Wes Craven 1939 - 2015

The loss of the great Wes Craven has been a terrible blow to the horror community. I know there are dozens of posts like this out there right now, and I know that we have lost so many great people recently, but this has truly saddened me and hurt my heart. Last night I was actually in a really good mood, watching a funny DVD, and enjoying the last few hours of my weekend. Then I absently checked my Facebook feed and was hit with the awful news. I thought it wasn't real at first, but it was: an icon was gone, and the life and career of my favorite horror director was no more.

It was a shock to say the least, because Wes Craven has always been an important part of my horror life. I came to horror a bit later in life than other fans - though I had always watched them as a child - and Scream was an important part of that. Then I saw more of Wes's films and realized just how much I loved not only the things this man has created but the man himself. I didn't talk about him enough when he was around, and I won't make that mistake now.

Wes was a kind, soft-spoken soul with a wonderful sense of humor and an aura of sweetness that you couldn't help but be attracted to. It was hard for me to equate the gentle man I saw behind the scenes with the dark things that came out of his mind on film. But at the same time, that's what I always loved about him. He wasn't afraid to bring real horror to film, and be gritty and raw about it. He also wasn't afraid to have fun with the genre and with himself, and he constantly did new and different things. Even then, you could tell when you were watching a Wes Craven film, as he had a distinct style and voice that I always enjoyed. He was beyond smart, analytical and creative, and his films were about so much more than what was on the surface.

Perhaps it seems weird to people outside the community that we are so affected by this, crying over somebody that we never met. As soon as I got home today, I put on my favorite Wes film, Wes Craven's New Nightmare, and as soon as Wes himself showed up on screen, the tears started coming. Reading all the messages that people have left on various platforms proves just how much he touched the lives of fans with his work and what an influence he has had on so many people around the world. We all experienced his career separately, but at the same time together, having the same feelings and gaining the same reverence each time we enjoyed another one of his films.

Thank you, Wes, for being the man that you were, and for bringing all those amazing characters, stories, and worlds to life. We will never forget you and we will never let your legacy die.

Thanks for the nightmares.

Movie Review: Deadly Friend (1986)

 

Wes Craven has a way of really messing with my head. I love the dude, but some of his less talked about movies often confound me when I get around to seeing them. Case in point: Deadly Friend. Just the synopsis for the film sounded a little out of the realm of what Mr. Craven is usually involved with. So then I had to wonder, what kind of Craven film was this going to be?

Teenager Paul is a genius who has built himself an artificial intelligence robot named BB. He and his mother move to a new town where Paul can continue his studies of robots and their connection to how the human brain works. He soon becomes friends with fellow teen Tom, and is immediately infatuated with his sweet but troubled next door neighbor Samantha. And when both BB and Sam meet with tragic fates, Paul uses his skills to save his friend - with deadly consequences.

I completely enjoyed Deadly Friend for what it was, even if at times I couldn't actually figure out what it was. Earlier scenes make the film look like a sweet story about a boy and his robot; then it becomes some whacky sci-fi/science-gone-wrong thing; then it's about a teenage robot-zombie girl on a murder spree. But the tone is all wrong, or at least wrong from what you think it would be. The film has a strange plot that should be easy to make fun of, but despite the fact that there are some funny moments, the tone of the film is not that comedic. Instead it is a pretty sad and heartbreaking movie that really takes itself seriously.

Kristy Swanson is a dear whom I will always love because she is and always will be the original Buffy Summers. And here in Deadly Friend she is surprisingly just as impressive, though at times her performance comes dangerously close to being way too campy. As the nice, beautiful girl with a depressing home life, her physical appearance and demeanor fit the character perfectly. She even has some nice touches of comedy in there that are so quick you might miss them. Swanson also does a wonderful job when she is in her zombie state, and this is where she could have made the most mistakes. Her unblinking eyes, and stiff movements are stereotypical of how one would think you would act if you were trying to be a robot but somehow Swanson makes it work - even the strange Spock-like way she holds her fingers to resemble BB's robot hands.

Deadly Friend arrived just two years after Craven did A Nightmare on Elm Street, and there are definitely parts where you can see the studio's influence on Craven to make Deadly Friend more "Nightmare-like." There are a few very odd dream sequences in the film, the first being one that Sam has about her father. He comes into her room at night, hovering over her bed (possibly implying some sort of sexual interest in her), and starts berating and almost hurting her, and Sam fights back by stabbing him with a broken vase. His body then proceeds to squirt a huge amount of blood all over poor Sam as she is screaming while getting ever more drenched - and the audience isn't sure if they should be amused or horrified.

