web
counter
 

A Reach Exceeding its Grasp

By Steven Lloyd Wilson | Posted Under Film Reviews | Comments (61)



3287_12855919467.jpg

Amusingly, this film was showing in the last theater on the right. The last theater on the left featured a showing of Watchmen starting at about the same time. I was terribly tempted to make an honest mistake, but had this review ended up being about Garret Dillahunt’s fantastic blue penis, I doubt that it would have held up to scrutiny.

Let’s be honest: you know what happens in this film. The original is over 30 years old, and even if you haven’t seen it, you’ve read about it online. Even if you haven’t, any commercial for the film spells out the essential plot details from start to finish. If you have still managed to erect a cocoon of spoiler-free living, why are you seeing this film? Did you see the title at the box office, and just say “golly, I love houses, and I’m left handed, it’s sure to be a winner!”? In that case, just go rent Titanic, your wonderful naivety needs the happy ending.

The question then becomes the same one that plagues cover songs: if Bob motherfucking Dylan made a song famous, what are you going to do differently to make it your own? This is the trap that killed the remake of Psycho, shot-for-shot leeching the soul out of the original. Homage is just mutual masturbation unless you shoot for something greater. Last House on the Left succeeds at reaching but falls short in the execution of its grasp.

It wasn’t a bad film, but it wasn’t a great film. It seemed to be very uncertain of what it actually wanted to be, swinging between moments of casual brutality and over the top horror movie gore. The film works during the former, not so much during the latter. The original film is legendary. Brutal. Over the top. Complex. Surreal. But it was not necessarily all that great of a film independent of the context of its cultural shock. This remake gets points for genuinely attempting to make something different and significant.

The movie starts out strongly, with casual and shocking violence. A naked joy in the killing. It’s not creative horror movie murder, it’s just raw brutality. And that’s what makes it work.

Garret Dillahunt does an excellent job with what he is given, pulling off a credible monster as he did in “Deadwood” (twice!), “ER,” and Terminator. He gets the best lines, the only real humor in the film, and is rapidly setting himself up as a darker version of Alan Rickman for this generation. His cohorts acquit themselves well. Riki Lindhome (Sadie) is vicious and seems to be channeling a particularly psychotic Drusilla throughout (I don’t have a personal quota for “Buffy” references, but the physical appearance and mannerisms are eerily similar). Aaron Paul (Francis) is creepy in a weasel-like way, managing both a craving for violence and a hilariously delusional self confidence. Spencer Treat Clark (Justin) has moved on from being that kind of funny looking kid in Gladiator, Unbreakable and Mystic River to being in many ways the central character of this film. He is the only character who develops in a real arc, but we see so little of him outside of the immediate story that we cannot get a real handle on him.

The films cuts away to normal life, normal people. A man, his wife, his daughter. The characters are lightly fleshed out. Dad (John) is a doctor, the daughter (Mari) a swimmer, the mother (Emma) is overprotective. These little characterizations are relevant to the plot’s developments. Tony Goldwyn, Sara Paxton and Monica Potter all do serviceable jobs with these characters, but they don’t seem to have all that much to work with at times. The film is all tension punctuated by violence, so the requisite protagonists don’t evolve so much as respond. To be fair though, these characters are not horror movie idiots. They don’t necessarily make the optimum choices, but they are fundamentally sensible.

A curious undercurrent of sexuality runs throughout the film. The camera lingers on Mari’s body as she changes clothes, strips down to swim, all skinny long legs and elbows. It’s innocent, even when she and a friend smoke out with Justin in his hotel room, trying to finagle his clothes and hair into cuteness. The innocence stops when Sadie pushes into the room and promptly peels her shirt off without preamble to root around for other clothes. Fondling and groping once kidnapped, not even sexual so much as possessive. Stripping a captive down to use her clothes as rope. Pressuring Justin to pick one girl to rape, his father’s hands roughly guiding. Sex as a tool of dominance. Krug rapes Mari because she doesn’t fear him. Emma seduces Francis to stall for time. It’s still sex as a tool.

