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
  1. 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.
  2. 0
    It's a gore sundae with an S&M cherry on top.
  3. 50
    Like the current hit "Taken," Last House 2009 packs a vicarious jolt that might feel cathartic to certain moviegoers.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. This remake is merely vile (and dull).
  8. 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.
  9. Reviewed by: Mark Olsen
    10
    A shockingly mundane disappointment taken on its own and a deeply misguided refraction of the original.
  10. One sickening piece of garbage.
  11. 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.
  12. 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."
  13. Reviewed by: Tirdad Derakhshani
    63
    The best in the latest crop of slasher remakes. Admittedly, that is faint praise.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 25
    Audiences with a brain cell left have only one choice: Look for the first exit on the right.
  17. 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.
  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. 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.
  20. Horror fans anticipating grisly laughs are in for a jolt. Because the new Last House, though terrifying, is never, ever fun.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. Reviewed by: Jason Buchanan
    50
    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.
  24. 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.
  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. Reviewed by: Nick Pinkerton
    40
    This new House tries to sustain a grave, heavy sense of threat. It fails, through its villainy.
  27. Reviewed by: Mike Mayo
    50
    In the end, like virtually every other remake that has been released recently, it's polished and predictable.
User Score
6.1

Generally favorable reviews- based on 89 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 16 out of 34
  2. Negative: 14 out of 34
  1. 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 »
  2. Nov 16, 2014
    5
    Last House on the Left: 5 out of 10: Close but no cigar. Honestly anyone who remembers 1972’s shocking version of the Virgin Spring had toLast House on the Left: 5 out of 10: Close but no cigar. Honestly anyone who remembers 1972’s shocking version of the Virgin Spring had to know this remake would pull back the reigns. It would be like a remake of “I Spit on your Grave”... just not likely in these conservative and commercial times. Well at least they did not make it PG-13.

    They screw up they remake early with two changes. The bad guys are bad guys from the start. There is no connection with the audience. No sense that they are travelling down a path as well; they do not connect with the audience as the hippies of the first film did. There is no sense that they are exploring there boundaries or challenging themselves. They start fully formed as black hats.

    The second mistake is moving the story out of a regular middle class neighborhood and into a millionaires’ nature retreat. There is something shocking about violence among the shag carpeting and wood paneling of suburbia (The original movie was from 1972 after all) that is lost with the large Architectural Digest house perfectly clean and decorated. (Though with the filmiest wooden furniture this side of a thirties Western).

    The rape is much less graphic than the original and the sense of sadism and intimacy of the first film is lost. On the plus side, Tony Goldwyn and Monica Potter give great performances as the parents and the revenge scenes are not completely without a sense of fun.

    If this film was called something else, I might have gone easier on it. As a Last House on the Left film, it is a glossy shadow of its predecessor.
    Full Review »
  3. Jun 16, 2014
    0
    An unworthy piece of garbage, what happened to the 1970s' and 1980s' type of horror films. Sure today's technology is better, that's great,An unworthy piece of garbage, what happened to the 1970s' and 1980s' type of horror films. Sure today's technology is better, that's great, but we don't need to go overboard with it. I hope everyone can see where I'm coming from here. This film is very bad and terrible in everyway possible. It's crap compared to Wes Craven's original horror film made back in (1972). If I was on the MPAA ratings board I would've rated them opposite of each other. The 1972 film gets an R rating and the 2009 remake gets an NC-17. I see no reason why the 1972 film should be given an X rating. I think it definitely deserves an R, but not an X rating, I think the ratings board had bad judgment there. I think now that the film's on DVD and Blu-ray they should re-submit it to the MPAA so they can have another look at it. They should re-release it either in theaters one more time or straight to DVD, so the public and movie-goers can see why they got the rating for this film wrong in the first place. This film has terrible acting, bad scripted dialogue and the special effects are way overboard. I think this film plus the Saw films and the Hostel films should all be given an NC-17 rating. I'm on the fence with Halloween (2007) though. I think that one should stay rated: R. But I do think that the (2009) sequel should be slapped with an NC-17. The violence is more brutal and bloody than the remake. All in all The remake of The Last House On The Left is just pure torture and predictable, everyone should avoid buying this movie at all costs, and someone should contact the MPAA and get this movie re-rated. Full Review »