The Last House on the Left (2009) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
292 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
What more can you ask of a Reboot
xJrobx29 March 2009
I'll keep this short and sweet. This was gruesome and twistedly faithful to the original in spirit and effect. I totally expected to be the one tortured when watching, well I should have left my preconceived notions at the door. The acting was sharp, the plot devices made just enough sense that it never broke my disbelief and I admittedly had to briefly look away from some scenes.

The setup was stellar and the ending did not disappoint. I give it a 7 but if it was possible I would have given it a 7.5.

Good for the genre and great by comparison of other remakes.

I would definitely suggest it to anyone that enjoys the genre.
143 out of 184 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
I haven't said this in a while: THIS IS BETTER THAN THE ORIGINAL
Smells_Like_Cheese22 March 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Let's face it, there are a lot of remakes, there are some good one's: The Thing, The Hills have Eyes, and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. There are some average one's: House of Wax, House on Haunted Hill, and War of the Worlds. Then there are the bad one's: Halloween, The Fog, and Psycho. Last House on the Left, my parents had absolutely held me from the original movie, but when I became an adult I rented the movie and watched it by myself, I was just so curious what they were trying to hold me back from, I wasn't really shocked with the movie, I could see how it was gritty and brutal in the day, but after seeing movies like I spit on your grave, Hostel, Dirty Harry, Casino, etc, it just didn't really effect me. So I was actually looking forward to a remake of this just to see what they would do with the story and I have to say that they not only made it better, it was just a very great horror film that made me want to take 15 showers afterwards.

Mari and her family are going on vacation. When they arrive at the house, Mari asks to sleep in the guest house instead of in the main house. Mari's brother, Ben, had died one year earlier, and the family are still trying to adjust to his absence. She finds a necklace he gave her and puts it on. She decides to ride into town to see her friend Paige. Mari's mother, Emma, is cautious, but her father, John, lets her go. Mari meets up with Paige at the store where Paige is employed. A young kid named Justin approaches the counter and asks for a pack of cigarettes, which Paige does not give to him due to his age. Justin says that if they join him at his motel room, he will give them marijuana. Paige agrees and sells him the cigarettes. They drive to Justin's motel room and Justin and Paige enter. Mari waits in the car but notices they are taking too long. She enters the room where she finds Justin and Paige on the bed getting high. She joins them and they decide to give Justin a makeover. They are interrupted by Krug, Sadie, and Francis. Krug explains that it is too risky to let Paige and Mari live. They decide to not only murder but rape the young girls. The gang goes to Mari's house not knowing that's where she's staying with her parents, her parents welcome the gang in thinking they got into a car accident. But Mari somehow survives and comes back home; her parents discover that the people they've been helping are the same people that just tried to murder their daughter and now it's time for justice.

This is the movie that you cannot wait to see justice brought to these sleazebags, they were so disgusting, I was just screaming and cheering in the theater. Like the tag line said, if bad people hurt someone you love, how far would you go to hurt them back? If that was my daughter, you wouldn't wanna know the sick things I would've done to these slimy people. The thing that made this movie so horrific was how realistic it was. The rape scene doesn't show much but is one of the most graphic and disturbing in cinema, even my 25 year old boyfriend had to cover his eyes, he said he was just incredibly sick from it because he can't imagine the pain she was going through. The performances are on and the story is great. I would say this is one of the best remakes in years, this is not for the faint of heart though, but if you're curious about the remake, trust me, this was a very respectful movie of the original horror story of murder and revenge.

8/10
87 out of 121 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Good remake that kept it's cruel nature
freakinflax13 March 2009
As a fan of the original 1972 version, I wasn't expecting a lot, but at the same time, with Wes being brought in as a producer, I felt it had to live up to some expectations.

What I got was a fun yet torturous movie that had the audience with it the whole time. They were gasping, hollering, sighing, saddened, and later clapping, laughing and woo'ing. It really takes you for a ride from the first moment and only lets up briefly, only to take you back down again.

While the original scores higher for "shock factor," this one still has plenty of gore and story. I'm not going to give anything away because I'm sure most of you know the story by the trailers, but overall this is an intense film that you won't forget anytime soon. If you know what happens, you'll be happy when the second half of the film picks up. If you have no idea, try to enjoy the ride as I'm sure you'll leave satisfied.

A few people in my theater left before it ended, so if you feel sick or faintful, just keep repeating to yourself: it's only a movie, it's only a movie, it's only a movie...
122 out of 181 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Pretty good, for a re-make
alanmora23 March 2009
If you've ever read any of my other reviews you know how I feel personally about re-makes. Most horror fans feel the same way I do (yet we still watch these things!) so needless to say I went into this movie expecting to be disappointed. I was actually pleasantly surprised by how well this one was. Yes there are the usual cases of character name changes, scene and dialog changes and complete story line changes for no apparent reason but the basic premise that made the original film so creepy was somehow still retained. The major story line change in this one has been discussed in previous reviews and revolves around main character Mari (I won't reveal any major changes for the benefit of those who haven't seen it yet) and yes I was EXTREMELY disappointed with these changes but as I said I went into the film expecting to be let down so this helped to soften the blow. This version of "Last House on the Left" has a considerable amount of added gore sequences as well but they are not overly done or thrown in for no apparent reason other than shock value (as was the case in the unofficial 'Last House on the Left' re-make 'Chaos' directed by David DeFalco). Nowadays there really is no way to re-create the grainy, almost documentary like filming style of the original which is one of the main elements that added to the general feel of the film, but these filmmakers did an exceptional job of making the viewer curl in disgust at the actions of the villains and cheer and applaud the violence that befalls them. If you enjoyed the original you will most likely enjoy this one as well...just make sure you watch it and avoid the aforementioned "Chaos".
51 out of 73 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A genuinely effective thriller
ametaphysicalshark13 March 2009
The biggest problem with horror movies today, specifically major Hollywood productions, is that even more than romantic comedies and the like, it is treated by studios and directors as an entry level position. These aren't, after all, the big dramas or 'prestige' movies. The result is an endless barrage of derivative, uninteresting tripe, many of them remakes produced by the like of Michael Bay and directed by those attempting to get started in the industry. Why this is even more of a problem is because horror films and comedy films depend on one essential thing: timing. Those which fall in the category of 'suspense thrillers', those which don't really seek to scare as much as your average slasher, films like "The Last House on the Left", depend on atmosphere. They depend on the building of suspense and tension and dread, even when the outcome is insanely predictable. These films require a director who has talent with timing, with creating atmosphere, with building suspense, and most of the time, especially recently (sure, there have always been awful horror films, but there was a time when studios financed some respectable films at least), the directors who take on such projects seem either incapable or uninterested in doing all they can to make the film work.