Another dream sequence is quite clearly in reference to Nightmare on Elm Street. After Sam has killed... um, somebody (resisting spoilers is hard), Paul must dispose of the body. Later on that night, Paul dreams of a strange round object moving around under the covers. When he pulls back the blanket, the round thing is the burnt head of Sam's victim, and the body comes out of the mattress and is just about to attack Paul when he wakes up. The reference is obvious and fun for Nightmare fans, but I wonder how it played out for audiences who had just seen the first Nightmare only two years prior.

Of course, one cannot talk about Deadly Friend without mentioning the word "basketball." Watch the video below to find out why. And if you already know why, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't mind seeing it again:



That's definitely a movie moment where you have to either stop or rewind the flick because you're too busy almost dying with laughter. As a scene that comes completely out of left field from what we have so far come to expect in this movie, it is a more than welcome surprise - even if it doesn't particularly fit with the rest of the rather tame killings in the film. The fact the victim in question is the great Anne Ramsey also makes this a standout sequence.

One that that seemed wrong about the plot was how Paul made absolutely no attempt to hide or safeguard his new zombie friend. I thought right away that the most obvious place for her was in the attic, as the access was right there in Paul's bedroom, but for some stupid reason he doesn't do that, at least not right away. He first hides her in the garden shed, without locking the door or anything - a place where his mother could easily run into her and almost does. I thought this kid was some kind of genius or something?

I also didn't particularly care for the shock ending, even though it is left a little open to interpretation that this could be a dream sequence as well. The first ending was sad enough and brought the story to the right conclusion, so this shock ending was really not needed. All in all, I can't seem to help the fact that I really liked Deadly Friend. It walks a fine line between B-movie stupidity and a genuinely well-told tale, and I guess if anybody could pull that off, it would be my man Wes Craven.

Movie Review: Cursed (2005)

 

What exactly is it about the werewolf subgenre that makes me so weary? Maybe it's because I have seen so few werewolf movies, and even less that I was really impressed with. But why is that? Was I ruined on them after watching seven Howling sequels in close succession? What is so hard about making a good werewolf movie? We'll have to discuss that more in depth at a later time, because right now I want to talk a little bit about Cursed, a movie that I thought I had seen a long time ago and probably did but just forgot about...

Anyway. Cursed is about a brother and sister who are attacked by a werewolf one night after a car accident. They must soon figure out who the werewolf is that bit them in order to save each other and the cursed line that the wolf has created.

Though Cursed was helmed by my much beloved Wes Craven, along with his previous screenwriting collaborator Kevin Williamson, I can't really say that I loved the movie all that much. Craven does indeed have a distinct style where many of his later movies are quick, snazzy affairs with a cheeky sense of humor and a camera eye that doesn't shy away from the action. This makes Cursed at least a fun movie to watch for an evening, but nothing that groundbreaking in the werewolf genre. I did like how the mythology of the wolves in this one was a bit closer to The Wolf Man from 1941 with the gypsy girl and the marks on the palms of those bitten. Everything else in the movie was pretty standard fare that's been seen before.

The characters are nice enough, if not a bit cliché. Brother and sister pair Jimmy and Ellie are played by Jesse Eisenberg and Christina Ricci. Eisenberg acts basically the same as he does in everything else I've ever seen him in, so no surprise there. He's your typical high school reject who gets picked on for no reason by the school jock and has a crush on a girl who is out of his league. It's again no surprise when he's able to use his new werewolf abilities to fight back at the bullies in a not-as-exciting-as-they-want-it-to-be wrestling scene in the gym. Ho-hum.

Ricci has always been a favorite of mine (not to mention a serious girl crush) so I immediately liked her. The only backstory given on her is that she's obviously the older sibling and is all stressed out from her job and from having to take care of herself and Jimmy after the death of their parents. She finds hope in boyfriend Jake (Joshua Jackson), but he's a former playboy and not to be trusted. He's one of the red herrings for the werewolf that has killed two girls and is now after Jimmy and Ellie - but I sort of had that situation all figured out anyway. The whole cast is actually pretty good, with all recognizable names and faces - Portia deRossi, Judy Greer, Shannon Elizabeth, Mya, Michael Rosenbaum, etc. Oh, and Scott Baio, for some reason, playing himself.

