First of all, I was a little surprised at myself for being intrigued by the trailer for this particular "remake/reboot", whatever you want to call it. It had been years since I had viewed the 'uncut' version of the the original film, which was an uneven, but unforgettable and unparalleled exercise in the graphic display of man's capability for inhumanity to others of his species. One time was all I needed to watch it, because once was nearly more than enough.
Nevertheless, I see so few movies these days, let alone horror movies. The contempt most studios have for them is palpable, the way that films from the last two or three decades are being remade and watered down to the lowest PG-13 common denominator, for maximum profits made with minimum overhead. And for the most part it shows.
But with original filmmakers Craven and Sean Cunningham on board as executive producers, I saw a faint glimmer of hope that this wouldn't come across as yet another piece of Hollywood tripe.
So now, having seen it in its Unrated form, I can weigh in on the pros and cons. First, the pros: there are more than enough nods to the original to satisfy the die-hards out there who can recite the movie chapter and verse, and I give kudos to both the director, Dennis Illiadis, and screenwriters Adam Alleca and Carl Ellsworth for showing a little backbone in the way they incorporated these acknowledgments. For example: there are two cops in this new version as in the predecessor, and their presence as the bumbling backwoods "comedy relief" was one of the more controversial aspects of the first film. Fans and the curious need not be worried: what happens with these cops is anything but comedic, and that particular subplot gets resolved quick, fast and in a hurry, as if to effectively "fix" the past mistake.
Another questionable "pro" is the way the sequence in the woods is handled. Mercifully, the torture/disembowelment is not nearly as graphic or protracted and Paige's demise is pretty swift. What happens instead is that the rape of Mari by Krug is the longest, most realistic ordeal I have seen yet on film. Several times I wanted to either get up and leave the room or put the movie on 'pause' - it was that disturbing...more so than in the original, which I didn't think was possible. I don't know if I should congratulate the actors and the director, or recommend that they all go into intensive therapy. If the sequence was meant to justify the parents' actions later on in the film, it definitely succeeded.
As for the cons, one of the first of many is the subplot about the dead older brother. I don't remember any of this from the original, nor the sense of marital strain caused by the residue of the tragedy. And the additional wrinkle of the father being a surgeon in a hospital ER. I know that details like these go a long way to "flesh out" the characters, but one of the things that made the original so shocking was the simplicity. We didn't know the girls, the killers or the parents that well and we didn't have to. It was about the action of the senseless slaughter of two young women, and the violently equal and opposite reaction from a couple of "decent human beings" who accessed their inner savageness to avenge the death of a loved one.
The BIGGEST con, of course (at least for me) was the ending. Everything leading up to it was brutal, violent and harrowing (ignoring some glaring plot holes), but not outside the realm of possibility. The only way I can define the absurdity of the ending is that it was like watching what would've happened if De Palma had grafted the climax of THE FURY onto the end of BLOW OUT. It takes you out of everything that happened before with a cartoonish, jaw- dropping sequence. Which is a shame, because the rest of the film is actually not bad for a remake.
The casting fared a little better, but the anonymity of the actors from the original wasn't there to lend this a more realistic feel. Not to say the performances were bad. Tony Goldwyn (GHOST) and Monica Potter (ALONG CAME A SPIDER) are very good as Mari's parents, and a buffed-out Garret Dillahunt (DEADWOOD, TERMINATOR: THE SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES) goes for the gold as Krug, nearly out-smarming the role's creator, David Hess. But unlike the remainder of the cast, their familiarity keeps you from that sense of having to repeat the old tag-line: "It's Only A Movie...Only A Movie."
Sara Paxton and Martha McIsaac as Mari and Paige, respectively, are okay, but their biggest problem is underwritten roles, but especially in Paige's case. But the places that Paxton and Dillahunt had to go with that rape scene are hard to imagine, and I credit them for being able to trust one another to deliver something that raw and intense. Special note has to be made here to recognize Spencer Treat Clark as Krug's son, Justin, who comes across as much a victim of his father's psychotic sadism as anyone else in the movie. He is as vulnerable, sympathetic and memorable as a Ben Foster or Elijah Wood - keep your eye out for this young actor.
