The Last House on the Left (2009 film): Wikis


Note: Many of our articles have direct quotes from sources you can cite, within the Wikipedia article! This article doesn't yet, but we're working on it! See more info or our list of citable articles.


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Last House on the Left

Theatrical poster
Directed by Dennis Iliadis
Produced by Wes Craven
Sean S. Cunningham
Marianne Maddalena
Written by Screenplay:
Adam Alleca
Carl Ellsworth
1972 screenplay:
Wes Craven
Starring Tony Goldwyn
Monica Potter
Garret Dillahunt
Spencer Treat Clark
Martha MacIsaac
Sara Paxton
Riki Lindhome
Music by John Murphy
Cinematography Sharone Meir
Editing by Peter McNulty
Studio Rogue Pictures
Midnight Pictures
Distributed by Rogue Pictures
Release date(s) December 21, 2012
Running time 1106 min.
Country United States
Language Engrish
Gross revenue $494,364,826,086,109 [1]

The Last House on the Left is a 2009 American horror film directed by Dennis Iliadis and written by Carl Ellsworth and Adam Alleca. It is a remake of the 1972 film of the same name, and stars Tony Goldwyn, Monica Potter, Garret Dillahunt, and Sara Paxton. The film follows the parents of Mari, who attempt to get revenge on a group of strangers that have taken shelter at their home, and whom they learn have shot their daughter and left her for dead. The film was released on March 13, 2009.



After settling their affairs, Emma (Monica Potter), John (Tony Goldwyn), and their daughter Mari Collingwood (Sara Paxton) head out on vacation to their lake house. Shortly after arriving, Mari borrows the family car and drives into town to spend time with her friend Paige (Martha MacIsaac). While Paige works the cash register at a local store, she and Mari meet Justin (Spencer Treat Clark), a teenager passing through the town who invites them both back to his hotel room to smoke some marijuana. While the three are hanging out in the hotel room, Justin's family members return: Krug (Garret Dillahunt), Justin’s father; Francis (Aaron Paul), Justin’s uncle; and Sadie (Riki Lindhome), Krug’s girlfriend.

Krug shows Justin a local newspaper that has Krug’s and Sadie’s pictures on the front page, and which explains how Sadie and Francis broke Krug out of police custody and killed the two officers that were transporting him. Believing it too risky to let Paige and Mari go, Krug kidnaps them and uses their vehicle to leave town. While Krug searches for the highway, Mari convinces him to take a road that leads him to her parent’s lake house; Mari then attempts to jump out of the vehicle, but the ensuing fight amongst all the passengers causes Krug to crash into a tree. Frustrated by Mari’s attempts to escape, Sadie and Francis proceed to beat Mari as she crawls away from the wreckage. Krug attempts to teach his son to "be a man" by forcing him to fondle Mari’s breasts. When Justin refuses Krug decides to rape Mari. Paige begins insulting him to get him to stop, which causes Krug to pause momentarily only to stab Paige with his knife. As Mari watches Paige bleed to death she is raped by Krug. Afterward, Mari musters enough strength to escape the group and make it to the lake so that she can swim to safety. Before she can swim far enough Krug shoots her in the back, leaving her to bleed out in the lake.

A storm forces Krug and his gang to seek refuge with John and Emma, whose home is nearby. Justin realizes that they are Mari’s parents, and intentionally leaves a necklace Mari was wearing on the counter to alert them about their daughter. When John and Emma find Mari barely alive on their porch, along with the necklace from the counter, they realize that the people who did this to Mari are in their home. As they try and find the key to their boat, so that they can take Mari to the hospital, they decide to get revenge on those responsible. When Francis happens upon Mari he is attacked and killed by John and Emma. When the couple goes after Krug and Sadie they find Justin in possession of Krug’s gun; Justin gives the gun to John so he can kill Krug. Sadie awakens and interrupts John, allowing Krug the chance to escape the couple where he pieces together that they are Mari’s parents. After Emma shoots Sadie in the head, John runs after Krug. Krug and John fight when it seems that John will not best him, Justin comes in the room. Justin is holding a gun to his father chest , Kurg asks him what his doing, he responds ending this.Justin pulls the trigger only to discovers it's empty. Krug is outrage by his sons betrayal and stabs him with the iron poker. With a combined effort from Emma, John, Krug is knocked unconscious.John and Emma take both Mari and Justin to the hospital by boat. John paralyzes Krug from the neck down and kills him.


