Review: The Last House on the Left
Filed under: Horror, Thrillers, Mystery & Suspense, Theatrical Reviews, Remakes and Sequels

As a culture, we tend to recycle our stories, and no, not always out of laziness or a need for one big opening weekend (though that plays an increasing part). No, the old and the familiar play out time and time again because their conflicts and themes resonate across generations, and because the scenario at hand might lend itself to more apt commentary as time passes and people change. In terms of genre, rarely does this seem more common than with tragedies, and in turn, horror films in particular have a habit of bringing the boogeymen back to haunt us. That's the reason zombies won't stay dead. That's the reason body snatchers insist on invading. And that might be the reason why a fourth incarnation of The Last House on the Left is now willing -- and able -- to force itself upon our collective conscience.
Why else would we return yet again to the tale of a young girl (Sara Paxton) raped and left for dead by some Very Bad Men? Surely, the appeal extends beyond the mere desire to see her parents (Tony Goldwyn and Monica Potter) exact retribution upon the criminals who inadvertently seek shelter in their home, to the greater moral quandary of whether or not one would lower themselves to the level of violence they've suffered at the hands of others. It's a dilemma first suggested by the olden Swedish ballad "Töre's Daughter in Vänge," then Ingmar Bergman's 1960 pensive (read: black and white and subtitled) drama The Virgin Spring, then Wes Craven's 1972 gritty and grimy and proudly unpleasant incarnation, and then David DeFalco's 2005 take, Chaos (which, despite shunning its initial label as an admitted remake, still stands too similarly to ignore).
And now, with Craven producing and relative newcomer Dennis Iliadis directing, The Last House on the Left returns to the screen in surprisingly graceful form. That isn't to say that its content is any easier to bear -- the inciting incident is as tough to watch as any rape recently depicted on film, and the ensuing retaliation at the hands of the parents earns its share of flinches. While the thugs in their sights, led by Krug (Garret Dillahunt), are all convincing menaces, our stakes lie with the family, for which Paxton, Goldwyn, and Potter deserve the most credit. Any girl can scream, but not every actress can suffer, and Paxton plays the role of the victim with a heartbreaking fragility that elicits a sympathy often taken for granted in the genre. It's as unexpectedly powerful a turn in a thriller since Naomi Watts in Funny Games last year, and it suggests more range from her than Aquamarine might've led us to believe. Potter and Goldwyn, meanwhile, are tasked with running the gamut from unwitting hospitality to unrelenting hostility, and they too turn roles of easy sympathy into something more substantial.
Writers Adam Alleca and Carl Ellsworth don't alter the cause and effect of the film and its predecessors, save for two fates, with one changing the stance of attack from vengeance to survival and the other woefully indulging in a last-minute money shot that the rest of the film seems to be consistently above (not to mention spitting in the face of logic, again, as the proceedings rarely do). Their efforts to stack the deck in favor of the family -- they now have a dearly departed son in their past -- work to obvious, but not shameless, ends, and everything else plays out with consistent feasibility. Between director Iliadis and director of photography Sharone Meir, this South Africa shoot comes off convicingly as Anytown, USA, and the stunt people deserve their own special kudos for taking countless tumbles and tackles with equal persuasion.
Of course, convincing rape and persuasive revenge are not going to be everyone's cup of tea, and Last House '09 isn't about to change the minds of the wary. But for those who willingly subject themselves to the harsher experiences that storytelling has to offer, this version is a capably, confidently, and chillingly effective opportunity to place ourselves in the worst possible shoes for a length of time. With exception given to the final scene and that alone, The Last House on the Left pretty much proves perfectly unpleasant.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
3-14-2009 @ 6:13PM
Cailyn said...
I thought this movie was absolutely horrible. Last House On The Left would have been so much better if the rape scene had been left out. I thought it was so unneccesary to have that scene in the movie let alone how long and disgusting it was. If the movie needed the rape scene in it they definately didn't need to have it to detailed, they could have just left that to the viewers imagination. I think there is something wrong with movie writers if they're able to think up this type of thing and think it will make a good movie. I thought the rape scene was kind of degrading and is giving sick people ideas. This movie makes rape seem like something totally ok, and that it's accepted in today's society. The girl who got raped didn't even look old enough to be shown like that in the movie, and that made the rape scene even worse to watch. I think movie writers are running out of ideas and are resorting to crap like this and it's horrible. I literally could not watch the scene and it made me nausious. My boyfriend couldn't watch the scene either and we almost decided to leave the theatre. I felt bad for all of the people in there watching the movie. This rape scene was the worst one i've ever seen throughout my entire life. It was as if someone was forcing me to watch a poor girl get raped in real life. Yes, the acting was amazing but the scene was fucking disgusting. I don't see why people feel the need to put this in films.. It truly ruined the movie and I thought the movie would have been a lot better without that part. This movie really did have the potential to be good but instead it was one of the worst movies i've ever seen.