"The Last House on the Left" is a 're-imagining' of Wes Craven's accidental classic from 1972. That film displays Craven's potential, but while certain sequences are compelling it is cheap, clumsy, has a bizarrely chirpy bluegrass score, some awful acting (and some good acting), and the movie's biggest flaw: a Benny Hill-like slapstick subplot. Still, the movie worked. It worked precisely because Craven managed to create that atmosphere. That feel. The biggest fear I had going into this 're-imagining' is that the director Dennis Iliadis would turn out to be another Marcus Nispel, coming off his one previous film from 2004, "Hardcore", a film about prostitutes I had never heard about.

I needn't have worried. The film is far from perfect, but Iliadis' direction is one of the film's strongest points. Along with the excellent photography the film creates a dark, foreboding, grimy atmosphere of horror, and wisely cuts out the original film's slapstick, and also fixes the score: replacing it with gorgeous, haunting compositions which occasionally give way to guitars, but thankfully not too often. Iliadis uses hand-held camera as well as anyone, not over-doing it at all, but filming everything with a stark sort of clarity, and he finds a surprisingly effective rhythm for the film which keeps it from ever being mundane. The director is one to watch out for in the horror and thriller genres. Perhaps his most impressive achievement in the film is the incredibly tasteful and brutally disturbing rape scene. The film, like the original, avoids the pornographic nature of many rape-revenge thrillers, such as "I Spit on Your Grave" or for a more recent example the 'unofficial' remake of "The Last House on the Left" from 2005: "Chaos", which was so gleefully vicious it became sickening, not effectively disturbing.

Michael Phillips said it best: "The way director Iliadis shapes the key misery-inducing sequence, there's no hype or slickness or attempt to make the rape palatable or visually "dynamic." For that you have to go see Watchmen." The performances help. The only weak one is Riki Lindhome as Sadie, the murderous Krug's girlfriend. She takes her top off more than once for the movie's unneeded but inevitable nudity, but does little else. Garret Dillahunt is great as Krug and the rest of the cast good too, especially Monica Potter as Emma, the raped Mary's mother.

I won't spoil the changes to the story for you but it does a lot to separate itself from the original. It's not a straight remake and the changes work. The film's ultimate triumph is its intimacy. Iliadis succeeds in putting you in Mary's place and in her parents' place. Not one who succumbs much to vengeful thinking, I was convinced by the film that I'd have done the same things were I in the place of Mary's father, John, played by Tony Goldwyn.

The film's major flaw is the very last scene, a nonsensical moment belonging more in a Stuart Gordon film than this one. Up to that point, in spite of some mediocre sequences, the film is a triumph of atmosphere and style, and is genuinely well-written. If you're looking for fun or an intellectually stimulating film look elsewhere. For a shockingly, shockingly good rape-revenge thriller look no further. This movie works. It doesn't only stand head and shoulders above every other recent horror remake (and certainly the ones out so far in 2009), but it is in a whole other league when compared to most of the genre films Hollywood forces down our throats.
96 out of 146 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Solid remake that keeps it's edge
jmbwithcats2 April 2009
Last House on the Left is a revenge flick sure, but it's also study on pure maternal instinct and revenge. It is also a remake of the 1972 film by Wes Craven, which in turn is a remake of the art film, Virgin Spring (1960) by Ingmar Bergman.

Two cute girls, teenagers are hanging out, find themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time when they go to the apartment of a boy named Justin (Spencer Treat Clark) to smoke some pot and chill out, when his family comes back who are wanted in the connection with some local murders. Now they can't let the girls go. From there things get steadily worse until the girls are left brutalized.

The convicts having driven out to the middle of nowhere find their way to a small cabin to recuperate, until the happy couple waiting for their daughter to bring the car home realize these are the men who hurt their daughter, and they aren't going to take it lying down.

In the feel of Hostel, extreme violence in retribution ensues, and that's pretty much the entire flick. You might recognize Garret Dillahunt who plays the lead baddie, Krug from the prime time series Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, Michael Bowen ("Lost", Magnolia, Jackie Brown), Joshua Cox ("Strong Medicine"), Sara Paxton as the daughter (Summerland), and Riki Lindhome as the friend (My Best Friend's Girl).

The pacing is strong, and somehow the film works a lot better than say a movie like Hostel for reason of solid directing, acting, and simple but effective script.
42 out of 62 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Strong remake
Cujo10829 July 2010
Warning: Spoilers
At first, I was admittedly hesitant to see this redo of the infamous 1972 Craven picture. It's not the fact that it's a remake that put me off. Craven's version itself was already pretty much a remake of The Virgin Spring, and I've seen countless ripoffs of Last House that might as well be remakes themselves. I just figured a studio film wouldn't have much to offer beyond the envelope pushing copycats. I'm happy to say that I was wrong.