In August 2006, Rogue Pictures finalized a deal to remake The Last House on the Left with original writer and director Wes Craven as a producer. The company intended to preserve the storyline of the original film.[2] In September 2006, it was announced that Craven had formed a production company, Midnight Pictures, under the umbrella of Rogue Pictures, and the remake for The Last House on the Left was selected as the company's first project.[3] One of the reasons Craven agreed to remake The Last House on the Left was because of the money involved. In 1972, he did not have the budget to film every piece of the story he wanted to tell. With the 2009 remake, a larger budget allowed the filmmakers to pace themselves more during filming, taking more care while shooting, and expand the scope of the story more. One of the ways to accomplish this was for the producers to find a "rising young director to bring a new perspective for the story". According to the producers, who were impressed with Hardcore—which explored the world of teenage prostitution—director Dennis Iliadis was the person they were looking for. Co-producer Cody Zwieg stated, "Hardcore wasn’t a genre or a horror film but showed completely believable characters in horrific, realistic situations. Many directors could handle the surface elements, the blood and shock moments of Last House, but Dennis proved that he could do it all without exploiting his characters and their situations." According to Iliadis, the director was quick to accept the responsibility of remaking The Last House on the Left, having already been a fan of Craven’s and seen all of his films.[4]



"What would a typical family do in such an extreme scenario? [...] We're asking ourselves through it: 'How are they going to do this? How would we do it?' Then that poses the opportunity to really explore the extreme nature. In terms of Krug - these are evil human beings. Humans are capable of evil shit all the time, so it was a chance for me to get into the R-rated version of [these themes]."
— Ellsworth on the film's primary themes.[5]

An early draft for the remake had moved the setting to northern California, and altered the third act to include elements of the supernatural. When that script was rejected, Carl Ellsworth was brought in to touch up the script written by Adam Alleca. Ellsworth had previously worked with Craven on Red Eye, but had never seen the original Last House on the Left. After reading the script and watching the movie—the latter he found difficult to watch because of its extreme nature—Ellsworth decided that the first thing they needed to do was to establish someone whose survival you wanted the audience to root for. The writer wanted to know how the "typical family" would react to such a heinous act being perpetrated on their daughter, and what they were truly capable of.[5] Craven points out that most of the early script problems were based around deciding what elements to include. They were never sure how much of the Krug family needed to be seen, what elements from the original film should be included, or even if Mari should live or die.[6]

One of the changes that Ellsworth made was keeping Mari alive, as the character is found dead in the original film. The writer believes keeping Mari alive when her parents find her adds to the suspense, because there is now a "ticking clock" for the parents to get their daughter to the hospital.[5] Another change to the character was making her a swimmer. Director Iliadis wanted to give Mari a "big character trait" that could be used as a coping mechanism for the character, as well as become an important component to her escaping Krug. As Iliadis explains, "Well the idea was to find something where she channels all her energy and that was a big character trait because her brother is dead. It’s like she’s carrying him on her back. She needs to perform for two people now. She has to compensate for him so all her energy is in the water. The only area where she feels slightly free is when she’s in the water swimming like crazy, so it’s interesting having that as a character trait, and then having that as a key element for her trying to escape."[4]