Where the film really fails is in the second half, which is so disappointing because that’s where the heart of the film should be. It swings the pendulum both ways: the hunters and then the hunters as the hunted, normal people transformed into something horrible out of necessity. The problem is that this is where the lousy horror movie exhibitionism comes in, as if the director did not even realize that the first half was so effective because of its casualness. It deteriorates into a snuff film at the point John and Emma realize the truth of their guests and their inability to escape. The cultivated tension of the first half deflates. You know that the criminals are going to die, and the question really just becomes about how creatively they will go.

And the more creative, the less effective it gets. Garbage disposal, drowning in the sink, wine bottle to the head, claw hammer, fireplace poker, butcher’s knife, fire extinguisher, pistol, head-on-a-stick in a microwave? These are suburban middle-aged parents killing out of necessity, not Freddie and Jason. The real problem isn’t even that it gets kind of silly; it’s that the attention to reality slips as well. The characters kick the living shit out of each other, blunt force trauma after blunt force trauma. This middle aged doctor takes blows to the body and head better than Rocky, none the worse for wear. It’s the bad action movie cliché: sticks and stones may break my bones, but only penetrating injuries can cause death or disability.

John is a surgeon, as is made abundantly clear at the film’s beginning in which he comfortably deals with blood and gore in the emergency room. That sets him up for a fascinating story arc that never materializes. Hands of a healer becoming the hands of a killer? Nope. Medical expertise and a comfort with blood combining with violent necessity to produce a devastating effectiveness? Of course not, a paring knife to the carotid would be far less natural to an experienced surgeon than whaling on everyone in sight with a poker from the fireplace.

It’s frustrating because one can see throughout the film moments of where it could have been so much better. There are two families here, one of love and one of violence, but families with loyalty nonetheless. There is the potential for a beautiful intertwining of two stories: a boy rejecting the monstrosity of his father, a father becoming a monster on behalf of his daughter. It seems at quiet moments to realize its potential as a meditation on violence, but jettisons that too often for the cheesy violence of bad horror. It does not seem to realize that its most horrific moments are not filled with blood, but with Garret Dillahunt’s smile.

The film is really two films in one, split in about equal running time. There is the first story of horror and death, and the second story of revenge and life. There needs to be a third story - the story of what comes after.

So is it a good film? Is it worth seeing? It has good moments. It doesn’t go freaky deaky hippie dippie like the original did at points. It’s not a bad film, it’s just a frustrating one. If you’ve got a hankering for some new horror, I’d say it’s worth seeing. I’d rather watch a film in which the director reached for something great and came up short than endure one of the nominally more entertaining but ultimately pointless popcorn flicks.

Steven Lloyd Wilson is the last scion of Norse warriors and the forbidden elder gods. He is a hopeless romantic who can be found wandering San Diego’s strip malls and suburbs looking for his mislaid soul and waiting for the revolution to come. Burning Violin is still published weekly on Wednesdays at www.burningviolin.com, along with assorted fiction and other ramblings.









Stephen King's It Remake | Music News 03/16/09













Comments

stipe, this was a beautifully written (what I think is your) first movie review, albeit a little spoiler-y. I'm glad you're doing reviews as well and not just philosophical ponderings (much as I love them). Kudos.

Posted by: jamiepants at March 16, 2009 11:12 AM

Yeah, so, I already posted a comment on this movie over on the box-office roundup, but I just can't let this go: there were at least 20 kids under 10 years old in the theater for this movie!!! One group poured in looking like they were on a field trip. WTF?
And, by the way, I enjoyed the movie. I am a big fan of the original, and I'll admit my expectations weren't too high for the re-make (because, well, they usually aren't that great), but I enjoyed it. I agree with most of the points made in the review, but I still enjoyed both halves of the movie.

At the showing I attended there were several under ten year olds with parents, and one baby who started crying at several points. I don't mind seeing teenagers in the R-rated films by themselves: if you're old enough to sneak in, well that's a rite of passage. But taking your five year old to watch people get raped and murdered? You should lose your breeding card. Crap like this is why I stay home and watch movies on my big screen. That and the $14 hot dog and soda. I'd pay real money to go to the theater with steak and beer that Prisco wrote about. -stipe42

Posted by: puregonzo at March 16, 2009 11:14 AM

"Its most horrific moments are not filled with blood, but with Garret Dillahunt’s smile". So so true, that dude is the embodiment of creepytude. I know that's not a word, but it should be. With this man's picture attached.