Reply
3-14-2009 @ 6:13PM
Peter Hall said...
Sounds to me like the rape did exactly what it was supposed to do: rape you as a viewer. That scene, which was handled far more delicately than it has been in other movies, is the most pivotal moment of the film. It is that act and how much it turns off audiences that bonds us with the parents, snaring the viewer to their revenge against Krug and co.
To say LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT would have been better without the rape is like saying SAVING PRIVATE RYAN would have been better without the invasion of Normandy.
3-14-2009 @ 6:14PM
Cailyn said...
i'm sorry, but you sound like a fucking idiot.
there could have been many more options to make revenge just as sweet. yeah, the rape does but it did not have to be as extensive as it was at all.
but hey, i guess we know what audience the movie was made for.
3-15-2009 @ 4:43AM
Peter Hall said...
I sound like a fucking idiot? I'm not the Simple Jack that reaches farther than Stretch Armstrong to some how deduce that LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT not only condones, but glamorizes rape. Going on the details we both clearly watched the same movie, but I can only assume you either fell into a coma at age six or just landed on earth and have never seen a movie. Your inability to interpret one is astounding. Discovery Health has a new speciall on their hands.
Why exactly did you see LAST HOUSE, anyway? What were you expecting? Carebears? Yeah, we know the audience this movie was made for: people with a fucking clue.
3-15-2009 @ 12:20AM
andy kinnan said...
the movie is fucking to stupid, the people who made the movie are sick in the fucking head. The rape part is fucking retarded, and sick. these mother fuckers are sick, and need to burn in hell. Everyone at the movies that I was at, walked out of the movie, talking about how sick it is.
3-15-2009 @ 4:43AM
YouFaceTheTick said...
"Movies don't make psychos. They just make them more creative." - Scream
I haven't seen the remake or original of this film. No real intention. Just found the first post amusing. As for the reply...yes SPR could have started after the Nromandy invasion and it would have been the same story, only 30 minutes shorter. sorry, the beach storming scene was spielberg jerking off on-screen for 30+ minutes; it added nothing to the film. :)
3-15-2009 @ 4:55AM
LOLZ said...
Yet for all that whining, they still got your money. :D
3-15-2009 @ 10:21AM
Peter Hall said...
Idunno, Tick. The Normandy invasion scene is what immerses the viewer into Spielberg's sell of World War II. It's a big shock and awe campaign of movie magic that allows for the more subtle moments later. Does little for the characters, sure, but its what convinces that they are pawns in an unimaginably elaborate machine of war.
3-15-2009 @ 10:22AM
Anonymous said...
k, to me you sound like someone who is very interested in film or the industry. obviously different viewers are going to have different opinions and views of the movie. people who love the industry seem to understand your point of view but people who don't just find the scene disturbing. why would i pay for a movie to get "virtually raped".. I obviously went because I thought it was going to be entertaining, and scary just like the majority of the people did. the ratio of the people who pay to see a movie are just regular people like me, paying for a thrill, and to be entertained... not to be virtually raped as you say, or to be uncomfortable, or disgusted. you seem really immature because you can't take other opinions that don't agree with yours..
sorry i didn't look at the trailer and be like wow i hope that girl gets raped it'll be awesome. i would unwatch the movie if i could.
i respect your opinion on the movie but i have my own. i'm not interested in the film industry and i don't look at things the way you do nor do the majority of the people who watch movies, and i think you should be able to see things from other people's views as well without ripping them apart for it. the majority of the posts saying the rape scene was good are clearly from men.
3-15-2009 @ 10:27AM
William Goss said...
You presume that saying the rape scene is good means the same thing as saying rape is good, and that's simply not true.
And find me a review that describes that scene as merely "good." Some may have gone for "tasteful" or something similarly complimentary, but most admit it's a difficult sit, and so it should be. It's an essential component of the story, and for being something awful to stomach, it both felt as awful as it should and yet didn't cross the line into exploitation as the '70s one did (for me anyway) and as a lot of other films do.
It's a fine line. Some will argue that any rape scene's a bad rape scene. Understandable, but hold that against the story being told and not the people telling it (or the people appreciating it).
3-16-2009 @ 5:56AM
Craig said...
How many people out there think rape is no big deal? How many boys think its not big deal. This film gives a very hard, rough, yet real look at something that is horrible. You can't depict an act so vile without authenticity to bridge the bond of the audience with the parents at the end of the film. It just would not work.
Even the original was graphic. It made me feel violated. It elevated empathy I already had for victims of crime to a new level. The rape scene is not crafted to simply shock an audience, give a thrill, provoke the sick minded or give them ideas.
Movies like this haunt people. It may well haunt some young naieve girl so badly that she never goes off with a stranger, or lets her crazy friend talk her into something stupid that would lead her down a road where she'd very much end up like the girls in this movie.
BTW... the story is based on a true story. A TRUE story. Sure it's not completely accurate, but close enough. Real people do evil things. Sometimes its better to be haunted by a movie than be haunted by a reality.