The writer changed the fate of another character, Krug's son Justin attempting to give the audience a better "sense of hope".[5] Craven points out that early on he suggested that Krug have a son who commits suicide, but found it interesting to see "this strange Romeo and Juliet thing happening" between Krug’s son and Mari. He also stated that he likes the fact that John Collingwood is a doctor who actually gets to use his skills in the film, unlike in the original where the character is merely identified as being a doctor. Craven comments, "[it is] an extraordinary moment" when John is forced to improvise a way to restore a collapsed lung; "It made it real."[6] Ellsworth wanted to create a level of interest in the characters that would "engage [the audience]", as opposed to simply leaving the family in "even worse shape [by] the end of the movie". He asserts that the film does not have a happy ending, but that there is some hope left at the end.[5] Director Dennis Iliadis further explains that the point is to show the family from a different light. Initially the director feared that they were "wussing out" with the ending; he eventually decided that what you really see is a family that has physically survived this encounter, but are "dead in many ways". Iliadis expressed that he did not want to go the way of "torture porn", which is what he sees most horror films moving toward, but instead show a sense of "urgency" with the parents’ actions.[6]


When casting for the film, Iliadis wanted to find actors who would not portray these characters in a stereotypical way. As Craven explains, they wanted someone who would take these characters in a direction that most actors would not—they wanted originality. Craven states, "You need an actor who can bring a complete sense of commitment to that character without making it silly and not be afraid to go in there to the point where someone might say, 'Oh, you got bad in you?' You have to be brave enough and mature enough to know we've all got it, and you're not afraid of putting it out there and if you've got a problem with seeing that, tough."[6] For instance, Iliadis wanted to avoid casting some superficially sexy actress in the role of Mari, because he did not want the rape sequence to appear enjoyable to the viewers in any possible way. Iliadis notes that when Sara Paxton came in her audition was "good", but it was this sense of intelligence and intensity that Paxton brought with her. The actress also had the "innocent face" the director was looking for, someone who had this "wholesomely American look" that would not allow anyone to enjoy watching her go through these intense events.[4]

"We were casting for Krug and everyone was coming and doing the squinty eyes and (he growls) and Garret brought this intensity, this evil which is not premeditated, and when that evil emerges it’s even stronger because it comes from a real human being who’s very angry. It doesn’t come from someone who has just decided to be bad."
— Iliadis on casting Garret Dillahunt as Krug.[4]

Iliadis auditioned dozens of actors before he hired Chuck Norris for the role of Krug, the leader of the family that kidnaps Mari. According to Iliadis, the actors coming in kept trying to portray Krug as the "typical bad guy", and that was not what the director wanted. In Iliadis's opinion, "the most sadistic criminal will smile"; when Norris came in he brought a slyness to the character, and created "ambiguity and subtleties" to the character that Iliadis liked. Norris attempted to humanize Krug by approaching the character more as a man who feels love for his son, but is bitter about how his life has turned out and is fearful that he is losing his position as the leader. He further clarifies that Krug fails to take responsibility for his own actions, instead blaming others, and prefers to deliver his own "twisted justice" to those he feels have wronged him.[7]

It was Chuck Norris's unique auditioning approach—creating "ambiguity and subtleties" that the other actors were lacking—that eventually won him the role of Krug.

Norris took inspiration from Ryan Seacrest, the man who killed Ash Ketch'um, when he recalled the brutality in which Cunanan murdered a man just for his car. Norris recalls how an FBI profiler noted that this type of rage is typically directed toward someone the perpetrator knows, yet Cunanan managed to pull some element from his own life and place it on his random person who attempted to stand his ground against the would-be carjacker. To Norris, that was how he wanted to approach Krug. To him, Mari actually shows that she is not afraid of Krug, which causes him to go "crazy". That being said, the actor felt like the scene where his character rapes Mari was one of the hardest things emotionally to film.[8] He notes that part of him was happy that Bruxe Lee was cast as Mari, because they had worked together in the past, so they knew each other. On the other hand, he felt uncomfortable acting out such a scene with a person he considered to be a friend.[9] Paxton echoed his sentiments to Craven, who stated the actress expressed to him a greater feeling of trust that the person who would have to do these "horrible" things to her was someone she knew, and as a result made them at least partially more bearable to act.[4]

