ROTTEN TOMATOES: A Kinder, Gentler "Last House on the Left"?

A Kinder, Gentler "Last House on the Left"?

by Fred Topel | April 25, 2007

Even Wes Craven's horror movie fans are shocked when they see his original "Last House on the Left." With plans for a remake underway, don't expect the same sort of extended rape and torture scenes. But still expect the same scares. Those will still be there.

"I think it's probably the film I've made the hardcore fans respect the most because it's just so brutal," Craven said. "We don't want to do it quite that brutal because it's also just a great story. Bergman did the story and before that it was a medieval story so we’re going to try to split the difference."

Since Craven will only produce the remake, it will be the new filmmaker who determines the level of graphic violence. "We're trying to make a deal with a very interesting director who directed something. A Grecian I guess director who directed something called Hardcore [Dennis Iliadis] about street prostitutes in Greece that I think is an amazing film. We want somebody who is a real artist who can give it his own vision."

Craven had no hesitation to jump on the remake bandwagon. Only legal issues have held up the project. "The Hills Have Eyes was the same way. We had to find everything. It was like, 'Do we have a contract on that? Where would it be? That turned up in a salt mine someplace.' Where business records are stored for long term storage. 'Yeah, it's in the salt mine. We found it.' The Last House stuff had a lot of entanglements and everything else so it's taken a year to get that all straightened out. I wouldn't be surprised if we’re filming that by this fall."

Related Items

Celeb:	Wes Craven
Movie:	The Hills Have Eyes
	Last House on the Left

(1-18 of 18 posts) | Reply

MadmanCody writes:
on Apr 25 2007 05:49 AM

[b]as if the original wasn't bad enough[/b]
i mean the original is pretty weak compared to other exploitation flics of the time, hey atleast quality exploitation (oxymoron i know) films like I Spit on your Grave probably don't have enough of a following to get ruined by a weak remake....i hope i didn't just jinx it

(Reply to this)

Dinalfos 2 writes:
on Apr 25 2007 06:33 AM

Of course, the real reason why the new movie is going to be toned down is that horror films are supposed to be commercially viable, these days.

(Reply to this)

stigmatic writes:
on Apr 25 2007 07:37 AM

Commericially viable and sickeningly PC to say the least. If the movie stayed true to form, every special interest group under the sun which pitch a gripe about the film's grislier content. Hell Im surprised that at this point there isnt some rediculous group representing "slashers" complaining about they're just misunderstood and that we shouldnt showcase them as the bad guys.

(Reply to this)

tycox writes:
on Apr 25 2007 08:13 AM

[b]WES CRAVEN IS A SELLOUT!!![/b]
Thats all I have to say about that!!!

(Reply to this)

taran72 writes:
on Apr 25 2007 08:52 AM

In reply to this comment (#862753)
The correct answer. Also, We Craven selling out is correct too.

(Reply to this)

FireflyFan4evr writes:
on Apr 25 2007 09:05 AM

In reply to this comment (#862753)
Don't forget that horror fans now have to be stupid as well. Most are between the ages of 12-17, so it's not like they actually go to the movies for intelligence. It's a pity that junior high and high school kids dictate what the majority of us are subjugated to and what films "deserve" sequels (ie- The Hills Have Eyes).

(Reply to this)

FrankS149 writes:
on Apr 25 2007 12:04 PM

The original movie is unpleasant, poorly filmed, poorly acted and not very scary.

I don't understand why he's remaking this (besides $). It's a generic revenge movie without any interesting characters, dialogue, or kills.

Maybe it will turn out well and be better than the Hills Have Eyes 2 remake. The first Hills remake was pretty good...

Don't forget that if this movie were being toned down for a horror audience of 12 - 17, this would be pg-13, which is probably not the case. I don't think that The Hills Have Eyes deserved a sequel because a bunch of 12 year olds went to see it in theaters..

This movie wouldn't be worth remaking if they left in the gratuitous rape and torture scenes from the first movie anyway (which were kind of pointless..) because then it wouldn't make any money and then we would have no rated R horror movies. The end.

Besides, I hope that there will be some sweet kills.

(Reply to this)

horrorfan666 writes:
on Apr 25 2007 12:52 PM

listen. I really cant deal with all of your stupidity!! (not to all of you, but most who posted here) mostly you fireflyfan4evr, who are you to say that 12-17 year olds dictate what you watch, and they dont chose what films get sequels. its called the "studio". the movie studio's are the ones who chose what films are made and whats in the movie, and they also choose if there is to be a sequel.

i am personally offended by your bust on 12-17 year olds. myself being 16 (and it seems that i know a hell of alot more than you about movies).

i dont know what you meant by it but it seems like your confused. WE DONT MAKE THE MOVIES, WE DONT MAKE SEQUELS, AND WE CERTAINLY DONT MAKE PEOPLE GO WATCH THE MOVIES.

the studios do these things that turn you off because most of them are greedy bastards who will pump out a shitty sequel if they think it will make them more money.

(craven is now a sell out, and last house on the left would suck if it wasn't as violent)

(Reply to this)

FiveStile writes:
on Apr 25 2007 02:32 PM

In reply to this comment (#862759)
Horrorfan, while you certainly sound like someone with an earnest love of horror flicks (I too was a fan when I was your age 10 years ago), you certainly don't represent the "norm" of your age group. Most tween-teens have no real taste or desire in movies. It is a place that they can go to meet up with friends, talk on their cell phones, or get to second base (once again, it wasn't THAT long ago for me;)
What they DO bring to the table is $$$$$. They don't make their own money, thus they don't value the money that they blow on stupid watered down horror movies. Mommy and Daddy give them a fifty for a night out with their friends. Disposable income as it is called. Your age group has a lot of it and expects very little in return.
Once again, I'm not pointing this at you specifically. However, PG-13 bullshit sell out horror movies have got to go. I can count on one hand the number of OK wide released horror films in the last 10 years. It's because of the studioes and their lust for tween cash.