The werewolf scenes are not amazing, but workable. The one transformation we get to see is pretty horrible - all CGI and just plain bad when compared to the greatest transformation ever from An American Werewolf in London. Shannon Elizabeth is offed first when Ellie rams her car off a cliff and then a werewolf pulls her out and kills her. I always see online a picture of the aftermath of her death with just half a body, but either I wasn't paying attention or Netflix has some edited version of the movie because I didn't see it this time. Mya is killed next in a parking garage after a pretty nice chase sequence where we actually get to see the full-bodied werewolf, which is surprising because you don't usually see that this early on in the film. There is also one kind of ridiculous but hilarious scene where Jimmy's dog Zipper has become this weird werewolf-Labrador mix. It looks totally silly but is obviously supposed to be, and it's something new so I was actually okay with it.

Things get more interesting and fun when the action moves to the main set piece - a club designed by Jake called Tinsel, which is pretty much like a wax museum, complete of course with a scene of Lon Chaney Jr. as the Wolf Man. There's a nicely effective scene in the Hall of Mirrors and some nice fighting sequences with the werewolf, despite the horrible transformation. The werewolf's death has a little nod to Scream, which made me chuckle. There's a double ending to the film overall, though, and I was happy that this one was at least a little more violent and exciting than the rest of the movie. A decapitation and fire - not bad. Not all the way good, either, but not bad.

A small part of me has to like Cursed because of Craven, but I don't really have any problem saying that it's not one I'll be watching all the time. I like the kitschy sense of humor - it has a werewolf flipping people off, for crying out loud - and the fun that the actors seem to be having with the movie, but there's definitely something missing. I guess it's just that this isn't really how I like my werewolf movies. I need them more bloody and serious, maybe, and not so silly.

Movie Review: The People Under the Stairs (1991)

This isn't my first rodeo with The People Under the Stairs. I've seen it many times before many years ago, but when I saw it pop up on my Netflix suggestions, I thought it deserved another, fresher view. I knew that there was more to remember about this movie than just Ving Rhames's outfit. That hat is really hard to forget. Anyway, The People Under the Stairs is for sure an odd little flick, with a strange mesh of horror and comedy that doesn't always work the way it's supposed to. However, there's still enough of the good here and there to make it at least an interesting romp for horror fans.

After receiving an eviction notice from their ghetto apartment, young kid Fool helps his sister's friend Leroy break into their landlords's - the Robesons - house in order to steal a stash of gold coins they are rumored to have inside. They soon find themselves trapped in the fortress-like home with a pair of maniacal siblings who call themselves Mommy and Daddy, their bloodthirsty Rottweiler Prince, and Alice, their meek daughter who has only survived by following Mommy and Daddy's strict rules. The pair also keep a group of feral young boys locked in the basement, where they have been starved into cannibalism.

I've claimed before that Wes Craven is my favorite horror director. The dude has definitely got some classics under his belt - don't think I even need to name them here - but the dude has also got some downright weird and downright awful films in his oeuvre as well. The People Under the Stairs is not one of the classics, nor is it one of the awful ones either. Maybe it's not for everyone or maybe not everyone will really "get" it (I'm not even really sure that I get it) which is precisely why I think this one deserves a closer look. Like I said it's an odd duck. The Netflix description mentions it being like a fairy tale, and I think that's true. If there's a specific fairy tale this is based on, I don't know it, but I do see very fairy tale-like or fantastical elements in the story - the quest of the young hero, the evil stepparents, the treasure, the morality explanation at the end. Craven brings his own dose of twisted reality to this sorta-classic story and, thus, The People Under the Stairs was born.

Just to get this out of the way first, the biggest problem I have with the overall movie is the constant conflict of emotions in relation to what is happening. The way this normal house has turned into a fortress that no one can get out of, the fact that Mommy and Daddy have never been caught for any of the crazy shit they do, etc. leans me more toward liking the movie for its over-the-top whackiness that you couldn't possibly ever take seriously. But I know Wes Craven, and I know how he likes to throw in some kind of element, even subtly, to make the audience really uncomfortable, if only for a moment. It's hilarious watching Daddy wear full S&M gear to chase Roach through the house with a shotgun (that no one in the neighborhood hears until he fires it outside - whatevs). But then there's that shot of Daddy grabbing his crotch while in the attic where Alice is tied up alone. There's the horrible abuse that Alice suffers under Mommy, like scalding hot baths. Maybe you just can't let yourself to think that deeply about what's really going on here in order to enjoy the movie.

