Saturday, March 14, 2009

Last House on the Left "remake"

Yeah the very concept of this one really confused me. The original is a film that is classic and so completely impossible to repeat. It's amateurish, sleazy, graphic, and actually is truly shocking and scary. Pretty much the embodiment of everything today's mainstream horror, and ESPECIALLY remakes, is/are not. It's atmosphere and mood can not be repeated, nor should it be attempted. Just like most of the other recent (last 10 years or so) remakes, this movie was created to cash in on the name. It's a legendary film with a notorious reputation, so it's easy to exploit. Hollywood has created a new non-underground kind of exploitation film for the new millenium: the "remake". I can picture a bunch of dickmouths sitting around an office discussing how to make a shit ton of money, making stupid movies exploiting the titles of great landmark movies that actually had artistic vision, or at least actually were shocking and sleazy.

It makes so little sense it's almost genius...

This is how I see it:
Exploitation films were very often horror films and followed on the heels of a film or group of films that were extremely successful because it expanded the boundaries of film by introducing a subject or concept that hadn't been touched upon, and presented them in way that was shocking, as well as sometimes offensive and unsettling. Obviously there's tons of subgenres, some insanely specific (nunsploitation anyone?), but now there's a whole genre of exploitation dedicated to remaking old exploitation? What the hell? These guys seriously have no interesting ideas, otherwise they'd at least be coming up with NEW film titles, writing midly original plotlines, and making films that were just new school exploitation ripoffs.
Anyone who knows me knows I'm not a fan of the so called "torture porn" films, but at least the "Saw" and "Hostel" films are their own entities and don't require the name of a classic flick to supposedly sell tickets. I don't know many young horror fans, but I bet plenty of them have never even heard much about "Last House on the Left", let alone seen it, so what's the point in using the name?

I'm baffled.

Note: I originally started this post as a comment in response to Phil's review of the new film, but it got fairly drawn out as one can see. Check out his blog for the full monty. It's on my reading list to the right there, but here's the link

No comments:

Post a Comment

About Me

My photo
21st century rocker with a multi-track mind.


tear off your face(book)