All-in-all, I want to give LAST HOUSE an eight, but have to dock it a point for the ending. As much as the chief villain deserved to get his comeuppance, it would've been much more satisfying, less of a gimmick and more in keeping with the tone of the film, if Justin had been given the chance to blow the bastard's head off. Just my opinion.
Nevertheless, I see so few movies these days, let alone horror movies. The contempt most studios have for them is palpable, the way that films from the last two or three decades are being remade and watered down to the lowest PG-13 common denominator, for maximum profits made with minimum overhead. And for the most part it shows.
But with original filmmakers Craven and Sean Cunningham on board as executive producers, I saw a faint glimmer of hope that this wouldn't come across as yet another piece of Hollywood tripe.
So now, having seen it in its Unrated form, I can weigh in on the pros and cons. First, the pros: there are more than enough nods to the original to satisfy the die-hards out there who can recite the movie chapter and verse, and I give kudos to both the director, Dennis Illiadis, and screenwriters Adam Alleca and Carl Ellsworth for showing a little backbone in the way they incorporated these acknowledgments. For example: there are two cops in this new version as in the predecessor, and their presence as the bumbling backwoods "comedy relief" was one of the more controversial aspects of the first film. Fans and the curious need not be worried: what happens with these cops is anything but comedic, and that particular subplot gets resolved quick, fast and in a hurry, as if to effectively "fix" the past mistake.
Another questionable "pro" is the way the sequence in the woods is handled. Mercifully, the torture/disembowelment is not nearly as graphic or protracted and Paige's demise is pretty swift. What happens instead is that the rape of Mari by Krug is the longest, most realistic ordeal I have seen yet on film. Several times I wanted to either get up and leave the room or put the movie on 'pause' - it was that disturbing...more so than in the original, which I didn't think was possible. I don't know if I should congratulate the actors and the director, or recommend that they all go into intensive therapy. If the sequence was meant to justify the parents' actions later on in the film, it definitely succeeded.
As for the cons, one of the first of many is the subplot about the dead older brother. I don't remember any of this from the original, nor the sense of marital strain caused by the residue of the tragedy. And the additional wrinkle of the father being a surgeon in a hospital ER. I know that details like these go a long way to "flesh out" the characters, but one of the things that made the original so shocking was the simplicity. We didn't know the girls, the killers or the parents that well and we didn't have to. It was about the action of the senseless slaughter of two young women, and the violently equal and opposite reaction from a couple of "decent human beings" who accessed their inner savageness to avenge the death of a loved one.
The BIGGEST con, of course (at least for me) was the ending. Everything leading up to it was brutal, violent and harrowing (ignoring some glaring plot holes), but not outside the realm of possibility. The only way I can define the absurdity of the ending is that it was like watching what would've happened if De Palma had grafted the climax of THE FURY onto the end of BLOW OUT. It takes you out of everything that happened before with a cartoonish, jaw- dropping sequence. Which is a shame, because the rest of the film is actually not bad for a remake.
The casting fared a little better, but the anonymity of the actors from the original wasn't there to lend this a more realistic feel. Not to say the performances were bad. Tony Goldwyn (GHOST) and Monica Potter (ALONG CAME A SPIDER) are very good as Mari's parents, and a buffed-out Garret Dillahunt (DEADWOOD, TERMINATOR: THE SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES) goes for the gold as Krug, nearly out-smarming the role's creator, David Hess. But unlike the remainder of the cast, their familiarity keeps you from that sense of having to repeat the old tag-line: "It's Only A Movie...Only A Movie."
Sara Paxton and Martha McIsaac as Mari and Paige, respectively, are okay, but their biggest problem is underwritten roles, but especially in Paige's case. But the places that Paxton and Dillahunt had to go with that rape scene are hard to imagine, and I credit them for being able to trust one another to deliver something that raw and intense. Special note has to be made here to recognize Spencer Treat Clark as Krug's son, Justin, who comes across as much a victim of his father's psychotic sadism as anyone else in the movie. He is as vulnerable, sympathetic and memorable as a Ben Foster or Elijah Wood - keep your eye out for this young actor.
All-in-all, I want to give LAST HOUSE an eight, but have to dock it a point for the ending. As much as the chief villain deserved to get his comeuppance, it would've been much more satisfying, less of a gimmick and more in keeping with the tone of the film, if Justin had been given the chance to blow the bastard's head off. Just my opinion.