Posted by: Irina at March 16, 2009 11:18 AM

Stipe I didn’t read your review because basically, well, it was written by you. You are a blowhard that delights in hearing your own voice. The thought of you sitting in your basement writing the outline of your next piece for pajiba makes me sick. You remind me of the junior college Business professor from the Tom Cruise movie “Cocktail.”

Posted by: Pookie at March 16, 2009 11:21 AM

I've never seen either version of Last House on the Left because it sounds an awful lot like a remake of The Virgin Spring--a movie whose memory I don't want tarnished. Has anyone out there seen all three? Am I avoiding LHotL for nothing?

Posted by: Inaras at March 16, 2009 11:49 AM

Is this genre dead yet? I watched "Ghost Ship" again over the weekend. Not a great movie, but entertaining. It was the last of the decent Dark Castle movies of the early 2000's. What got me was that after years of torture porn and remakes a derivative but original movie like "Ghost Ship" comes across as both out of step with the time and a welcome change. It hits somewhat predictable plot points but at least there is a damn arc and a conclusion that ends somewhat happily. Not just "psychos terrorize victims, victims take revenge (sometimes) the end". These movies are just so damn boring.

Nice review though.

Posted by: TylerDFC at March 16, 2009 11:53 AM

I was thinking more of the business professor from "Back To School". He's much more erudite.

Posted by: Mrcreosote at March 16, 2009 11:58 AM

Really nice piece Stipe42.

I'm not into this sort of movie at all, but I enjoy your thoughts and writing style.

Posted by: Cindy at March 16, 2009 12:05 PM

Erudite me! No, erudite you!

Posted by: Pookie at March 16, 2009 12:06 PM

I got some thoughts for you honey. Deep thoughts, deep penetrating probing thoughts.

Posted by: Pookie at March 16, 2009 12:12 PM

This is one of the only remakes I actually could get behind, only because I found some of the elements of the original to be distractingly bad--like the music, and the idiot cops--but the core of the movie to be thrillingly and genuinely scary. I'm glad to hear the remake isn't a total disaster.

Posted by: Lindsay at March 16, 2009 12:17 PM

Inaras, according to Roger Ebert, there have been "four films inspired by the same 13th century folk ballad: Ingmar Bergman's "The Virgin Spring" (1960), Wes Craven's "The Last House on the Left" (1972), David DeFalco's "Chaos" (2005) and now Dennis Iliadis' remake of the 1972 film, also titled "The Last House on the Left."

It doesn't sound so much like a remake as just another version of the same story/source material. I haven't seen any of them, so I can't say one way or the other.

Posted by: Elsie at March 16, 2009 12:26 PM

I wasn't going to see this anyway, but I can't believe Monica Potter is playing the "mother to the teenage daughter" already. She only looks about 30-32 years old. I guess I should be happy she's working at all.

On seeing Monica Potter's name attached, my first thought was that she seemed a bit old to pull off a teenager, but hey, the CW has made an entire network on the premise. I was mildly stunned when she turned out to be the mom. -stipe42

Posted by: Brie at March 16, 2009 12:34 PM

I commented on the original post that said this movie was being done a while back, and the awesome (and conspicuously absent of late) Ranylt pointed me to The Virgin Spring. I subsequently purchased and watched it, and it is lovely, despite the subject matter. Absolutely beautiful movie.

Since I saw and loved the first Last House before having seen the Bergman, I don't know if I'm qualified to say whether it will taint your memory; I can say that each gave me an appreciation for the other. Actually, I'm planning a back-to-back viewing one of these days for specifically that reason.

Either way, I'm planning to avoid this one, or at least until it's on DVD or cable. Nicely written review, stipey. (You don't mind if I call you stipey, do you? I feel we're at that level.)

You can call me anything you like, Ms. Beaverplatz. Pookie certainly does. Heh. -stipe42

Posted by: Anna von Beaverplatz at March 16, 2009 12:48 PM

Pookie, we're past that stuff now. You have to find someone else to play that game.

Posted by: Cindy at March 16, 2009 1:19 PM

Well La De Da, no problem Miss Cindy.

Posted by: Pookie at March 16, 2009 1:26 PM

So you don't like $14 dollar hot dogs Stipe? That ain't what I heard.

