself see it.

Yes.

Just sayin rape is something I don't like to see in a film. For me, the aftermath of said act is usually more dramatically interesting. You guys make good points, I just don't think it's THAT important to show a chick get raped.

But it is that important to show a dozen people getting eviscerated and hung on meathooks. I mean, the movie would lose its purpose without that.

I don't recall the original having such things occur, but yeah, killing is better than rape.

That's an extremely odd sentiment, and one that our penal system doesn't seem to agree with.

No one ever said the laws made sense.

So you're serious then. Of all the heinous things that have ever been done to human beings in horror films, from being disemboweled with farming implements to having creatures bust out of their ribcages, showing a rape is the thing that's over the line? Given a choice between being stabbed in the head with a machete, and being raped, stabbed in the head is preferable?

Strange.

Yeah, I'm all for showing the rape. If the right people get on this project(don't ask me to name names. I have no idea who the right people would be), this could be made into a fantastic bit of social commentary, that's also well-made. That's...not common.

Taking out the rape scene robs the scenario of its power. By being there with her as she's ravaged in such a brutal fashion, we're brought entirely into her world. We must witness her suffering, and it's a powerful thing. How far is man willing to go in order to satiate his primal needs?

I'm with Nigel here; how is it fine to show a veritable massacre in the form of Freddy and Jason type films, with blood and gore flying around, sans motive for the act...and then abominable to show a rape? Could it be just because our society is so sexually repressed? That could very well be one of the defining themes of the remake.

Rape has nothing to do with sex, my friend. It's about power and brutality. I'm sorry, I don't need to see that shit.

The Freddy & Jason movies are removed so far from any type of reality that the killings border on comedy. Those movies are barely watchable yet they entertain us with the creative ways to kill the characters. Real life never creeps into those films.

When I see a chick get raped, it brings reality to the forefront and makes for a disgusting ride.

I'm just saying, personally, rape is something I don't like to ever see in a movie. As I said too, it's usually more dramatically interesting to see the aftermath of an attack like that. The reactions, the actions, the course taken because of said act.

That's therapeutic theory designed to help the victim recover. It has little to do with the reality. Unfortunately, rape has a great deal to do with sex where the perpetrator is concerned. If it didn't, he could feed his compulsion by simply committing any violent act. But beating someone up doesn't do it for him. Rape is a twisted sexual act, a perversion of a sexual act, but still a sexual act, regardless of how the therapists choose to express it. Yes, it also involves power, but that's simply part of it.

Of course, that has nothing to do with movies, and I think Shmun is on to something when he says that it's related to the American repression of sex. This culture has always glorified violence while demonizing sex. The idea that any violent act, no matter how revolting, placed in the context of a horror movie, can be seen as entertaining, or even get a laugh from the audience, is pretty disturbing when you get right down to it. But the idea that an act of sexual violation is more taboo and disgusting than an act of murder is downright psychotic.

And before you flip out, I'm not calling you psychotic. You're just expressing the values of the culture. It's the culture that's psychotic.

You do have a point. Americans are a pack of Puritanical assholes when it comes to the laying of the pipe. Be that as it may, for me, the beauty of sex and the ugliness of rape should never connect on any level. I do see your point about the movie, if done right and with a fair of taste, the rape scene could provide plenty of narrative power.

Ebert loves the original. Four Stars.

Mind you, I wouldn't want to see just any old horror movie working over the subject. The kind of director who would make a Friday the 13th movie or The Howling IX shouldn't be messing with it. But when you look at a film like Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, you can see how something like that is handled if it's integral to the story and characters. Obviously, you're looking at another level of horror there.

Interestingly, the rape scene in the original Last House on the Left is one of the very few scenes that I found effective or memorable. If the remake could keep that intact, and shore up the rest of the story, it could work very well.

Actually, Ebert gave LHOTL a 3.5, but yeah, I disagree with him now and then.

Especially lately. The man has developed some kind of brain damage. Either that, or placing his thumb in a downward position has become painful.

My suggestion then would be to rent only PG/G rated films. Horror at it's essence is about pushing the boundaries of comfort. When you don't want to see what is happening on the screen is when it is at it's most effective.


And nice summation that Rape isn't just about power, Nigel.

I think I figured out how we can package rape to mainstream America:

Just make it absolutely batshit insane. Like an amputee being raped by three clowns in full-garb, on the back of an elephant, with fireworks bursting in the sky and play-by-play commentary by Leonard Nemoy and Morgan Freeman.

I mean, we accept and laugh at violence if it's got an absurd aura. Why not try it with other things?

What bugs me is that America eats up the CSI type shows where a woman is tortured and terrorized every other week, but showing two people having normal sex, or even lying naked in bed together, is too shocking for television. This culture is so fucked up it isn't even amusing anymore.

Alas we agree! The original just seems like they had one, maybe two really effective scenes wrapped around a bunch of shit. The stupid music for the thugs sounds like something out of a Smokey and the Bandit sequel. Driving down the road in a convertable fucking, kinda funny, but it played too broad.
The bumbling cops act like F- Troop rejects and it's paced like a dead man walking. Bring this remake on. I know this made money, but how Craven ever got any legitmate jobs after this is a strange one. I recall the video box had some great imagery. As a kid going to the vid store I always wondered why the fuck was a girl lying in the middle of a giant hand.

Tell me about it. I hate CSI, so I know what you mean. A gunshot to the face or a hooker being violated is ok, but an orgasm is not. Makes sense.

America is a great place, but we are basically children when it comes to stuff like this. Being stupid doesn't help either. Why else would shit like Home Improvement or American Idol be a hit in the ratings?