Paige and Mari are two teen girls who meet Justin, a teen himself who offers them pot if they come back to his motel room. They take him up on his offer, but they stay too long and are there when the boy's criminal father, Krug, shows up. Along with his equally sadistic brother and girlfriend, Krug forces the two girls to join them as the gang flees town. Their drive is cut short when Mari goes on the defensive, the vehicle running off the road during the conflict. With their method of transportation ruined and nowhere to go, the trio decide to have their way with Paige and Mari, subjecting them to torture and rape as Krug's son watches in disgust. Paige is killed while, unbeknownst to Krug and company, Mari survives the ordeal. After leaving her half dead in the water, they seek refuge at a nearby house, the very house that belongs to Mari's parents.

While this film follows the original pretty closely, it does deviate from it's source in a few major ways. The main difference is clear, that being the survival of Mari. I was against this at first, but it wound up working better than I expected. Still, I will say that I didn't care for the plot point of Mari being a swimmer. It felt like a contrived character trait thrown in just to get her into the water during her escape attempt. It's been several years since I last watched the Craven version, but I would say the brutality against the girls isn't as graphic this time around. It's still an effective sequence, but there's nothing like pulling out intestines or making someone urinate on themselves. On the other hand, the violence against the villains is far more graphic in this version. We also aren't subjected to stupidity like with the original's Sadie carelessly running into a swimming pool for no reason. Oh, and no comedic cops this time either.

I liked how Krug's son showed more signs of guilt in this one, though the actor portraying him was somewhat of a cinder. It would have made sense if Krug was keeping him doped ala the original, but that's not the case here. Thankfully, he's the one weak leak in the acting chain. Tony Goldwyn and Monica Potter are both good as the parents who struggle with what's happened to their daughter. As for Krug, Garret Dillahunt is very strong in the role. While I'd likely say that I prefer David Hess in the part overall, I found that I didn't think of Hess once while watching Dillahunt in action. He does the character differently and really makes it his own. All of that aside, I think that the best performance in the film undoubtedly belongs to Riki Lindhome. In Craven's original, I didn't think much of the Sadie character. She was annoying and just seemed to be along for the ride. Here though, Lindhome makes the character just as evil as Krug. She nails the attitude, and even her movements seem like those of a snake in the grass. I also give her kudos for her final fight scene, probably the most exciting segment in the film for me personally.

The location photography is another high mark for the remake. It's nothing like the gritty look of Craven's, but it doesn't need to be. Speaking of the '72 movie, it did make more sense how Krug kept his son doped up in that one. You would think the kid would be long gone in this version without that to stifle his efforts. I also have to mention the ending here, which is quite poor and doesn't make much sense. I really don't know why they decided to end things on that note, as it wouldn't be too hard to think of something better. Taken as a whole, I was pretty impressed by this remake. An incredible film it isn't, but as far as modern remakes go, you won't find many as successful as this one.
12 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Fantastic Thriller, Well Acted with Unbearable Suspense.
buffywillowchris15 June 2009
What I took into Last House 09 was what I knew about the original (by the way i have the original movie on DVD and it has been sitting there unwatched for a few years), and I must admit it's definitely a quality movie, great acting, wrought tension and great scares, i must say there were times I was hiding behind my hands because it was so suspenseful.

It is also beautifully shot and looks amazing, Dennis Iliadis direction is superb and he gets every bit of energy and emotion from all of his cast. The actors are also really well cast, Garett Dillahunt is truly frightening as the movie's main bad guy, Riki Lindholme portrays Sadie with true evil and is very very creepy, Monica Potter and Tony Goldwyn both pull off the typical family putting on a brave face (considering the back story which i'll not spoil for anyone who hasn't seen the movie yet), that are put in a position where they have to do what they can to protect their daughter's life and their own. Sara Paxton and Martha MacIsaac also show that they are capable of a more dramatic element than just a comedy and teen movie fare, that we are used to seeing them in.

The only thing I hated about the movie was the rape scene, the build up was just so intense that I found myself covering my ears so I couldn't hear what was going on, but apart from that go see this movie if you want to see how a remake should be done.

A thought provoking, pulse racing thriller, that will have you on the edge of your seat until the credits roll.
55 out of 86 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Lake Ends In The Road.
Spikeopath1 November 2013
The Last House on the Left is directed by Dennis Iliadis and adapted to screenplay by Adam Alleca and Carl Ellsworth from the story by Wes Craven (co-producer here). A remake of Craven's 1972 film of the same name (itself influenced by Ingmar Bergman's The Virgin Spring), it stars Tony Goldwyn, Monica Potter, Garret Dillahunt, Sara Paxton, Spencer Treat Clark and Martha MacIsaac. Music is by John Murphy and cinematography by Sharone Meir.

During a family vacation, teenagers Mari (Paxton) and Paige (MacIsaac) are viciously set about by a gang led by recent prison escapee Krug (Dillahunt). When bad weather forces Krug's car to career off the road, the gang, unbeknownst to them, seek refuge in the vacation home of Mari's parents. When the parents realise what their new lodgers have done, they begin to enact bloody retribution.

It's pointless going on about remakes of old horror films, they are here to stay and we continue to watch them in the hope that they will strike a chord with us. With The Last House on the Left, remaking it, to me at least, is understandable given the 72 film is not exactly a great classic itself. True enough to say it has that grainy grunginess that was so befitting the decade's horror movies, marking it out as an unsettling experience without really living up to its "terrifying" reputation. In fact if you put both movies together they still wouldn't have enough class in them to give Bergman's movie a run for its money.

