I recently bought Arrow Video's 3-disc Blu-Ray of Wes Craven's ultimate classic, The Last House on the Left. I watched all three cuts in one day, so I decided to watch the remake afterward. I have seen this before, but it's been years. After re-watching it, I still very much prefer the original, but the revenge scenes in this one were gorier and better than the original. Garret Dillahunt (Fear the Walking Dead) made a very mean and more brutal Krug. Aaron Paul (Breaking Bad) was cool to see as Francis, Krug's brother. Riki Lindhome was sexy but deadly as Sadie, Krug's girlfriend. The acting was better and more believable this time around. On his way to prison, Krug is broken free by Francis and Sadie. Meanwhile, Mari Collingwood head to their lakehouse for a little vacation. Mari wants to go out and spend time with her best friend, Paige. They make the mistake of asking Justin for some pot (Justin happens to be Krug's son) When they get to the hotel, Krug and his gang takes them hostage. While driving through the woods, the girls try to make a break for it, but they get caught again and slowly tortured. When Mari is beaten, raped, shot and left for dead, a storm is coming and Krug and his gang just happen to seek refuge from Mari's parents. The tension rises when John and Emma Collingwood find their daughter savagely beaten and learn that the people they took in are the ones who attacked her. Soon, the parents will become just as psychotic as the killers. Overall, it's a very good remake. It feels more realistic, but as I said, I still love the original better. It's only a movie. It's only a movie...only a movie. If you love Wes Craven's original classic, you'll love LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT!!!

This was an okay movie. What was missing from this movie was the psychotic characters. I did not see the bad guys/kidnappers as evil, heartless men. The original did a much better job of depicting their grotesque demeanor. Though this may very well be a better movie.5 Stars. Worth a viewing on a lazy day

Actually I never found this movie scary except for the fact that these girls were kidnapped and tortured to death. I never really heard about this movie before,but then I saw it was a 1972 version of Wes Craven,and I wanted to see it. I saw the 1972 version and the 2009 version and I was like what in the name of god! Both of these movies were really tragic,but I just thought 2009 version was more emotional showing. 2009 shows more empathy for the characters while in the 1972 version it shows that they're treated literally like trailer trash.2009 shows better fights,better emotion,and I have to also say better soundtrack too,because 1972 really failed on that. Everything in 1972 was not right at all,and I'm talking movie wise,not story wise. Because 2009 showed something similar with different character traits. 2009 may have not been the greatest movie ever,but it still shows that the family will really try and fight for their kid. 2009 just shows more feeling that you have than 1972.

It was pretty obvious from the beginning that the girl called Josh who looks like a boy was going to rat them all out and you could tell that all four hoodlums were going to die without the Mom and Dad receiving so much as a scratch.I also feel that this movie could be shorter. The beginning seems unnecessarily long and leaves you thinking "When do we get to the good stuff?" I praise this movie for having a simple plot. The bad guys rape a girl, her parents take brutal revenge. The characters were simple people and you can understand who they were which is a personal preference of mine. Some people look for really deep complicated characters but you won't find any in this movie.