And there definitely is a lot to enjoy here, don't get me wrong. Mommy and Daddy, played by Wendy Robie and Everett McGill, are gloriously grotesque in their performances. They are very crazy, of course, but also slimy and weird enough in a way that makes you kinda like them because they are able to become hilarious fodder for Fool and Roach throughout the course of the movie. The amount of times they are able to overcome Daddy makes it almost slapstick and helps to ease a bit of the aforementioned uncomfortableness. The performance by the child playing Fool left a bit to be desired as his reactions to some things were not very believable sometimes, but he's definitely cute and memorable as the smart-talking ghetto kid who decides to take on the Robesons. A.J. Langer as Alice ("My So-Called Life, FTW) was probably my favorite as her performance was spot on in every on of her scenes.

The setting is definitely another talking point. The house that these supposedly "rich" people of the neighborhood live in is quite large though it doesn't look it from the outside, but very unkempt on the inside. Strange contradiction there. The house is also an almost unbelievable labyrinthine castle with crawlspaces between the walls, secret doors everywhere, and lots of strange and dangerous contraptions (the stairs, the spikes through the walls, the chute that the dog goes down). I loved it. Minus the cannibals in the basement and the crazy people owning it, this was almost like my dream house because it looked like it could be so much fun to live there. Clean it up a bit with some new paint, and I would totally be playing around in those crawlspaces, I'm not even joking. The house is another character in the story, and the way that it constantly changes on us is a way to keep the story interesting throughout because this is basically our only real location for the movie.

Survey says that despite an uneven tone, generally, The People Under the Stairs is kinda awesome. I didn't get into the gore in my review but when it's there it's pretty good... even though there could have been more. The movie is kooky, and I love kooky, so I'm giving this one a thumbs up.

Book Review: "Shock Value" by Jason Zinoman

Right off the bat: To all the horror-loving people reading this, you have to read this book! No excuses. I honestly haven't read that many books about films in general, but reading Shock Value taught me something. You owe it to yourself as a horror fan to not only learn from and study the films themselves but to also verse yourself in the entire story behind some of the most influential ones in order to fully appreciate what they mean and why they are so important. And Jason Zinoman does all this and more in this fantastic book that is a must read for anyone who considers horror to be a part of their life.

Thus begineth the review....

Ask horror fans what the most influential era or decade for American horror films was and most of them would say the 1970s. It was the beginning of a new age for the horror film when the classic monsters like Frankenstein and the Wolf Man were replaced with a new kind of monster - people. Real horror can occur next door or in our own homes and be perpetrated by any of the people we meet in the world. A crop of young directors were able to tap into this sad new reality and hit American audiences with their take on horror films - the likes of which had never been seen before.

Author Jason Zinoman brilliantly explores this cutting edge era of filmmaking in his book Shock Value. He singles out the few independent directors and filmmakers and their classic influential films to explain how they brought in the age of New Horror, replacing the campy monster movies of previous decades. The big names are all here: Polanski, Carpenter, Romero, Craven, Hooper, etc. Despite, in some cases, being vehemently attacked by critics and audiences for what they had created, these directors and their films truly stood for something important - saying things that needed to be said and showing people horror in an honest and truthful way. With these films, horror suddenly became art while still having the power to scare the crap out of audiences.

Each chapter is a broad and at the same time in-depth overview of specific movies from the era, starting with Rosemary's Baby and ending with Alien. Zinoman has done his research here with tons of new interviews and stories about how movies like The Last House on the Left, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, and The Exorcist came to be. I thought I knew most of the backstory to these films already but Zinoman not only explores the influences of the filmmakers but also explains how low-budget indies became national phenomena and are still talked about to this day. 

This is what stood out the most to me about Zinoman's book was the insane detail he puts into the background of the films and their creators. Some of the stories I've heard before, as they are part of the iconography of certain films, but a lot of it was complete news to me. And to me, these are important stories to know to fully appreciate these movies especially if you weren't lucky enough to be around in the 70s like me. 