So the remake then, all glossy and big budgeted, with name actors in the principal roles, it is by definition routinely packaged for the modern day audience. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that what unfolds on that screen is challenging us, it really does do its job. The pertinent question exists, are you capable of such violence having had violence inflicted on your loved ones previously? What would you do in the same situation that Mari's parents find themselves in?

We have been privy to what was meted out to poor Mari and Paige, and the impact is most distressing. There is good cause to argue that Iliadis and his production team go too far in grabbing our attention in readiness for the "revenge" factor later on. Certainly I myself was uncomfortable watching it, as I was with the I Spit on Your Grave remake, but it's about getting a prescribed response, however close to the knuckle it is.

It's not a film anyone can feel comfortable about recommending, surely? But I know it put me through a gamut of emotions, even making me feel bad about myself the next day. That is quite often the power of cinema, and clearly the banner that Craven and Iliadis held aloft during the publicity tours for The Last House on the Left. Today I give the film an uneasy 7/10, it's uncompromising and unapologetically violent, but also laced with flaws. On another day I may find myself rating it considerably lower…
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Below the belt
stu_denny3 October 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I have just watched The last House on the Left 2009, never seen the original and I'm pretty disappointed, Its just another one of those productions that the writers have lost their imagination so they attempt to make a film as gritty and shocking as possible.

I am a big, big fan of 'real to life' and hard hitting films. However in this film, the scene where the girl Mari is raped for nearly five minutes is way below the belt. I think we have enough imagination left to understand when a girl is shoved to the floor and her clothes ripped off that she is going to be raped, its not necessary to see it happening.

I do not see the point, whatsoever, of watching a young girl screaming with her head in the dirt and a guy thrusting for five minutes. And this raises some concerns for me as there will be plenty of weirdos out there watching this film getting their kicks out of it.

If that scene did not give you the creeps I would recommend you re- evaluate your moral standing.
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Horrifying, Raw, Intense, and Disturbing!
jmayer200910 June 2010
Let me start off by saying that I really am not a fan of the original. It was way to cheesy for me. When I first seen the previews for the remake, I knew that it would be good. I was 100% right.

This movie is good because it actually makes you have strong feelings about the characters. The overall tone of the movie is very depressing, but thats what makes this movie good. The rape scene is very hard to watch. Every time I watch this movie, I have to continue to turn away from this scene. But this scene is done very well. There's no nudity present in this scene. The emotional level of this scene is very strong though.

All in all, I think this is the best remake ever made. It was very intense and raw. The acting and directing was spectacular. No other movie has ever gotten to me as much as this. But thats what horror should do. It should make you get depressed and scared. Horror has been lacking this ability for quite some time now. I don't recommend this for young viewers though. Although I'm young myself, I still think it should only be scene by older viewers.

I give this movie an A+ on every level of horror there is.
33 out of 54 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
what a remake should be
trashgang11 June 2009
I don't think I have to introduce people to the original Last House, the storyline here is the same. So a remake. They who have seen my reviews know that I'm not into remakes. Friday the 13th missing something, My Bloody Valentine had some I Know What You Did over it. The only remakes that were good so far were The Hills and Halloween. Well, add this one too. It clocks in over more than 90 minutes just like MBV, I watched my watch a lot when watching MBV, I never did watching this gem. This movie doesn't have any CGI, they go for brutality and straight horror. From the first 5 minutes you know what you will get. The first part is the humiliation of the two girls, the second part is the revenge, both coming straight to you, and the score helps too. The score does work here. All actors are believable. After having some rough movies from France I guess Hollywood has his lesson, here they proof that they are capable of making them too (without the help of French directors like The Hills). I was very surprised with this remake. Oh yeah, there is nudity but I doesn't distract you from the storyline as it did with MBV. A must have in your collection.
40 out of 68 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Best remake in years!
jake-dawson12 June 2009
This is my first review on IMDb so be gentle! I was so pleased with the film I joined to let others know my views. I have seen my fair share of remakes and have been very disappointed with the majority of them, I am happy to say I found this to be a very worthy remake, I would go as far to say that it was actually better than the original in a lot of ways! I watched the original as a child and found it pretty disturbing but a very well executed horror, I recently watched it again in anticipation of the 2009 release and wasn't as impressed, I know that the grainy dated footage added something to the film, somehow documentary style and with the budget they had Wes Craven done a very good job, however I think it was let down a bit by the music which was very inappropriate and sounded like it could have been in a comedy this and the fact my girlfriend was giggling at some of the movie didn't help, particularly the two policemen and their antics, they seemed like a comedy duo which detracted from the dark story, maybe this was deliberate and was intended to give us a break from the harsh storyline? However that aside it is a classic film which I was hoping would be done justice.

Enough about the original on to the 2009 remake, the film sticks very true to the original, some people are not happy about the small changes but I think they added to the film, made it more believable, gave us more information about the characters, made us care more about what was going to happen, I wont go in to any details, I don't want to ruin it for anyone but I think the changes made this in to a much more rewarding film for the viewer. I have read other reviews complaining it went too far, that they should have left certain scenes out, are you serious? why did you bother watching it, have you lived under a rock for the past 30 years, did you not know the original storyline? It had to have harrowing scenes which made you feel uncomfortable, the film would not have worked without them! I think this is the best remake I have seen in many years and give it 10 stars, very good acting, excellent directing and a great cast, it had a lot to live up to and it succeeded when so many other films have failed. I highly recommend this film to fans of the original and newcomers to The Last House On The Left.
52 out of 93 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Brave remake that had it's balls cut off.
insomniac_rod22 June 2009
Warning: Spoilers
This remake is a prime example of how "Revenge Cinema" is the new "in" sub-genre in Horror.