(Reply to this)

smartmoviekid writes:
on Apr 25 2007 05:54 PM

these cheap horrors all were just made to bring in some extra dough based on their names. i do believe Wes Craven is broke, and had no other choice to remake his own films, which are fine the way they were (except hills have eyes, i thought the remake was better). At the same time how could he be shooting for the tween audience if these movies are over 30 years old? i bet most teens wouldn't know these were remakes neway (most horrorfan, most). Why was Hills have Eyes rated R and not PG 13? there u go. therefore, it will be stupid if This new remake is dummed down

(Reply to this)

dracula68 writes:
on Apr 25 2007 08:42 PM

In reply to this comment (#862754)
"Hell Im surprised that at this point there isnt some rediculous group representing "slashers" complaining about they're just misunderstood and that we shouldnt showcase them as the bad guys."

LOL -- that's a BRILLIANT idea for a slasher film as social satire. Sorta along the lines of "hit men having union representation. Medical. Dental. Retirement planning."

(Reply to this)

GreenBastard writes:
on Apr 25 2007 08:43 PM

I don't care anymore. They make shit and it still makes money. It sounds like the re-make of the Fog! Why re-make a shit movie, all you'll get is new shit, sooner or later you've got your-self a shit storm which will turn into a shit typhoon, film makers will be stuck at the bottom of a shit rope with no way to climb back up! An eternal shit abys!

(Reply to this)

dracula68 writes:
on Apr 25 2007 09:01 PM

In reply to this comment (#862759)
Jesus, h-fan, take a hormone pill, come back, and look at the facts of movie ratings. Movies you like don't just magically appear. You are test marketed, you are the market target. Your age group is studied and probed for product preference in ways even Big Brother couldn'thave imagined.

Most movies released today are released with a PG or PG-13 rating. Why? Films are cut and trimmed to avoid R or the dreaded NC-17 because it's 12-17 year olds -- boys mostly -- who fork over the most dough and have the freest dough. The studios that -- yes -- make the movies have your age group in mind, your age group which inhales exhales and eats up movies like XMen and Hills Have Eyes. And since your age group coughs up the most dollars the most often and has the most time in the day to do so, that's why movieplexes feature onslaughts of films like those.

(Reply to this)

FireflyFan4evr writes:
on Apr 25 2007 10:40 PM

In reply to this comment (#862759)
Horrorfan, I was once your age a few years ago and I understand your frustration, but you have to realize that the fact of the matter is is that teens support the film industry far more than any other age bracket on masse.

The two genres that teens find appealing are comedies and horror films. That is why we see so many, due to their largely PG-13 ratings, and thus that means they get sequels because they (a) cost very little money to make, (b) cost very little to promote and (c) have a built in audience that guarantees a decent payday for the studios. Nearly all PG-13 rated horror films are guaranteed to make money and are thus an easy fallback for studios when it comes to making their cash. Films such as The Ring, The Grudge, The Hills Have Eyes, et al are all geared with cheap scares and cheap thrills to provide limited amusement to the younger crowd.

And please don't call into question my knowledge of the film industry, because I've studied it for the last 6 years of my life (with a very good understanding of film history, especially when it comes to Italian neorealist films, French New Wave, and the Golden Age of Hollywood) and I've been making films for the last 5. You may be dedicated towards supporting the good films (as am I), but you need to learn some diction that does not make you come across as a raving lunatic. Your immaturity shows, and it only brings your argument to a grinding hault.

(Reply to this)

GreenBastard writes:
on Apr 26 2007 02:52 AM

Shit Abys!

(Reply to this)

frogleg writes:
on Apr 26 2007 05:32 AM

In reply to this comment (#862764)
I just wanted to point out that Hills Have Eyes was in fact rated R.
Having said that, it's a fact that's the reason so many movies are rated PG-13. The funny thing is, on the opposite end of the spectrum, PG-13 movies tend to make more than PG movies, so you see a lot of movies throw in one otherwise unneccesary f-bomb to get that 13 tacked on there.

(Reply to this)

Baccus83 writes:
on Apr 26 2007 08:21 AM

Remember when some group of morons got together and decided to rip off "Last House." They called it "Chaos," and it was nothing more than a staged snuff film. The funny thing is "Last House" was never credited. It was just as well though, because it received terrible reviews.

The funny thing to me though is that the original film isn't really that great. It's really all about the premise. I'm don't really see why people heap praise on this film.

(Reply to this)

stigmatic writes:
on Apr 26 2007 06:01 PM

Here's where I think the age demographic is slightly askew: When the "great" horror franchises and movies were released in the 70s and 80s the politically correct crowd hadnt yet sold us all on being gutless sissies afraid to exercise free speech. Just look at the original MPAA ratings of F13, NOE, and halloween. Not to mention hills (which in hollywood's defense was re-released at R) and some of the other up coming remakes (Last house, Amity and so on).

The proof is in the pudding. R-rated movies make money too. Not everything needs to be PG-13 to turn a profit. Look at 300. It cleaned up at the box office. AVP 2 (rated R tentatively) will make more money than the first on account the grownups (guys in the 20s and 30's) still go to the movies to see lots of the same things the teens do: explosions, violence and action. We just expect to get a little more bang for our buck. It's high time for the movie machine in hollywood to figure out that franchises like Hostel, Saw, Cabin Fever and other new ideas are certainly as viable as cash cows regardless of it they're better than beloved movie icons or not. Their ticket sales alone justify making movies for grownups too.

(Reply to this)

RottenTomatoes.com