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.

A remake of Wes Craven's 1972 movie. Fairly good, and better than the original.

The director builds the scenario and tension well and doesn't overdo the horror clichés. Convincing acting by a cast of unknowns.

The original was pretty much your standard 1970s B-grade exploitation thriller, complete with low production values and hammy acting. This version, on the other hand, is much slicker and has decent performances.

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

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...

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.

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".

A gang kills two detectives and breaks out criminal Krug (Garret Dillahunt). Competitive swimmer Mari Collingwood (Sara Paxton) and her parents (Monica Potter, Tony Goldwyn) go to their vacation home. Mari reconnects with local friend Paige (Martha MacIsaac). The girls go to a motel room with Justin (Spencer Treat Clark) with the promise of some marijuana. They have a fun time until Justin's dad Krug, uncle Francis (Aaron Paul) and Sadie (Riki Lindhome) arrive. The girls are kidnapped and then Mari causes the car to crash.

As far as violent horrors go, this works better than most. The first half is the most compelling. The rape scene is pretty brutal. The violence is scary without the enjoyable fun. It's a horrific scene. The scariest part is actually the motel scene where the violence is just threatened. The second half is less scary by comparison. It's more traditional with the Collingwood family battling the criminal family. The whole movie works pretty well with some memorable brutality.

If you watch the unrated version, be warned that it is psychologically intense. This movie doesn't go off of cheap jump scares or anything to spook its audience, but rather the rawness and real feeling that the scenes and acting provide. I remember feeling so eerie while watching this film that I realized that this was what horror films should really be like.

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.

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.

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.

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!.

Not as gritty or disturbing as the original but still a good film.

Plenty of violence to keep you interested if your into that kind of thing.

Good revenge movie all in all

I am really not sure what kind of twisted mind enjoys young females being brutalized and raped. Of course the victims are scantly clad with pushup bras to heighten the exploitative nature of this garbage. And to think this garbage has been done twice, says something about our species.

The Last House on the Left was just another in the endless glut of horror remakes that was triggered by the surprise success of Platinum Dunes' Texas Chainsaw Massacre reboot in 2003, but what makes this film stand out is its ability to truly reimagine the source material, highlighting different moments for emphasis, and turning it into a very different experience than the original film.

For all it's intensity and guts, the original film isn't a well made film by any stretch of the imagination. Camera work is mostly ugly, some acting isn't great, and the comic elements don't work and drag things down. This newer Last House is easily a better made and acted film even if some of the gorier aspects have been toned down.

If it has any faults, it's the awful ending which feels tacked on and completely unnecessary.

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 .

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?