To those who haven't seen the original I can suggest to watch this remake without thinking it's a remake. To me, it was very hard not to compare both.

While the original has brutal, sadistic, and cruel violence; this remake was very toned down. Don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting raping, cruelty, and extreme violence; but the movie's plot and message justifies it.

The most important scene in the movie deals with the raping of a virgin underage girl. In the original it's a brutal scene that also deals with gore and more; on this remake the fore-mentioned scene was VERY TONED DOWN by Hollywood and you can say it by the editing. The original was just merciless and painful to watch but it justified the parent's rage and revenge. Also, Paige's death was very light in this remake and well, as she wasn't a very developed character I didn't care that much for her.

And that's my main beef with the remake. We didn't get much character development. First, Mari's parents were supposed to be on a marital crisis but it just was hinted; we didn't get also a development of their rage and revenge when they watched their ill daughter. On the villains side, we didn't get a complete development to Sadie's character, I mean, she didn't add anything to the plot she just was there looking hot and that's it. The same thing with Francis; he didn't have something interesting to add except his nasty broken nose.

Krug was by far the most interesting character in the movie but he truly didn't have real moments to demonstrate why he was the main and most brutal villain in the movie.

But after all, the plot delivers expectations and it's very clear since the beginning that this is going to be a 100% revenge flick. I dug it.

The Direction is really classy and the atmosphere is always pale, sad, and unsettling. The lake and forest settings add mystery to the plot. Also, the camera angles are very good and creative for a movie like this; I liked the direct-to-video feeling which increases the disturbing factor.

The acting is great. Everyone is perfect on their role. Special mention for Ben Goodwin who delivers a brave, dramatic, and raging performance. Great actor! Sarah Paxton delivers also a brave performance, way to go girl! With your looks and moods, I couldn't believe you starred in such a brutal film. Monica Potter looks really pretty but acts brave and smart when she had to do it. I really expected her character to use her sexuality as a weapon against her daughter's aggressors. But that's just me.

I expected more violence on a revenge flick, I mean, the villains did something horrible and they deserved fatal and horrific demises as consequence. Maybe society is changing for good...
26 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Extremely violent remake with sadistic scenes and repulsive crimes
ma-cortes2 October 2010
This rendition based on Wes Craven's film debut is a modern little production that rises above its unsettling plot , passable production values and via its grimly affecting portrait of human evil infiltrating a middle-class household. The story is adapted from ¨Ingmar Bergman's The Virgin Spring ¨, but the movie has more in common with ¨Sam Peckinpah's Straw Dogs¨ as it charts the descent of a harmless married couple (Tony Goldwyn , Monica Potter) into methodical killers . A quartet of criminals -a distorted version of the nuclear family , a sadistic Manson type group- kidnaps a pair of teenage girls (Sara Paxton, Marta MacIsaac) and proceeds to ravage, rape, and finally brutally torture them in the forest , unwittingly within walking distance of their rural house . The murderers take refuge in the one girls' own home, only to meet even sterner justice , as when the parents discover just who they are and what they have done, they plot violent vendetta , taking a peculiar retribution .

This remake produced by Craven and Sean S. Cunningham is a sleek production with average budget and packs genuine chills , suspense , repugnant scenes, tension , and shocks , it's a terror-thriller very exciting . Gory, gruesome , pretty repellent , extremely violent and unrelenting shock-feast laced with the avenging theme . The film is paced with intelligent edition , special use of color and slick utilization of shock images that take place in the astonishing close-up crimes . While the look is suitable atmospheric and eerie , the argument stretches plausibility to the breaking point . This one is another adaptation based on horror classics of the 70s and 80s, such as ¨Halloween ¨, ¨ 13 Friday ¨, ¨Nightmare in Elm Street and ¨My bloody Valentine¨, among others , all being recently remade in modern style . The unsettling scenes and action are accompanied with adequate musical score by composer John Murphy. Director Greek Dennis Illiadis redefines the classic horror picture with this his second film , being the first titled ¨Hardcore¨ , another strong story dealing with Greek prostitutes . The movie portrays modern society crumbling into terror and madness . Illiadis gives his film an uncomfortable verisimilitude , setting it squarely in the heartland of modern America . While at times it's awkward and inconsistent, with distracting interludes, his handling of the cruel horror scenes is disgusting, and with brief unexpectedly quiet and lyrical moments in the beginning . Rating : 6,5 ; acceptable remake full of violent frames as well as the original . Humiliation images and graphic torture rate this one a ¨R¨ at best , avoid squeamish people because it will probably turn their stomach .
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Rape scene was far too long
sondisbpt18 July 2012
I saw this, when it came out in the theaters. When the rape scene came about, i was said to myself, really? 5 minutes? we really need to see a 17 year old virgin,get raped for that long? I am a 39 year old man,(36 at the time this movie came out)and i was disgusted by that scene.

I was so angry at the director for putting so much,emphasis on having me,watch and listen to a young woman's pain,agony and terror for that long.

I will never go see a wes craven movie again, since that movie.

I will not support a director, that would put such trash, in a movie.

I would think,that we could get a sense of a rape scene,without it lasting forever.