Posted by: Pookie at March 16, 2009 1:31 PM

Inaras, according to Roger Ebert, there have been "four films inspired by the same 13th century folk ballad: Ingmar Bergman's "The Virgin Spring" (1960), Wes Craven's "The Last House on the Left" (1972), David DeFalco's "Chaos" (2005) and now Dennis Iliadis' remake of the 1972 film, also titled "The Last House on the Left."

Ebert missed one: giallo director Aldo Lado's 1975 version called Night Train Murders.

Posted by: Ranylt at March 16, 2009 1:55 PM

No la di da - just don't want to waste your time. There are plenty of other girls with whom you can wile away the hours.

With me, you can go deeper.

(OK, I know that was foolish.)

Posted by: Cindy at March 16, 2009 2:06 PM

rapidly setting himself up as a darker version of Alan Rickman for this generation.

I was half-offended at first, but then I realized that the sooner the lovely Mr. Rickman retires from acting, the sooner he may start a career in recording audiobooks. And then I can upload him onto my Ipod and take his panty-dropping sweet-molasses voice everywhere I go.

Posted by: Clee Shay at March 16, 2009 2:11 PM

Cindy I can go as deep as you want me to go.

Posted by: Pookie at March 16, 2009 2:17 PM

Tell me about your childhood.

Posted by: Cindy at March 16, 2009 2:20 PM

...if Bob motherfucking Dylan made a song famous, what are you going to do differently to make it your own?

You have to be talented yourself. Jimi Hendrix made "All Along the Watchtower" his own, and Peter, Paul and Mary made something out of "Blowing in the Wind" their own. Sort of like Zac Snyder with Dawn of the Dead. You need to do something new.

Posted by: George at March 16, 2009 2:21 PM

I was born and raised in Miami, my father was a minister and my mother was a stay to home mom. We were middle class, I had my own bedroom where I spent countless hours listening to music and hanging out with friends. And of course I have issues that I’m dealing with through medication and therapy which is costing me a fortune, but its worth it.

Posted by: Pookie at March 16, 2009 2:34 PM

How'd you end up in Texas?

Posted by: Cindy at March 16, 2009 2:35 PM

I don’t think I’ve ever been in a healthy relationship with a woman in my life. I’ve often falling in love with the wrong woman. My problem is that when I fall in love I don’t know how to do so in a responsible manner, I fall in love 100 mph and that is not healthy at all.

Posted by: Pookie at March 16, 2009 2:39 PM

What about your wife?

I don't think it's necessarily unhealthy. When I met my husband for the first time, I literally felt my heart start pounding in a way it had never done. I saw him across the room and had to walk out. It was weird, but I'm pretty sure it was a good way to go.

Posted by: Cindy at March 16, 2009 2:41 PM

Without going into details, I was offered a large sum of money to come to Texas (yes, I’m a law abiding citizen).

Posted by: Pookie at March 16, 2009 2:42 PM

That's about the only way I'd go.

Oh yes, I remember you are some sort of covert something or other.

Was it worth it? Will you stay or leave? Is it as culturally diverse as Miami where you are (seriously, I know next to nothing about Texas).

Posted by: Cindy at March 16, 2009 2:45 PM

My wife and I have a bizarre relationship I think, sometimes when a person wants love so badly they overlook many negative things. I will admit I’m somewhat overly sensitive, wherein my wife is outspoken. So at times I take everything personally, thus the medication and therapy.

Posted by: Pookie at March 16, 2009 2:46 PM

We are going back to the east coast within the next 2-3 years, yes the money was worth it but in Miami I had a great therapist. Austin is okay but I’m just not feeling it, I miss the water, the food, and the sights and sounds of Miami,

Posted by: Pookie at March 16, 2009 2:49 PM

I feel like I just stumbled into a private therapy session. Or two people fucking. Either way, awwwkwaaaard...

Posted by: Dangle McGee at March 16, 2009 2:56 PM

Isn't that part of the tenets of love and marriage? (To overlook the negative and find the positive?) I'm not sure a relationship can survive without one or both partners doing just that.

I can really relate about being near water - I've lived close to beaches most of my life. Not being able to see the water is like having the life sucked out of me.

Posted by: Cindy at March 16, 2009 3:02 PM

Feel free to move on there Mr. Dangle.

I like to see the other sides of Pookie.