It's amazing to think how some of those classic scenes and the way we think about these classic films could have been just happy accidents. The cultural and political implications of Night of the Living Dead were unknown to director George Romero until it was pointed out by people seeing it for the first time. Who knew that a love for actress Marilyn Burns and a Mafia made man were elements that helped get The Texas Chain Saw Massacre into theaters? And was it essentially a good thing that the relationship between John Carpenter and Dan O'Bannon fizzled out because they eventually both went on to make two of the biggest movies of the decade?

Sidenote: The whole discussion of O'Bannon and Carpenter was a complete shocker to me. Get this: I didn't even know who O'Bannon was and what his contribution to horror was. The most interesting story out of the whole book to me was how O'Bannon came up with the alien-bursting-through-chest scene from Alien and how it was related to a very painful stomach condition he had through most of his life and is what ultimately killed him. A simple scare like that, influenced by the creator's own life, is just the kind of thing you need in a horror film to touch a nerve with everybody who watches it.

More than just a brilliant researcher, Zinoman also has some fabulous insights of his own about 70s horror. These were the most enjoyable parts of the book for me as a book about simple facts would have been boring. He gives you the lowdown on the who, what, where, why and how, and then he'll hit you with the most amazing analyses, thinking about these movies in ways that I've never thought of before.

For instance, I always thought that Psycho was considered as the birth of the modern slasher but Zinoman gives a strong argument against that, pointing out Psycho's only flaw. Unbeknownst to me, many people did not like the ending to Psycho when the doctor explains Norman's psychosis. Remember: "It's lot scarier when there's no motive." Zinoman ties this into his work by pointing out that aside from fairy tale monsters being replaced by people as the villains in horror movies, many of the villains had no real motive and were non-discriminatory killers. And that element from New Horror is still used in today's films.

While I think Zinoman explores the first two points of the subtitle for his book well - how these movies shocked audiences and educated people about how influential independent movies could be compared to Hollywood movies - he seems to skip over the last part about "inventing modern horror" too quickly. His mention of modern horror movies in the last chapter is a little hurried, and I didn't really get a clear idea of what his take on modern horror was, or how it relates to or has been influenced by 70s horror.

In fact, Zinoman's mention of only a few modern horror like Hostel, Saw, Scream, etc. seems dismissive of these films and doesn't talk about how horror has changed yet again in the new millennium. He seems to clump them all into the "torture porn" category (a phrase that is completely ridiculous and inaccurate for most of the movies it is applied to) or despair over the remakes of these 70s movies, which is unfair.

There's also a great "where are they now" chapter talking about each of the major players mentioned in the novel. Zinoman talks about the successes and failures they had after their most popular movies came out and what they've been doing up to this point. 

This book was truly a pleasure to read in every way. It was fascinating and funny, informative and insightful. I was very lucky to have been contacted to do this review and get an advanced copy (it's available now, but it was advanced when I got it) otherwise I might never have found this book. It is definitely a must-read for any fan of the genre, whether you think you know it all about these movies or not. I bet even the most die-hard fanboy or girl will find some new fact or story and will learn to love their favorite movies even more. So I salute you, Jason Zinoman, for opening up my eyes and my mind to look at this fantastic era of American horror in a fresh new way.

Shock Value: How a Few Eccentric Outsiders Gave Us Nightmares, Conquered Hollywood, and Invented Modern Horror is available now! Pick up your copy and be sure to read the other reviews on the book tour going on now.

Movie Review: Scream 4 (2011)

Fresh from the theater, my mind is always a tangled web of thoughts and emotions. Therefore, my "review" for Scream 4 will consist of the random thoughts and impressions that have been popping into my head since I left. Yeah yeah, spoilers and all that. Don't I always have spoilers?

- Okay, first things first. The ending pissed me off. Do I even have to explain it? Lame killer reveal and even lamer killer motive. I know, I know. "New decade. New rules." But I was really expecting this movie  to actually be about the main characters/survivors from all the other Scream movies but this one was all over the place. The new characters definitely mimicked ones from the first film, I totally caught on to that, but it still felt weird.

- Most of the previous killers' motives have been really lame too. Or just stupid. Sidney's mom cheated with Billy's dad so Sidney had to pay? Not fair. The only killer with an actual good motive (not that there's really any good motive for mass murder) was Billy's mom. Revenge for the death of her son, caused by Sidney. Stu was a crazy idiot, Mickey was also a crazy idiot, and Roman was a pathetic whiner.