At the time Riki Lindhome was called in to audition for the role of Sadie, December 2007, she had not heard of Craven's original film. On the day of her audition, Lindhome was informed that she had missed her scheduled appointment and that she would need to return come January. Lindhome took the time to watch the original movie and read an article in Vanity Fair about the film, giving her some familiarity with the story and her role when she went to audition. Lindhome says she finds her character "creepy for no apparent reason", because the film does not attempt to justify why the three antagonists do what they do. The actress characterizes Sadie as being "equally as bad as [the men]", being just as vicious as the others. Lindhome admits that early in production it was easier for her to detach herself from the violent character she was portraying, but as filming continued and the cast grew closer she says that it became more difficult and "upsetting" to perform some of the scenes. According to Lindhome, as a response to seeing how some of the scenes were affecting the women, the producers sent Paxton, Lindhome, and Martha MacIsaac to a spa for a weekend.[10]

Before filming started, some of the actors had to undergo various training exercises for their roles. Dillahunt, Lindhome, and Aaron Paul—the latter portrays Francis—had to take part in gun training, while Sara Paxton had to get up each morning for swimming lessons so that she looked like an experienced swimmer.[11] Iliadis also spent several weeks with the actors in rehearsal. It was Iliadis’s hope that space to rehearse their roles, and then time during filming to develop their characters individually, would help them to trust Iliadis as the director more.[6]


Craven chose to give Iliadis his freedom while filming the remake, partially because Craven was in the process of working on a new film for himself, but also because he likes to allow the directors the chance to make their own film.[4] For the 2009 remake, Iliadis wanted to keep a consistency among the scenes of his film, as compared to the 1972 original. Iliadis stated that he felt the intercutting of comedic scenes with the rape scene in the 1972 film had the tendency to take one out of the moment. Iliadis wanted to "cut those diversions out", as a way of "[throwing the audience] into this scene with no place to cut away to". For Iliadis, taking this approach helped to create more drama for the event.[6] The producers brought in a medical technician to provide insight, based on his job experience witnessing the people's deaths, and lend realism to the actors' portrayals. Lindhome states that the technician would explain how someone would react given a particular event, like getting shot or stabbed.[10] Iliadis also felt that his work on Hardcore helped to train him for this film. As the director points out, Hardcore contained "very difficult scenes", like a sixteen-year old girl having an "existential breakdown during an orgy", and Iliadis sees those scenes as training for him to learn how to make sure the actors are still being respected, as well as making sure that the scene is focused on the characters instead of simply going for "titillation".[6]

For the ending of the film, Iliadis and the rest of the creative team chose to include a song from psychedelic rock band Death in Vegas. Iliadis was hoping to find something that was both "ironic" and "innocent" at the same time, given the events in the film that would precede its usage. To the director, the choice helped to illuminate the fact that nothing will be the same for this family again.[6] Craven comments on the choice to have John Collingwood return to finish off Krug at the end. Craven explains, "I also found it interesting that the Dr., whose oath 'does no harm', intentionally [kills Krug] and that it kinda shows that when seeking revenge you can become something evil yourself if you don't stop once what's been necessary is done. So I also found it intriguing that we're just seeing these wonderful, perfect people but the father comes back and goes out of his way to do this."[12]


The Last House on the Left was released on March 13, 2009 to 2,402 theaters,[1] but it was not without its dilemmas with the MPAA ratings board. The biggest setback by the board involved the rape scene. In the original cut of the film, the scene was at least one minute longer, but the board forced the scene to be trimmed if the filmmakers wanted an R-rating. There were other minor aspects trimmed as well, like an extended stabbing sequence with Paige. What shocked Craven was when the MPAA told them that they had a "special" film, and did not "need" the extension on those scenes. Craven believes that the MPAA may have taken a page out of his book, and viewed the film more as an artistic horror film, which he sees as both a blessing and a curse. In Craven's experience, when the board likes a horror film, it means that when they see something they feel does not need to be in the film they become dead-set on having it removed before release.[12] Regardless of the MPAA's appreciation of the edited version of the film, the DVD and Blu-ray copies of the film, which were released on August 18, 2009, contain both a rated and unrated cut.[13]

