How far would you go to protect your family?  Could you kill another human being?

What do you get when you cross bits of Kurt Russell's "Breakdown" with shades of "Deliverance" and then add an ending of hellaceous garbage?  You get this "woulda coulda shoulda" film entitled "Last House on the Left."

The first thing that struck me as odd is the title.  For all intents and purposes, this film could have been called "Don't mess with my family", "Family First" or any number of more germane titles.  It really wasn't about a house in so far as it's about protection of family and revenge.

"Last House on the Left" starts off as an innocuous family vacation film and morphs into a B-grade thriller that Jason Voorhees or Michael Meyers would be proud of.  You see, the film is a mild-mannered suspense drama that gets really graphic in spots and then delivers the most inane cinematic ending I think I have seen in a long while.  I actually liked the film up until the ending - which is such a slap in the face of anyone with cognitive thought.  Truth be told, I saw the "unrated" version and never saw the theatrical version.  It was probably more tame.

Wes Craven wrote and directed the original 1972 version and this time around he produces the 2009 update.  Seriously, there were no unanswered questions.

The film's family is comprised of Dr. John Collingwood, played by Tony Goldwyn ("Ghost" and "The Last Samurai"), his pretty wife Emma played by Monica Potter ("Patch Adams" and TV's "Boston Legal") and their daughter Mari played by Sara Paxton ("Aquamarine" and "Sleepover").  Yes, somewhere down the gene line, Sara is related to actor Bill Paxton - although they're pretty distant cousins.

Escaped criminal and leader of a motley gang known as Krug is played by Garret Dillahunt ("No Country for Old Men" and TV's "The Sarah Connor Chronicles).  His brother Francis played by Aaron Paul, Krug's girl Sadie played by Riki Lindhome and Krug's son played by Spencer Treat Clark ("Gladiator" and "Unbreakable").  Clark's portrayal of a teen caught between good and evil is pretty good.

Once the Collingwoods arrive at their vacation lake house in the middle of nowhere (Pacific Northwest) daughter Mari asks to take the lone family vehicle into town to visit a childhood girlfriend of hers.  A boy catches the girl's fancy and soon after become embroiled in a hostage situation.

After a very uncomfortable murder / rape scene, Krug's band of human garbage decide to take refuge in a house not too far away.  Problem is, the house belongs to the parents of one of their female victims and after Emma puts the pieces together, a life and death struggle ensues.

I honestly liked the battle sequences and I found myself cheering for the Collingwoods, but there were a bit too many odd bits of choreography.  The battle gets very graphic including a claw hammer driven into someone's skull, a hand mutilated by a garbage disposal (fitting), gunshots to heads, etc.  But, again, the very worst element is the film's ending.

I found the acting (for the most part) to be pretty decent, but odd choreography, poor direction and choppy editing take away from the film while the ending killed it for me.  I would NOT recommend this "mess" to anyone unless you're a huge fan of Wes Craven, seen the original, you've seen everything else at your video store or you're a film student and have to learn how NOT to shoot a film's finale.


* * * * PLEASE STOP READING IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE FILM - SPOILER ALERT * * * *

Relative newcomer to directing, Dennis Iliadis, shows promise but needs a lot more practice to become more effective.  One thing I didn't like, was that when the family gets to the house, he spends an awful long time (in close up) looking at the teen-aged daughter.  It made no sense since no one was stalking her or peeping into a window, it just felt like the director was a bit of a pervert and wanted to show close ups of her body and underwear for his own pleasure.  It was not germane to the story unless it was meant as a foreshadowing to her rape later on in the film.  Almost as if "she deserved it" kind of thing.

Early on in the film, they discuss the microwave being broken.  Gee, nice set up.  So in the end, the doctor somehow injects Krug with something to paralyze him from the neck down.  We never know what the doctor uses, but we're given a hint that it might be some plant outside the house.  I would have preferred to see him prepare the concoction.  Anyway, the doctor gets Krug onto a table that is now situated in front of the (broken) microwave with Krug's head just inside the microwave doorway.  So our good doctor starts the (broken) microwave WITH THE DOOR OPEN?  C'mon!  No microwave on the planet operates with the door open - it's one of the fail-safes.  Anyway, after only a few moments, Krug's head starts to sizzle and then explodes.  I was just so angry that they'd try that lame stunt in an (up to that moment) decent film.  It really ruined the film for me.  I mean, there's willing suspension of disbelief, but this is a case of "we know you're gullible and you will buy this implausible ending."

In the end, the family gets payback on the gang who tried to kill their daughter.  But what is the film saying?  It's okay to brutally murder three people in the name of self defense.  They had already gotten away in their boat - did they need to come back and microwave Krug or allow him to rot in prison?  While I agree that the gang needed to be killed, some people might view it as a bit of overkill with respect to Krug.  Either put him in jail or really do some heinous act on him.  A microwave is just a huge cheat that ruined the momentum for me.

Recommended:
No

Viewing Format: DVD
Video Occasion: Better than Watching TV
Suitability For Children: Not suitable for Children of any age