The LEGO Movie 2: The Second Part
The Walking Dead
Log in with Facebook
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Sign up here
and the Terms and Policies,
and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Already have an account? Log in here
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
We want to hear what you have to say but need to verify your account. Just leave us a message here and we will work on getting you verified.
Please reference “Error Code 2121” when contacting customer service.
Excessive and gory, this remake lacks the intellectual punch of the 1972 original.
All Critics (152)
| Top Critics (34)
| Fresh (62)
| Rotten (90)
| DVD (11)
Dennis Iliadis's remake retains its ferocious power and provocative themes, and thanks to a focused script that unfolds in real time, it ratchets up the suspense and sucks us into a remorseless cycle of violence and revenge.
The narrative structure is ingenious and sexual assault is at least shown as having dramatic and human consequences of some sort, if only in the context of revenge. Wasn't the original movie enough?
Extremely entertaining if you don't mind being morally corrupted at every juncture.
It's that first 30 minutes that ruin this movie.
Boy, words can not express how much I just loathe and detest this movie.
In the end, like virtually every other remake that has been released recently, it's polished and predictable.
The Last House on the Left is perhaps best seen as a reminder of why remakes of classic horror films almost always fail.
The director, Dennis Iliadis, is exactly the right type of person to helm an upgrade of this manner: he is a genuine fan of the source.
A fascinating and confrontational horror film that deals with terrors a lot more chilling than some dude swinging a machete.
If you must, seek out the original to see nasty things happen to nasty people in a nasty film.
The remake deviates from its source material, giving something new for fans of the original to enjoy/moan about, and employ some imagination with a few of the killings.
An utterly stellar revenge picture...
Visceral walk in the woods of a tale with three parts: first the set-up, wherein a happy family visits their isolated woodland retreat; second, introduction of seriously sicko bad guys (including the perversely Hitchcockian you-are-accessory-to-the-crimes-simply-because-you-like-to-watch angle), and lastly, the happy family's REVENGE. Fun for the entire family? No.
I have very peculiar, mixed and sort of concerned feelings about this film. 2009's Friday the 13th was a remake that was worth doing because the original had almost no redeeming features about it. Although a cash in it was surprisingly good for what it was. However I must also applaud it for being greater than this remake. Interestingly, the original 1972 classic "Last House on the Left" was trashily made, abandoned of a consistent tone and was essentialy an extremely unpleasant film to watch. It was famous for being one of the most controversial members of the "video nasties" in 1982 which were a collection of gritty and repugnant films that were deemed dangerous for a human being to watch. Even though it was badly made, it remains a historical artifact about challenging the boundaries and attacking censorship and like I said that it all added up to a very unpleasant, horrible, disgusting experience. The remake of The Last House on the Left doesn't have any point to exist other than one, money. It's a finely directed, impressively acted and highly scrubbed and polished piece of work. But it has no excuse for existing. It's not a bad film but it's actually more extravagant, silly and sympathetic than the original because it promotes the idea of salvation over violence. But much more harshly and importantly the original film's message to the viewer was; violence creates violence.
Interesting remake of Wes Craven's 1972 film, The Last House on the Left. I view Craven's original film as an exploitation horror classic that pushed the boundaries of good taste. With that said, this remake is still pretty disturbing and delivers some brutal scenes of revenge mayhem. I much preferred the original film of course, but as a remake, this film isn't bad. As a remake of the original, I thought that this film was pretty good. The film improves on Wes Craven's film in some respects. The film is better than most remakes, but as a whole you'd be better off to stick with the classic film. Nothing can beat Craven's debut. This film has plenty of good, effective moments of tension and is a revenge flick. However there is something missing to really make it stand out above Craven's film, and since this is a remake; it really can't be as good as the original. There's some good performances and like I said, considering the whole remake factor, that's saying a lot. The film has its faults, but for the most part it succeeds at being an effective horror flick, and one that stands out among the better remakes that have come out in recent memory. If you've enjoyed the original, then give this version a shot. The film is definitely worth checking out, and despite its flaws, has something that will definitely appeal to horror fans. For a remake, this film is watchable and definitely a step above the traditional Asian horror remakes.
As remakes go I don't this one faired too badly, but then again there are not many movies as good as the original to work with. Similar to the likes of "I Spit On Your Grave" this movie puts the audience in the hands of the victims and not the killers, as those they have harmed literally reap bloody revenge. I like this spin on films, whereby you're actually rooting for the good guys for once. Convincing acting, memorably horrific storyline and great suspense, this is one movie that I am happy was remade, even though I still think the original is better, but hey, I'm a purist.
View All Quotes