The Last House on the Left

Metascore
42

Mixed or average reviews - based on 27 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 12 out of 27
  2. Negative: 9 out of 27

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On
Stream On

Critic Reviews

  1. Adheres sufficiently closely to the original template so as not to offend purists and manages to pack an intensely visceral punch of its own, most effectively in the extended setup.
  2. Hinges on humiliation and vengeance, which makes it like most other modern horror titles. Its focus on sexual assault, however, puts it in a different, more primal league.
  3. 75
    A warning: One scene in the middle is almost outrageously cruel and graphic. If you're the type of person who has to be reminded, "It's only a movie," stay away. This is the most depraved and dreadful piece of screen horror since last year's "Funny Games."
  4. The remake of The Last House on the Left breaks the template, taking the 1972 original into an interesting new direction, with bold camera angles, good actors and a script that heaps on just as much character development as carnage.
  5. Reviewed by: Olivia Putnal
    75
    The storyline was actually believable, surrounding a family willing to do anything to save one another. A horror film turned feel-good.
  6. Horror fans anticipating grisly laughs are in for a jolt. Because the new Last House, though terrifying, is never, ever fun.
  7. 63
    Look at the performances. They're surprisingly good, and I especially admired the work of Monica Potter and Tony Goldwyn as the parents of one of two girls who go walking in the woods.
  8. The best in the latest crop of slasher remakes. Admittedly, that is faint praise.
  9. 63
    The wheels fall off toward the end but, until that point, Illiadis does an excellent job of generating and maintaining an intense sense of dread.
  10. The result is a glossy, engaging suspense film that jettisons much of its predecessor's sadism and subtext in favor of crowd-pleasing revenge violence.
  11. 50
    Like the current hit "Taken," Last House 2009 packs a vicarious jolt that might feel cathartic to certain moviegoers.
  12. 25
    Audiences with a brain cell left have only one choice: Look for the first exit on the right.
  13. Reviewed by: Claudia Puig
    25
    Not only is it plodding and completely predictable, the carnage is rendered slowly and quasi-reverentially, making the whole brutal experience come off like torture porn.
  14. 0
    It's a gore sundae with an S&M cherry on top.
  15. 30
    The rape scene is, admittedly, as brutal as any I've seen in recent memory, but much of what Iliadis shows us is a direct riff on the original.
  16. One sickening piece of garbage.
  17. 30
    Why remake Craven's original at all? Oh, yeah, I forgot: Reheated depravity sells. To avoid existential despair, keep repeating: It's only a remake; it's only a remake; it's only a remake.
  18. Iliadis is more visually sophisticated than Craven was in 1972 and works hard to sustain the mood and tension while still hitting the audience with blunt scenes of wincing violence. (It gets grisly and grotesque enough for gore hounds.)
  19. This remake is merely vile (and dull).
  20. There's a huge change that turns the nihilistic carnage of Craven's original into something suffused with old-fashioned family values, so that we can relax and enjoy watching the bad guys get beaten, skewered, dismembered by garbage disposals, and tortured with microwave ovens.
  21. Replacing the earlier movie's more depraved sequences with sustained tension and truly unnerving editing, the director proves adept at managing mayhem in cramped spaces.
  22. 60
    The remake is plenty scary, though any moral inquiry into the cost of revenge seemed to fly over the heads of the screaming, laughing crowd I saw it with.
  23. 50
    In the end, like virtually every other remake that has been released recently, it's polished and predictable.
  24. 40
    This new House tries to sustain a grave, heavy sense of threat. It fails, through its villainy.
  25. Reviewed by: Dennis Harvey
    40
    If the original could be accused of having a real point (even a subtext), the uninspired redo has none whatsoever.
  26. 10
    A shockingly mundane disappointment taken on its own and a deeply misguided refraction of the original.
  27. 33
    It's now a straight-up crime and retribution flick, capped off by the dumbest wolf-feeding coda a 13-year-old ever dreamed up.
User Score
6.1

Generally favorable reviews- based on 94 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 16 out of 36
  2. Negative: 14 out of 36
  1. Sep 6, 2015
    8
    The movie was actually pretty good.The acting was okay,the movie was entertaining and there was some blood.The movie was probably censoredThe movie was actually pretty good.The acting was okay,the movie was entertaining and there was some blood.The movie was probably censored because the rape scene was not really believable and the deaths were kind of lame except for the first bad guy.The atmosphere was not good enough to really affect the movie.And the way the movie is made, you won't like any characters so you won't really care who dies at the end. Overall a pretty good movie but it could've been so much better. Full Review »
  2. Jan 10, 2015
    8
    I haven't seen this in a couple years, so my memory of it was a little fuzzy. Now I know that it was far better than I expected. A hugeI haven't seen this in a couple years, so my memory of it was a little fuzzy. Now I know that it was far better than I expected. A huge improvement to the original was a consistently dark atmosphere. In Wes Craven's version, it felt silly at times, namely the scenes with the cops and the whole "Willow" stuff. This remake was also a lot more intense and suspenseful, and the danger felt a lot more real. The ending may somewhat blunt the movie's overall effect, but, hey, how often do you get that sort of ending in a horror movie? The rape scene was very difficult to sit through because it was so long and realistic, which is my only real complaint. If you had to choose to watch the original or the remake, I would go with the remake because it's a lot more thrilling, and it's far superior to Wes Craven's version overall. Full Review »
  3. Nov 23, 2014
    7
    I watched this film without watching the original film. Just another remake based on a 1970's classic. I'd watch the first one before watchingI watched this film without watching the original film. Just another remake based on a 1970's classic. I'd watch the first one before watching this adaptation. Full Review »