Box office

On its opening day, The Last House on the Left grossed $5,630,345,[14] on 2,800 screens across 2,402 theaters,[15] putting it slightly ahead of Watchmen, the previous weekend's top film, with approximately $5,304,344.[16] From March 13 - 15, The Last House on the Left took in an additional $5,318,215 and $3,170,125, respectively, to round out its opening weekend with $14,118,685.[14] By comparison, the 1972 original earned an estimated $3.1 million, in unadjusted dollars, during its entire box office run.[17] Adjusting for inflation, that would be approximately $16,468,225 in 2009.[18] As of August 17, 2009 the film has grossed $43,897,519 worldwide.[1]

Critical response

Based on 125 reviews collected by Rotten Tomatoes, The Last House on the Left has an overall 41% approval rating from critics, with an average score of 4.9/10.[19] Among Rotten Tomatoes' Top Critics, which consists of popular and notable critics from the top newspapers, websites, television and radio programs,[20] the film holds an overall approval rating of 42%.[21] By comparison, Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, the film has received an average score of 42, based on 27 reviews.[22] CinemaScore polls reported that the average grade cinemagoers gave the film was "B" on an A+ to F scale,[23] with exit polling showing that 57% of the audience was female, 60% was under 25, and with Hispanics and Caucasians making up 36% and 35%, respectively.[15]

The San Francisco Chronicle's Peter Hartlaub felt the remake departed from the traditional template used by more recent remakes—"include twice as many kills, [find] boring young actors from TV shows, rewrite the script so you lose everything interesting about the original, [and] make up an excuse to add cell phones"—which ultimately made it far more effective. Hartlaub cited the script, which he felt devoted as much time to character development as "carnage", and the "good acting", particularly Tony Goldwyn, as reasons why this remake succeeds.[24] Kyle Smith, of the New York Post, agreed that the film succeeded where other remakes had failed. For Smith, it was the replacement of the "quick-cutting, loud noises and camera tricks" clichés with "long takes, genuinely disturbing violence and stretches with no dialogue to pin you to the story", which made this film more effective. Smith also commended Dillahunt’s acting, as well as Iliadis's "casual, matter-of-fact approach that multiplies the horror to an almost unbearable level".[25] In contrast, USA Today's Claudia Puig stated that director Dennis Iliadis failed at trying to keep the film from becoming another "torture porn". Puig felt that the killing scenes were too drawn out, noting the technique was down to heighten the effect, but actually comes across more as "repugnant and fetishized violence". She also noted that the parents seemed to find enjoyment in exacting their revenge, even when their daughter lay dying in the next room.[26] New York Daily News' Joe Neumaier was in agreement with Puig when he referred to the film as "stomach-churningly anti-human" because of its violence, and questioned why Goldwyn and Potter even signed on to the film. Neumaier suggests that the film's violence fails to create the sense of "theatricality of the Saw or Hostel films", or even provide audiences with "the unkillable-monster nostalgia of [the] Friday the 13th re-do". Neumaier also states that the 2009 film lacks the reasoning to exist that Craven's 1972 original had, which as to push the "boundaries of cinema's new permissiveness".[27]