- Going to the beginning of the movie - loved that. For shizz y'all, it pulled me in. The double false start was pretty much a genius move. I think Kevin Williamson knew that everybody was expecting a scene similar to Drew Barrymore's in the first Scream for this movie's opening scene so he decided to totally fuck with our minds but in an awesome way. Thanks, Kevin.

- Hayden Pants-a-lot or whatever her name is wasn't that bad. Secretly, I got a kick out of when she started reeling off the names of horror remakes. I'm pretty sure I was the only one in the theater who has actually seen all of the ones she listed. Oh and by the way, to the giggling teenage girls behind me - FUCK YOU. Fuck you and your skinny jeans and braces and SHUT THE FUCK UP.

- The killer's taunts to the victims on the phone were often, well.... not that great. Something he said to Sidney about slicing up her eyelids got quite a big laugh from the audience I was with. Including me.

- Did I ever mention how much I love the killer's knife in these movies? Well, I love the knife. It's just cool looking, that's all. Shiny.

- Biggest laugh scene in the movie: Cop stabbed in the forehead. I don't know why everyone else was laughing at this scene, but I was laughing because it took him so long to die after getting STABBED IN THE FOREHEAD. If my biology knowledge is correct, your brain is kind of right behind your forehead. I just thought that getting stabbed in the brain would cause you to die almost instantly. Maybe I'm wrong.

- The "movie club" I joined in college was retarded. I needed friends like the ones in the Cinema Club in this movie. Well, you know, except for the one who was a killer.

- Neve Campbell and Courtney Cox-Arquette-minus-the-Arquette are actually way hotter than all the teenage girls in the movie. I know I'm not the only one thinking it.

- A lot of characters. A lot of red herrings. Then the red herrings start getting killed off and we're left with the least likely suspects.

- No, I never guessed who the killer(s) was (were). I tried to suspect everyone and Jill passed through my mind for about a second before I dismissed it as impossible. She's so little. I hope they don't expect us to believe that that skinny bitch was the big stuntman in the Ghostface costume. I'll just assume that the lackey Charlie did all the killing.

- Mmm, bloody aftermath of Olivia's death. Niiiice.

- Dewey's the sheriff now. Yea for him!

- Lots of scenes reminiscent of the first film. My favorite? The first aerial sweeping shot of Woodsboro High that is almost identical to the one in Scream and with similar music. But to reference the first film so much, does this mean that this is really the end? I've seen inklings around the net of more films to come, but seriously. The phrase "beating a dead horse" comes to mind.

- "There's something you forgot about remakes: Don't fuck with the original." Well said, Ms. Prescott. And how wittingly apropos of your current situation. I really liked that about Scream 4. It still kept up with what was "in" about the genre like the first film did. Back then we only knew about the dime a dozen slashers from the 80s and now the big thing is all about remakes. So the Scream franchise is still self-aware of its time and self-aware of the fact that it is self-aware. I'm still into all that. I love it.

- Does everyone in the world have a fucking iPhone besides me? You wanna know what my cell phone can do? It can make calls. And text. And take pictures and movies that I can't send to anyone because I don't pay for internet access. Now I have to have something that has a Ghostface voice app?

- Small word on the trailers I saw before Scream 4. On Priest, those vampires look a helluva lot like the Lickers in the Resident Evil games. On Apollo 18, are you fucking punking us with that shit??? Never thought I would see the day where we have a movie taking place on the moon. On the freaking moon, people.

- On second thought, if the iPhones actually had a Ghostface voice app, I would totally buy one just for that.

- No matter what I just said, I LOVED SCREAM 4.

My favorite horror remake

The third and final classic horror film remake on my list is my personal favorite, although not necessarily the best. The Last House on the Left remake is perhaps a better film cinematically in my belief, however, I still contend that The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is the best because it was much more successful and popular and appealed to a much wider audience.

This is probably going to be very long because I love this movie so much, so I apologize right now!

The Last House on the Left is another Wes Craven classic and was in fact his very first feature film. He had a very intriguing story inspired by an Ingmar Bergman film (The Virgin Spring), but perhaps not all the resources at the time to make the best adaptation of his vision. The resulting film was a shocking and violent gore-fest that put the country in a tizzy. People went absolutely nuts over this movie. It received an X rating when first sent to the ratings board and was banned in several countries for many years. Roger Ebert, however, liked the movie (yet he railed against I Spit on Your Grave - I don't get it), and over the years it has gained more credibility and admiration and is now considered a classic.