Posted by: Cindy at March 16, 2009 3:03 PM

Every goddamn time I try to show the softer side of myself, every time I try to talk about my feelings I get a motherfucker trying to piss on Pookie. At times I try to be like Kwai Chang Caine and walk a peaceful path, but you motherfuckers don’t want a thoughtful introspective Pookie, you want the War Pookie, well Dangle, I’m not going to play your game.

Posted by: Pookie at March 16, 2009 3:10 PM

Feel free to move on there Mr. Dangle. I like to see the other sides of Pookie. - Cindy

(It's Mrs. Dangle) I'd like to, but, much like the private therapy or the fucking, I can't seem to avert my eyes and move along.

Posted by: Dangle McGee at March 16, 2009 3:20 PM

And, Pookie, I wasn't trying to incur the vengeful wraith of War Pookie. I just felt I had stumbled into something intimate. Carry on, introspective Pookie, carry on.

Posted by: Dangle McGee at March 16, 2009 3:21 PM

Thank you Cindy for your kind words. Yes, love is a very important tenet of marriage, if not the most important part of it. The love I have for my wife ebbs and flows which I’m sure occurs in many marriages. I think marriage is a living thing, it changes shape just like any other living thing, love and marriage is never static.

Posted by: Pookie at March 16, 2009 3:26 PM

Cindy, sometimes I imagine myself in different scenarios with my wife wherein the dynamics of our relationship were reversed. My role as the sensitive one became her role, and her role as the outspoken one became my role. My therapist says I like to play the passive-aggressive game, I’m starting to think that maybe I use it as a defensive mechanism.

Posted by: Pookie at March 16, 2009 3:36 PM

Sorry for the mix-up Mrs. D.

Linger if you must, but don't condemn.

Posted by: Cindy at March 16, 2009 3:39 PM

I like to look at marriage like a roller coaster - cliche as it is, it fits for me. Sometimes it looks like you might crash...sometimes you've feel like you've got to close your eyes to get through the ride. Sometimes it feels so exhilarating and grand that you want to throw your arms up and make an ass of yourself. You just have to remember to stay in your car and enjoy the ride.

There's something similar about my marriage's dynamic - and sometimes I wish our roles would revers as well. Maybe you should voice that to your wife, it might come as a relief.

Posted by: Cindy at March 16, 2009 3:45 PM

Communication is not our problem, we talk a lot. She enjoys pushing my buttons more than I do hers. But then again I’m the one in therapy so my problems lie within me.

Posted by: Pookie at March 16, 2009 3:56 PM

"Virgin Spring" looks so much cooler - I'll have to get that on DVD.

Posted by: samantha t at March 16, 2009 4:03 PM

Not necessarily. And I don't think you really believe that anyway. But kudos to you for working on your issues.

I've got to take my leave for now - kids, dinner, yoga class, etc.

Thank you for your candid conversation, Pookie.

Posted by: Cindy at March 16, 2009 4:41 PM

I may be the only one, but I really prefer the Pookie who is a sick-ass, dirty old pervert.

Posted by: grinder at March 16, 2009 4:48 PM

You want the War Pookie grinder? You got it, never again will I reveal my feelings to thee. I will wage war until my journey ends here on this earth or until the internet cease to exist. I have tried to taste the pleasures of the common man, but now I will feast like a tyrant.

Posted by: Pookie at March 16, 2009 5:22 PM

Thanks for understanding Pookie. It's not that I don't care about your feelings and such. It's just that dirty Pookie makes me laugh, turns me on and sometimes makes me puke a little in my mouth.

Posted by: grinder at March 16, 2009 6:17 PM

Throughout the anals of time, man has survived on figs and breads. I will not eat your poisons to survive.

Posted by: Pookie at March 16, 2009 6:37 PM

Pookie, you strike me as the kind of man who thrives on giving and receiving a little poison.

Posted by: grinder at March 16, 2009 7:03 PM

I like the soft side of Pookie. I'm also a wounded creature who can viciously and humorously lash out, although I don't do it here. Maybe I'll start.

Often the most sensitive of us are the ones who appear the most spiky. We need our spikes. We're tender inside.

Posted by: kate the great at March 16, 2009 7:30 PM

Heheh, the anals of time. Heh heh. You said anal. Heh

Posted by: B&B at March 16, 2009 7:58 PM

I completely agree, kate.