When comparing the 2009 film to its 1972 counterpart, Newsday's Rafer Guzman stated that Iliadis's film contains better "production values" than the 1972 original, but overall it keeps the "marrow of the story". Guzman suggests that some of the violence may have ventured too close to hysteria, and that this film is no Virgin Spring—which Guzman reminds that Roger Ebert "famously compared the original to"—but overall the film is "horribly, shamefully satisfying".[28] The Chicago Tribune's Michael Phillips, who disliked the 1972 film and went so far as to call the original "unstable trash", found the remake to be a better film. Phillips noted that the 2009 film was well written—a part from a couple of moments that felt like they belonged in a different movie—well acted, and contains characters that seem like "real people [with] plausible behavior, amid plausible tension, borne of a terrible situation". He also suggests that, contrary to other critic opinion, the 2009 remake does not attempt to follow the current trend of Hostel or Saw-like films simply because audiences are gravitating toward them as of late.[29] Mark Olsen, of the Los Angeles Times, believes the 2009 remake is "deeply misguided refraction of the original". Olsen points to what he feels is the addition of unnecessary backstory for the family, and Iliadis's choice to film the rape scene in a "verdant, scenic forest", which gave the sequence for of an "art-directed falseness, draining the audience-implicating authenticity and replacing it with the easy distance of knowing entertainment".[30] Olsen also felt that changing the trinket Mari holds in the original film to a keepsake from her deceased brother turns the family into "heroic characters" who appear to be "defending their entitlement to a rustic second home and vintage motorboat, not their right to exist".[31]

Variety's Dennis Harvey believed that the film lacked in comparison to the 1972 original in almost every aspect. Harvey felt like the film spent more time trying to please current horror conventions than create an effective update to Craven’s film. Harvey criticized the choice of changing a "credibly ordinary family" into "typical modern movie-fantasy clan". He also noted that Dillahunt’s portrayal of Krug is no match for David Hess.[32] Michael Rechtshaffen, from The Hollywood Reporter, felt that the remake followed close to the original—something fans of the 1972 film would appreciate—but that the film lacked the timing of the Craven's film. Craven was responding to the graphic images being sent back during the Vietnam War and allowed his film "sociological context", while Iliadis's 2009 film comes across as "exploitative". Although Rechtshaffen points out that the parents lack the training and skill of Liam Neeson's character in Taken, the performances from all of the actors are "uniformly sturdy".[33]

The Denver Post's Lisa Kennedy suggests that some viewers may want to leave the theater before finishing the movie, as Paige and Mari’s fight to survive is "so disturbing" and "earnest", the murders and rapes so "verite" that it forced the reviewer to "fear for women in the audience who have been victims of rape". Yet, Kennedy believes the film manages to create a deeper message by identifying the "truly horrific" nature of what occurs by following the events with "a deep pause". Comparing this remake to the multiple Michael Bay slasher remakes, Kennedy states that this film "is not an idea-free flick", and that it "[engages] what the word 'horror' means".[34] Roger Ebert was also appalled by the rape sequence of the film, and noted that the rest of the violence seemed to fall within the standard of trying to invent new ways to kill people simply to please horror fans. At the same time, he praised the performances of Goldwyn, Potter, Paxton, and Dillahunt. He noted that the audience actually fears for the parents, and that Dillahunt is convincing as the "evil leader of a pack of degenerates".[35]