It was just too authentic for me to bear,i guess I'm just too sensitive or i just have a soul?
15 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Watered down nonsense
dolemite7214 June 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Seriously....what is it with this trend of remaking classics, and replacing the casts with Benetton models? This movie was weak, compared to the 1972 original. It copped out on all the 'sleazy' elements that MADE the original such a hit, and replaced it with silly macho heroics, a cast devoid of ANY personality, and pointless gore. Look at the 1972 version.....that was a nasty movie, that earned the criticism it provoked. The cast was excellent, haunting music, just enough on-screen violence to get it's point across, but plenty of what Hollywood is too scared to replicate nowadays......NASTINESS. At least the original portrayed what actually happens to people taking the law into their own hands, in a realistic manner. This remake gives the impression that it's OK to torture people, afterwards (losing all of what made the original movie so dark) Look at the end of LHOTL (72) the father and mother are morbidly disgusted by their actions (however justified) and are soon to be carted off to prison for their actions. The remake has no connection with reality at all, and even feels the need to tack on an extra amount of added brutality, as if to keep up with HOSTEL 2, whilst forgetting that it's missed the point completely and portrayed the parents as even bigger psychopaths (hell, their daughter doesn't even die in this one!!!!!)

In the original, i actually felt sorry for Mari and Phyliss (they came across as ordinary-looking, young girls) which made the actions of Krug & Co, even more deplorable. The (ahem) actresses in this one were vile, Hannah Montana wannabes (with zero personality, character or dialogue) Don't get me started on the Krug from 2009 version either.......

All-in-all, another nail in the coffin of genuine 'horror' cinema, by the hacks at Hollywood (who treat it's audiences with the contempt, you obviously deserve)

Shame on Wes Craven, for having anything to do with it (he surely has enough money, these days?)
25 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A True TURD of mythical proportions
mdudleyh29 August 2010
A truly unforgettable film.....If I live to be 180 years old, I'll never be able to forget this film....It's that bad. Easily one of the all time worst movies ever made. Not only is this film full of continuity errors, atrocious dialog and painful performances, there is a rape scene that drags on for entirely too long. In my opinion, it's hard to understand why a rape scene is needed to tell any story properly. It seems that basic human decency would serve as a guide to keep gratuitous scenes of rape to a minimum. However, there is a rape scene in this movie that goes on for entirely too long and is graphic beyond what is necessary to move the scene along. It's almost like this movie was made by sick bastards for sick bastards.
12 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
One Of The Best Experiences I've Had At A Cinema All Around!
Dean_Jenkins21 June 2009
I had watched the original with friends before. What attracted it to us was the way the movie was being put across "to avoid fainting keep repeating it's just a movie" etc. We loved horror and anything just generally shocking it was the most fun along with comedy's you could have with friends!. Well it certainly did not let anyone one of us down it was pretty insane?! shall we say. Either way a truly great piece of horror beyond what any of us had seen at the time.

When i heard about This Re-make i was not so much excited but anxious to see how they would handle the story and the scenes that would be necessary to tell it to the best of it's ability.

I was impressed.

I knew straight away it would be reasonably mild compared to the first one it had to be , to be watchable in cinemas in order to make money. And for the most part it was. However it still kept that vital shock value the gore (the blood & guts) were handled perfectly it was like the hills have eyes re-make in the sense you saw what was happening the camera never once did one of those annoying wall shots were you see the blood splatter! when a knife went in or a bullet etc. it went in and you saw it. Well with a horror film that's half the battle straight away.

Obviously you probably know this film is centred around a group of convicts who are a perfect example of a human being with no soul or heart. And this even better than the first one in my opinion is displayed amazingly. In this film you really get the feeling that these guys would do anything to any human being in the world and would not feel one bit of remorse for there actions. I would even go as far as to say out of every film i've ever watched these have to be some of the scariest people i've seen on the silver screen. It all adds to the great experience.

The "Rape" scene/scenes are also what this film is pretty famous for and i was interested to see how they would handle this films such scenes. I thought it was handled pretty well. What this film hits straight on the head is the atmosphere the music and every aspect of the film combined just build up to exploding point then it happens. It was like nothing i'd experienced in a cinema before the place was packed out with what was to be honest a perfect testing range for the film there were people of my age (18) all the way to what i would have said was about 70-ish. As the scenes built up and up the piercing sounds of the girls screams , the actions taking place on screen and everything accumulated into one terrifying experience. I looked round the once rowdy room to find everyone silent and i could just feel it someone had to walk out.

And they did.

For the first time in my life a film was that shocking that as many as 10 people walked out and couldn't come back. That is what horror is meant to do!. So at this point Last House had already scored high marks with me it had stayed as true to the original as it could have. (There was also someone crying behind us!).

This film splits the story 50/50.

The first half is horrible it is meant to shock and appaul the audience so that when the second kicks in it satisfies all!. And god does it never before has revenge felt so right. People again were re-acting to the film again in a way i'd never seen people were clapping chants "get in" , "have it" "go on" and cheering. Admitadley by the younger members of the audience but non the less a great re-action. In my eyes this film was just as perfect as this re-make could have been it had it all. And it was one of the first films i'd seen in along time that was almost more than a film it was a genuine experience.

Oh and you'd be surprised to know the acting was actually very well done i wouldn't have changed it at all t be honest again pleasantly surprised.

Only things that this film down was the fact that it's still a pointless story and if not for the shock factor couldn't possibly be even an average film!. so I'm afraid it's a 7 from me which is still good for a horror film non the less.

It's definitely one of the better horror re-makes and one everyone will have a load of fun watching what more can you ask for in this day and age!.
36 out of 66 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Base Depravity is not Horror
nightair8627 July 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Whatever happened to scary horror films? I mean films that actually make you feel afraid as opposed to films that sicken you with their depravity. For me, scary horror films are ones like the originals of psycho, alien, the exorcist and poltergeist. These were truly scary, clever pieces of art that thrilled us with the director's ability to scare the bejesus out of us through plot, script, music, acting and special effects. True masterpieces of the genre.