Posted by: Cindy at March 16, 2009 8:10 PM

Well grinder like the good book says, it is better to give than receive.

Posted by: Pookie at March 16, 2009 9:51 PM

Kate are you tender inside?

Posted by: Pookie at March 16, 2009 9:52 PM

Ok, wow -- I lurk here all the time I have been for many years, though sometimes I go for long periods without my Pajib... but holy shit, I'm glad I decided to lurk today on THIS review, because, Pookie you've blown my mind -- in a good way. I kind of have a soft spot for you now!

Posted by: little ya at March 16, 2009 10:39 PM

Are you listening Rowles? I make people de-lurk like the lovely "little ya." But do you show me any interest, fuck no. how much longer do you think I’m going to be around here? At this moment you’re sitting on the bed naked in your motel room holding a half naked picture of Ryan Reynolds and listening to that plus-size homo Kevin Smith’s affirmation tapes. Fuck it, I’m tired of wasting my time trying to better this site. From this moment on I’m just going to speak my mind and stop being so considerate of other peoples feelings.

Posted by: Pookie at March 16, 2009 11:20 PM

Sometimes I like to just sit in the dark upstairs listening to Stevie Wonder’s “Songs in the Key of Life” album. I can fully look back on my life and wonder how did I reach this point. Like everyone I have some regrets, I have some questions, but very few answers. At this point do I even want the answers, or am I content in my sometimes unhappiness? Sometimes when I’m talking to my therapist I just wish he could just reach inside of me and fix what is broken without me having to bare my soul to him. Like a friend once told me, when you are drowning and someone is trying to help you, you must be more than a ambivalent participant.

Posted by: Pookie at March 16, 2009 11:46 PM

I've been an ambivalent participant in my own life for far too long.

And yes, Pookie, I'm tender inside. Can't you see these spikes? They're not JUST for decoration. Oh, I know, they're lovely. I know.

Posted by: kate the great at March 17, 2009 4:54 AM

I am surprised and disappointed in this website. From what I've heard of this movie, it sounds very much in the same spirit of "Captivity," which inspired the reviewer's bile.
This description made me feel physically ill: "Fondling and groping once kidnapped, not even sexual so much as possessive. Stripping a captive down to use her clothes as rope. Pressuring Justin to pick one girl to rape, his father’s hands roughly guiding. Sex as a tool of dominance. Krug rapes Mari because she doesn’t fear him. Emma seduces Francis to stall for time. It’s still sex as a tool."

What the Hell, Pajiba? I've been reading this website for a while, but this is the first time I've been inspired to comment.

Posted by: S at March 17, 2009 8:58 PM

Whoa! Calm down cowboy. That description should make you physically ill, it is describing very horrible things, and was not intended to arouse or titillate. That is what makes this movie very different from something like Captivity: the brutality towards Mari is not filmed as provocative or exploitative, it is filmed as an utter violation. I hesitated in the writing of the review whether even to include the paragraph that offended you exactly because it is such a difficult subject. What made me include it was a desire to emphasize something that the film really got right, regardless of how off track it got in the second half in slasher movie tripe. The film really understood the idea that rape and sexual violence have little to do with sex and everything to do with power. Films like the deplorable Captivity go in the opposite direction in the direction of the pornographic: they sexualize violence and abuse.

By all means keep reading and keep commenting, that's what makes this the best damned place on them there interwebs.

Posted by: Steven Lloyd WilsonAuthor Profile Page at March 17, 2009 10:24 PM

Excellent review. It's rare I read a review that I really agree with, one that takes the intentions of the filmmakers and weighs that against their success. There was something about this film that overall didn't quite work, and I think it's what you were saying about not taking things far enough thematically, a healer turning into a monster, and that kind of thing. Good stuff, so thanks!

Posted by: Alison Locke at April 2, 2009 7:23 PM


















Viral Hits

>> Pajiba Movie Posters

>> Pop Culture's 20 Greatest Dancing GIFs

>> Mindhole Blowers

>> The 100 Greatest Insults of All Time

>> The "Other" 100 Greatest Movie Quotes

>> The 100 Greatest Movie Threats of All Time

>> The Sean Bean Death Reel

>> Chicks Dig Beards: It's Science

>> The Coolest TV Show Title Sequences

>> The Most Rewatchable Movies

>> The Most Expensive Movies of All Time