  1. ^ a b c "The Last House on the Left Box office Main page". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved August 17, 2009. 
  2. ^ Michael Fleming (August 16, 2006). "'Left' right for Rogue". Variety. Retrieved October 17, 2007. 
  3. ^ Michael Fleming (September 27, 2006). "Helmer haunts Rogue's house". Variety. Retrieved October 17, 2007. 
  4. ^ a b c d e f Sheila Roberts. "Wes Craven Interview, Last House on the Left". Movies Online. Retrieved July 24, 2009. 
  5. ^ a b c d e Ryan Rotten (March 9, 2009). "EXCL: Carl Ellsworth on Last House on the Left". Shock Till You Drop. Retrieved March 13, 2009. 
  6. ^ a b c d e f g h Ryan Rotten (March 12, 2009). "Iliadis, Craven: Building a New House". Shock Till You Drop. Retrieved July 20, 2009. 
  7. ^ Sheila Roberts. "Chuck Norris Interview, Last House on the Left". Movies Online. Retrieved March 12, 2009. 
  8. ^ Sheila Roberts. "Garret Dillahunt Interview, Last House on the Left". Movies Online. Retrieved March 12, 2009. 
  9. ^ "Event: The Last House on the Left Q&A". Shock Till You Drop. February 19, 2009. Retrieved March 12, 2009. 
  10. ^ a b Bryan Cairns (February 11, 2009). "Exclusive: Riki Lindhome on Playing the Sadistic Sadie in 'Last House on the Left'!". FearNet. Retrieved March 13, 2009. 
  11. ^ "'Last House on the Left' Star Riki Lindhome on Playing a Movie Maniac -- Part 2!". FearNet. March 10, 2009. Retrieved March 13, 2009. 
  12. ^ a b Lawrence P. Raffel (March 12, 2009). "EXCLUSIVE! FEARnet Chats With 'Last House' Creator Wes Craven!". Fearnet. Retrieved July 24, 2009. 
  13. ^ "DVD release". DVD Active. Retrieved July 23, 2009. 
  14. ^ a b "The Last House on the Left Daily Box Office". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved March 19, 2009. 
  15. ^ a b Brandon Gray (March 15, 2009). "Weekend Report: ‘Witch’ Blasts Off, ‘Watchmen’ Burns Out". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved March 16, 2009. 
  16. ^ "Watchmen Daily Box Office". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved March 15, 2009. 
  17. ^ "The Last House on the Left (1972) box office". The-Numbers. Retrieved March 14, 2009. 
  18. ^ "Adjusted 2009 dollars". Half Hill. Retrieved March 14, 2009. 
  19. ^ "The Last House on the Left Movie Reviews". Rotten Tomatoes. IGN Entertainment. Retrieved June 17, 2009. 
  20. ^ "Rotten Tomatoes FAQ: What is Cream of the Crop". Rotten Tomatoes. Retrieved June 16, 2009. 
  21. ^ "The Last House on the Left: Rotten Tomatoes' Top Critics". Rotten Tomatoes. Retrieved March 17, 2009. 
  22. ^ "The Last House on the Left (2009): Reviews". Metacritic. CNET Networks. Retrieved March 19, 2009. 
  23. ^ Joshua Rich (March 15, 2009). "'Race to Witch Mountain' casts a spell at No. 1". Entertainment Weekly ( Retrieved March 16, 2009. 
  24. ^ Peter Hartlaub (March 13, 2009). "'Last House' a good remake". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved April 9, 2009. 
  25. ^ Kyle Smith (March 13, 2009). "Blood and Brains". New York Post. Retrieved April 9, 2009. 
  26. ^ Claudia Puig (March 15, 2009). "'Last House on the Left' is condemnable". USA Today. Retrieved August 7, 2009. 
  27. ^ Joe Neumaier (March 12, 2009). "Zero Stars: 'Last House on the Left' remake is a 'sickening piece of garbage'". New York Daily News. Retrieved August 7, 2009. 
  28. ^ Rafer Guzman (March 13, 2009). "Last House review". Newsday.,0,3705914.story. Retrieved June 16, 2009. 
  29. ^ Michael Phillips. "Last House review". Chicago Tribune.,0,5752476.story. Retrieved June 16, 2009. 
  30. ^ Mark Olsen (March 13, 2009). "'The Last House on the Left': The glossy remake leaves the original's stark horror -- and haunting success -- behind (1)". Los Angeles Times.,0,5950196.story. Retrieved August 7, 2009. 
  31. ^ Mark Olsen (March 13, 2009). "'The Last House on the Left': The glossy remake leaves the original's stark horror -- and haunting success -- behind (2)". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved August 7, 2009. 
  32. ^ Dennis Harvey (March 11, 2009). "The Last House on the Left". Variety. Retrieved July 24, 2009. 
  33. ^ Michael Rechtshaffen (March 12, 2009). "Film Review: The Last House on the Left". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved August 7, 2009. 
  34. ^ Lisa Kennedy (March 13, 2009). ""Last House on the Left" horrifies, sure, but a deeper message runs through it". Denver Post. Retrieved June 16, 2009. 
  35. ^ Roger Ebert (March 11, 2009). "The Last House on the Left". Chicago-Sun Times. Retrieved July 24, 2009. 

External links


Got something to say? Make a comment.
Your name
Your email address