The Hills Have Eyes, (and its predecessor and successor versions) and the other depraved films like Last House on the Left (both versions) rely on rank perversion and unnecessary depravity to achieve their "shock value". They are not, in my opinion, scary or fear-inspiring; they are simply depraved to the sickest degree.

Have movie makers lost the ability to be creatively scary in their art? Must every 'horror" film that is made now have to include young, virginal girls being repeatedly raped and sexually assaulted in the most perverted fashions? Raped by escaped psychopaths and mutants, new mothers having their lactating breasts suckled upon, girls being forced to have sex with each other by their captors, female soldiers being penetrated from behind by hulking mutant monsters,.... it goes on and on.

If you want a movie that explores the "horror" of rape, then I recommend you view The Accused from 1988 with Jodie Foster as the lead. It is a moving film which shocks its viewer without relying on the excessive perversion that is so typical of the Hills Have Eyes style of film. One wonders what "new" depravities will be created by modern horror film makers. Perhaps now the psychopaths and mutants will employ their pets and animals to ravish the young maidens who are presented for violation.

And, just in case you still harbour illusions that these scenes are anything but sexual exploitation, have you noticed that all the victims are attractive females?
16 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Truly Awful
frost_eternal22 August 2009
I unfortunately watched this piece of work with a group of friends and we all unanimously were disgusted, offended and put off by this one.

It's a bloody shame that movies nowadays can be so tasteless, plot-lacking, poorly conceived and offensive but still be released and still receive such high reviews--6.8 for this? I am in awe.

If you like horror movies, you'll think this is just dumb. I think even the most hardcore horror movie junkies could be offended at some parts.

The characters are vile, unrealistic and unbelievable. If it wasn't bad enough that the movie made its best efforts to toss your cookies, you'll find yourself angry time and time again at just how stupid the characters can be in the situations they're in.

Forced, repulsive and gross. Ignore this one, I beg you.
22 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
The Middle of the Road Remake Streak Continues...
raimi39 March 2009
Warning: Spoilers
The remake of Last House is neither great or horrible. In my opinion, it sits comfortably in the middle somewhere.

I preface by saying that I am not a huge fan of the 1972 Wes Craven film, even though I consider myself a fan of his other works. Much like the remake of Amityville Horror, a remake of this film could not do much worse as far as I'm concerned. So I wasn't planning on having too many complaints relating to the differences with original source material (and since I haven't seen the Bergman film, by original I mean the '72 film). I wasn't expecting much, and I was given more than I expected.

The story remains very similar in that two girls find themselves in an unfortunate situation buying the dreaded weed! One of the girls, our heroine Mari, is a good virginal, family girl. The other, is a little more daring and promiscuous. The original developed this relationship better and seemed to look closer at the characters personalities. To me, this made the next set of events more effective.

While buying the drugs, the girls and their suitor are interrupted by the remaining members of the suitor's gang, who have recently done something illegal and are running from the law. In mere moments, the girls find themselves the prisoners of the gang for fear of alarming the authorities, or maybe because the gang is sexually attracted to the girls and has other uses for them. By any means, the gang and the girls take to the road to escape. While en route, Mari sees that they are traveling near her house, and tries to make an escape which results in the crash of the car they're riding in and some injuries to the passengers. Her attempt ultimately fails and she and her friend are punished for it.

This is where the original and remake separate a little. The original featured a much more sadistic turn of events, where as the remake lets us as the audience off a little easy. The only cruel and disturbing element that the remake was able to recreate in my opinion was the

Uber spoiler

brutal rape of Mari by the gang's leader. To me this scene was very unsettling and was the only part of the film to capture how evil the gang of criminals are, save for the opening scene where they force a dying police officer to bleed to death on a picture of his kids, all the while telling him that he'll never see them again. Back to Mari: after she is assaulted, Mari makes another attempt to escape. She runs to the lake to swim away from her captors and although she manages to dodge the majority of the bullets that they fire at her from the shore, one gets her in the back and she is left for dead in the water. Here is another example of how the original differs. In the original, there is no doubt that Mari is shot dead. The remake leaves open the possibility that she was merely injured and thus sets up a more uplifting ending.

Because the escape attempt rendered the gang's transportation useless, they approach a nearby residence for aid. In an ironic twist of fate, the residence is that of Mari's parents who have no knowledge of the unfortunate events that have just unfolded. Here the film settles into it's third act, where the parents discover the deeds of the gang and carry out their revenge on them. The remake has Mari arrive back home barely alive, where her parents are able to save her and ultimately leave with her, along with the unfortunate son of the gang's leader who helped the parents exact their revenge.

The attacks on the gang by the parents in both films felt over the top to me, and this is really where I move away emotionally. It seems that in both cases, the violence is only present to appease the audience. I feel that if the attacks would have been more organic to the parents plight, they would have been much more cruel and disturbing instead of satisfying. Take for example the brutal attack on the assumed rapist at the beginning of the film "Irreversible". This is the kind of violence that I think would have benefited the overall feel of the Last House remake. Instead we are treated to an odd "head in the broken microwave" sequence that is never properly explained.

Oh well, if the majority of the audiences are anything like my screening, this film will get a pretty good reaction. At least on the first viewing anyway. However, this is one film that will definitely not stand the test of time. But, neither does the original, so who cares.