But classic or no, there was definite room for improvement on this film. Another first film by a first time director with a low budget and no-name actors. All of that turned out well, though. Some of the actors were in fact very impressive in their roles - David Hess as the leader of the gang Krug, and Lucy Grantham as Phyllis stand out the most to me. No, the biggest problem I have with the film is in terms of story.

Okay, for those that have been reading this and have no idea what this movie is that I'm talking about, here's a synopsis of the original. Two teenage girls, Mari and Phyllis, go into the big city one night to go to a concert. Trying to score some weed from a guy on the street, they end up in the clutches of a murderous little "family" of convicts. After some rape and humiliation in the woods, Phyllis is stabbed to death and Mari is shot. The convicts are left without a car and seek help at a nearby house which happens to be the house of Mari's parents. The parents discover what happened to their daughter and seek bloody revenge on the gang.

In my opinion, this basic storyline is a fantastic one to explore. However, Craven misses a few beats along the way. First of all, the scenes of rape and humiliation are interspersed with comical scenes of two bumbling sheriffs as they search for Mari, who has been reported missing by her parents. Craven has explained, and I certainly understand, his intent with these scenes - to create some uncomfortable-ness in the viewer by juxtaposing these horrific acts of brutality with an almost Three Stooges reenactment, with some wacky 70s music to go along with it. I don't think this was the best choice for the film. The second part of the film, the revenge by the parents, is completely dependent on the initial crime. It would have been so much more effective to concentrate on getting the emotion out of the audience for what happened to these girls, to make them so sad and pissed off at the people that hurt them that they will totally go along with the father taking a chainsaw to the guy who raped his daughter.

This is the main part where the remake succeeds. The story was stripped down to the basic emotional elements - here's the crime and here's the revenge. The first scene is the murderous gang busting Krug out of a police car and brutally killing the two police officers, so we immediately see how despicable these people are and just what they are capable of. The Collingwood family seems very loving, but have experienced some trauma recently from the death of a son. Mari does not die in this remake, so their revenge on her rape and attempted murder is more about protecting her and salvaging the remaining parts of their already torn family.

The other part of the film that was greatly improved upon was the scene of the discovery of Mari after her attack. In the original, Mari's dead body is found by her parents near the lake. The scene is literally less than minute long with hardly any real believable emotion by the parents over their daughters death. Boom, she's dead, next scene. They spent longer on the scene where the sheriffs get a ride from the chicken lady! The remake takes the scene much more seriously. In both films, the father, John, is a doctor but he actually gets to use his skills to try to save his daughter's life in the remake. This makes for an extremely emotional scene of him cauterizing her bullet wound, sticking a tube in her side to fixed a collapsed lung, and, as he's checking her for other injuries, discovering that she was raped.

Tony Goldwyn is fantastic in this scene, in the whole movie really. He's a talented actor that I had all but forgotten about and I'm so glad that he chose to do this movie (he was hesitant at first because of the violence). I'm still on the fence about Monica Potter in the role as the mother because at times it seemed like she almost didn't want to be there, to be in the movie, but then at times her crying and emotion was very believable. I'm not sure if it's not just her style of acting, though. She gives the same kind of awkwardness in the only other movies I recall seeing her in, Saw and Con Air. Going into the movie, I was most excited to see the actor playing Krug and if he could be as good as David Hess. Garrett Dillahunt does not disappoint as Krug. He's apparently played a bad guy before and it seems to be his forte. A mustache and beard and some black hair and totally looks the part of a bad-ass - but thankfully, not a bad-ass that you sort of like, which would have ruined the movie. He is a bad guy that you never like right from the start. He taunts the policeman in the beginning as the man is dying, he treats his son horribly, it's his decision not to let the girls go when they have a chance, he stabs Paige, he rapes Mari, and he shoots Mari. He has no respect for human life, therefore the audience has no desire to see him live. I would love to see this actor in more stuff.

I could go on and on about the directing and cinematography in the film as another way it improved on the original. I think, however, that the improvements in story were more important in the remake being about 10 times better than the original. I will say that I was incredibly impressed by the camera angles, composition, coloring, and just overall cinematography in the film. Some people look at me weird when I call this a beautiful film, but it really and truly is. There are also other things I could talk about, like responding to the controversy about the violence in the film, but that is perhaps left to another blog.