3-16-2009 @ 5:57AM
Jenn said...
I agree, i wanted my 8 bucks back.
3-16-2009 @ 5:57AM
Walter said...
People have a right to express there artistic visions the way they envision them and the goal is to make movies as realistic as possible.
The woman is an actress and it is just a movie so any intelligent person knows that she wasn't really being raped. Yes, this does really happen in real life and yes there are sick people in this world that engage in sick activities of all sorts but by cutting scenes that's not going to stop sick people from doing sick things.
I understand one would have those feelings if they watched the scene and have been a victim of a rape; it triggering a post traumatic stress reaction.
Life is not all candy coated lolly-pops and gum-drops and we can't change that by taking away a persons right to express the way they see the world through their own eyes; not to mention it was already true story he did not devise this scene from his own sick desires.
Well to each his own you have your opinion I have mine and if you ask me, leaving the scene in or taking it out doesn't change the fact that this REALLY occurred.
3-16-2009 @ 5:58AM
alex said...
In the original, there was also a rape scene. So it was a given that there was going to be rape in the remake, as well. Yes, it was very disturbing and stomach turning, but it happens. It is a good movie because it is realistic. Other than all of those other shit horror movies that just have a masked creature prancing around killing everyone. I really just don't understand why everyone would flip out about the rape scene. People get murdered every day, and horror movies show some brutal murder scenes, yet no one phases it. But once the directors take it to a new level, everyone is rip shit. The directors are "sick in the head"? yet the directors of all of those other horror movies showing the killers tearing out body parts aren't? There were also a lot of old horror movies with rape scenes in them. People just don't know how to handle it now that one new movie has a brutal scene in it.
3-16-2009 @ 3:15PM
jerry said...
First of all the rape scene was the key to the movie. Its what put Craven's original version on the map. Duh its supposed to be unpleasent it wasnt ment to make you simpatize with the rapist and if you did your weird. The movie was ment to take an hour to force the audience to hate these criminals then finally give the audience what they wanted which is the parents revenge which lasted 15 min.
Second this version was a lot kinder. Check out Craven's 70's version. You'll notice that the rape scene is way longer way more graphic, the movie even has a totally different story.
Since you seem like your not a fan of violence maybe next time you'll do alittle research before going to a horror movie.
3-16-2009 @ 11:27AM
Anonymous said...
haha, i'm a huge fan of horror movies and i obviously know life it not always pleasant. i saw the rape scene in the original and from what i saw it was a lot faster and less graphic. this site it for opinions and i happened to state mine. yeah for all that whining they still got my money. the movie the girl next door.. the one made in 2007 i think.. not the porn star one, was based on a true story and it was absolutely horrible to watch but that one was bareable and that made you feel for the characters in the movie. i've seen good movies, and i've seen bad ones. the last house on the left wasn't necessarily bad, but in MY opinion I have seen better. I don't care if you liked the movie, it's not going to change MY opinion. yes rape happens, i'm not living my life in a bubble. and yeah they have the right to put whatever the hell they want in movies but again IN MY OPINION i did not like watching the rape scene.. that's all there is to it? so maybe right your own views and leave mine out of it. you can't grill me because my mind works a little bit differently than yours. i also wasn't saying this movie makes sick people.. in my opinion it's kind of promoting it. BUT i get what everyone on here is saying and those are your opinions, great. i have somewhat of a different view since my first post because i can see where everyone is coming from, but it's still not a movie i would like to see again. that's all :)
3-20-2009 @ 2:57AM
Panda said...
Let me start by saying that I have always hated the original because of how brutal the criminals were. As far as the rape scene it is integral to the film as to make the one by one murder of the criminals seem well deserved. Its heinousness is offset by the parent’s grief and need to take revenge. I have not seen the remake and like I said I was not a fan of the original. These movies are never touted as being “feel good movies” so people that pay to see them then complain or walk out are just plain silly…….what the heck did they expect to see??
3-14-2009 @ 6:14PM
Z.D. said...
The rest of the movie aside, I think the rape scene was as it should have been. Leaving things to the imagination would have been the unethical choice here, considering that there is a contingent of moviegoers out there looking to get off on it. The more disgusting and realistic, the less it caters to them.
Truth be told, I didn't see much point to the movie as a whole, but it made me very happy to see Dillahunt play a lead in a major film. The guy is fantastic in any role he plays, but probably the most overlooked actor out there. I hope this movie is just the first in a very long line of memorable films for him, good, bad or disgusting.
Reply
3-15-2009 @ 4:43AM
kellie said...
Ok.coming from a girls point of view I agree with the rape sceen in the original movie the sceen is more intense and longer.This moive captured the true feelings as a adience member would feel.The part I think should of be left out is, they should of left mary dead like in the real movie.
Reply
3-16-2009 @ 5:56AM
Craig said...
The story was derived from a true story.
The remake from what I understand is a more accurate rendition, though still runaway with fiction.