5/10
34 out of 71 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
In this writer's opinion, the best horror remake by far.
The_Amazing_Spy_Rises13 March 2009
As we all know, the horror remake has become a genre in its own way. With each remake, we constantly complain that Hollywood is running out of ideas and is turning to the cheap thrills of half assed remakes to get their buck as quickly as they can. Virtually every major horror film of the 1970's and 1980's has already been remade, or is on its way (hello, Hellraiser and A Nightmare On Elm Street!). While there have been some terrible abominations to their originals, the 2009 version of Wes Craven's "The Last House On the Left" is not even close to those, surpassing the others to become the best horror remake to date. While some may say, "that's like being the best video game movie!", I assure you, this is a thriller that thrills, scares, and knows how to get the audience involved with the film.

As is a movie that isn't all that deep itself, and has a basic premise with no major plot twist, I'll keep this review short. I'm not going to be an idiot and say that this is a movie that has deep, thought provoking characters with oodles of development - it's not that kind of film. Dennis Iliadis knows what he has to work with and uses it to his advantage, shooting a riveting thriller that, while showcasing enough blood to drown a small village, is never overdone. "The Last House On the Left" doesn't delve into the easy escape route of the torture porn/unnecessary sex romp that other remakes have (I'm looking at you, Friday the 13th). It's gruesome and bloody when it needs to be, and this is why the audience can enjoy it.

Another detail I really liked about this one was the extreme attention paid to the suspense. At around 2 hours, this one runs pretty long for a horror film, and most of it is the build up to the climactic showdown in the house of which the title speaks. However, there's enough thrills and suspense in this to keep us interested, even though the actual house doesn't play a role until the second half of the movie. I also liked the script from Carl Ellsworth, who again manages to create an entertaining atmosphere, much like he did in Red Eye and Disturbia. Is the guy going to win any Oscars? No, as most of the dialog in his movies is pretty below average, but the guy knows how to write entertaining movies.

I guess the acting here is acceptable, especially for a horror film (oh how I long for a great actor to be in a horror film again...where did the Sigourney Weaver's of the world go?), but it's nothing to write home about. Monica Potter and Tony Goldwyn are acceptable as parents acting instinctively to protect their daughter, while Sara Paxton is impressive in a role that will not remind anyone that this is the same girl that did "Aquamarine". As for the villains, again, they are passable, but I really think Josh Brolin would've owned Garrett Dillahunt's role, while Aaron Paul's part would've been perfect for a guy like Ben Foster. What's that? Yes I'm aware that those two would probably never sign on to a movie like this, I'm just having a bit of wishful thinking. Dillahunt's character was well written enough to the point where he didn't need to add anything to make him menacing, but there was a lot of potential there.

All in all, this is one of the better horror films of recent memory (better than pretty much any mainstream 2008 horror film, that's for sure), and in my opinion the best remake of them all. It's not cheap, it's well made, and it's got what looks like a lot of effort in it. I really enjoyed it for what it was, and came out pleasantly surprised.
20 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
If you want revenge, look no further than this house
videorama-759-8593912 January 2014
Revenge extremists should love this. As finally coming around to view this as buying the DVD back in 2011, I was in no way disappointed. I was humbly content. Although this horror revenge flick, beautifully paced in it's 108 minutes, fails to some predictabilities (especially if seeing I Spit On Your Grave) this is a quite taut and at times, bloody disturbing psycho thriller. These moments are mostly the rape scenes, the worst of it Paxton's friend getting it, you can't wait for merciless revenge to be exacted. Again the pacing is perfect. Hot teeny, Paxton (god she looks great in a bikini) and her hot friend make a fatal mistake, when going to score some blow off a shy boy, who's returning a favour for one of the girls. Unfortunately, this shy, good kid, happens to belong to this psychotic family, the white trash piece of s..t father, a wanted man. What was a downer for me, was I expected the avenging family to wreak more violent acts on this vermin. The icing on the cake with Goldwyn frying the guys head in a microwave until it exploded (reminiscent to the scene in Scanners) partially made up for it, so I was kind of reimbursed.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Efficient and unpleasant update
Leofwine_draca20 April 2012
The Hollywood remakes continue unabated with this redo of the notorious Wes Craven shocker from 1972 which involves a couple of teenage girls falling foul of a criminal gang and the violent consequences that ensue. The Wes Craven film remains chilling to this day for its low budget, grainy look and feel which gives it a fuzzy, could-almost-be-a-snuff-movie type vibe. This remake is, inevitably, bigger and slicker, with more explosive action and high-end camera-work. It may not be as downright disturbing as Craven's movie but as remakes go it's one of the better ones out there.

The imposing Garret Dillahunt stars as Krug, the leader of a criminal family, for whom kidnapping, rape, extortion and murder are the order of the day. The scenes in which he captures the two girls and then subjects them to a horrendous ordeal within the woods is still a powerfully shocking moment, although thankfully it doesn't go into as much unpleasant detail as in the Craven movie. The scene then shifts to the titular location, which for me is where the film really gets going: it's all about the suspense inherent in waiting for the parents to find out what happened and then watching what they do about it, the classic home invasion premise.

What ensues both delights and disappoints. There's a violent and lengthy scene in which a character is attacked which really pays off, but aside from that what follows is a little disappointing – not least the tacked-on ending involving a microwave, which takes the mildly realistic events of the previous movie and trashes them with a frankly outrageous and unbelievable gore scene.

The cast is pretty good, which seems to be the norm for these modern-day remakes (aside from the teen slashers, in which the cast remain drivelling). Dillahunt excels in the role which made David Hess's name; he's no Hess, but he gets close at times. Tony Goldwyn, previously a villain in the likes of THE LAST SAMURAI, is particularly good as the father caught up in events spiralling out of control, although Monica Potter as the mother has little to work with. Yes, there are a couple of unwise twists where the plot deviates from the original – and horror fans will be disappointed there's no chainsaw this time around – but for the most part this is a workable suspense thriller with enough viciousness to appease moviegoers looking for their latest violent fix.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed