The Last House on the Left

Rating:
Summary: BAD
Review: Dont get me wrong , i love wes craven and think he is brilliant for creating a nightmare on elm street and scream was ok. But this movie sucked. Me and my friend rented this one night thinking it would be good because wes did it. lol we were wrong. This film wasnt scary at all just wierd. the plot was stupid , the characters were very strange ( not in a good way either), the actors in the roles were really bad and couldnt act , they had no charm about them or interesting qualitys as in lets say the characters in texas chainsaw massacre/ and in the end the father is comin after people with a chainsaw , it isnt scary just laughable.- i dont know if i should say it was funny cause it didnt even have humor to it , it was just funny that such a great guy like wes could make somthin as bad as this. The person i was watching it with was asking me why the hec i picked out somthin so stupid to watch and was begging me to turn it off/ the film is very low quality low budget and not that thats bad , because the texas chainsaw massacre was low budget and turned out to be amazing but this thing just sucked. They say this movie is groundbreaking- well when my friend said why did u get this i used that as an excuse (( its supposedly a well known groundbreaking horror film)) and they laughed. I didnt find the film that good either. Sorry wes

Rating:
Summary: Interesting first movie
Review: Wes Craven's first movie as a director was "The Last House on the Left". It is the story of a gang of escaped killers and theives who come across a couple of girls. They horribly rape and murder them and then, accidently, shack up with the victoms' middle class parents, who exact a grusome revenge. This is a pretty dark and grity movie, even worse than Craven's masterpiece "Nightmare on Elm Street". (By the way, the villian's name in "House" is Krug, which of course is a shortened version of Kruger, Freddy's family name, coincidence, I think not.) This movie is relentlessly dark, edgy, and very violent. It's bleak point of view is a negitive strike against it. The way the good parents became just as brutal and bad as the killers is not very well thought out, and happens too quickly; real people would probably have called the police. And speaking of the police, these cops are set up as comic relief, but it is silly slapstick humor that badly contrasts the seriosness of the rest of the story. The major problem is that no body acts like reap people would in a similer situation. You may say that the parents in "Elm Street" did the same thing, but they waited until the killer was relesed on a technicality before they acted. The DVD is interesting if you turn on the commentery by Wes Craven and Sean Cunningham (Friday the 13th), it is insightful and funny, makes me want to meet Craven.

Rating:
Summary: Not bad...but could have been better.
Review: Two seventeen year old girls try to have a good day as they get ready for a Bloodlust concert. To spice things up a bit more, they try to buy drugs from one guy. The guy lies about having drugs and is part of some gang that broke out of prison. The performances by the criminals were real powerful, you could truly see how sadistic their characters were. The actor that played Krug even said in the DVD extras that he felt he went too far with his vile character. So anyways, these prison ecapers abuse the girls, making them degrade themselves and later killing them. There's a part where you see the intestines stabbed out of one of the girls, most gory part of the film. The only gory part of the film actually.

The irony of all this abuse though is that it's right by one of the girl's houses, where the villains later take refuge in. The comically portrayed cops were no help at all. Seems like Craven was mocking law enforcement. The parents end up taking the law into their own hands, killing off the criminals in a silly fashion. They set up traps like what the Culkin boy did in Home Alone. Overall, movie is slightly disturbing because of the humiliating things the girls were forced to do. The chainsaw scene at end was pretty weak, wasn't graphic enough, which it should have been. Making it more graphic would have left a better impact on the viewers. Other scenes could have been a lot more graphic too but were edited just so the film could see the light of day. That was my one problem. I felt cheated from seeing Craven's full vision of this movie. If you loved Craven's mainstream newer stuff, there's a big chance you won't like this unpolished dirty film at all.

Rating:
Summary: In this case, less is not more.
Review: Oh wow, don't bother. I have been told time and time again that this is one of the most disturbing movies ever made. If disturbing means ridiculously cartoonish, bland, poorly edited, complete with amateurish acting - then disturbing it is. I may have half-cringed at a few of the scenes, and maybe it had some cinematic value for 1972 - the year it was released. And sure, it may be strong coffee for the squeamish. But I can't help but remember The Wizard of Oz having more moments of spooky dramatic tension than this. If you want a genuinely disturbing Wes Craven film, watch The Serpent and the Rainbow. I look back now and laugh at how hesitant I was to watch this crap burger of a film out of fear of how frightening it would be. Another 90 minutes of my life, and not to mention $4.99, pissed away.

Rating:
Summary: Revolting.....But it does it's job.
Review: This is a flick that ranks up there with "Requiem For A Dream" and "Kids". While the two movies I just mentioned were in completely different genres of film. And are two far superior flicks, they all do the same thing. They scare you. But they don't scare you with shocks and boogeymen, they scare you by showing the [messed] up things humans are capable of doing.

This film is scary because it looks too real. It's a warning to people, don't trust anyone. The 2 girls go to some guys house to buy some smoke. They get kidnapped, raped, tortured, and it's a mess from there.

In regards to the way the film looked, some say sloppy, amaturish, the filming looks just like "The Evil Dead." But the gore effects in this movie look real. The film is really violent. I think Wes Craven knew this when he was making the film, thats why hecut the violent scenes with stupid ones about two bumbling cops. The comedic interludes don't work because you are still reeling from the scenes of violence that preceded them.

I think you have to be disturbed to find this flick boring, stupid, or funny. It's not. It shows that there are people out there you a completely {messed] up.

Can this movie be viewed over and over? I really don't think so. This DVD is pretty much for the completest horror fans who need every "Good" horror DVD in their collection. But then again the... price tag won't break your bank. Buy it, watch it once and place it next to your copy of "Texas Chainsaw Massacre."

Rating:
Summary: This is no masterpiece.
Review: On the way to a Bloodlust concert, two teenage girls stop in a rough area to try and buy some weed. They get taken to an apartment where four escaped felons kidnap them. They eventually take them out to the countryside where they humiliate, rape, and kill them. Ironically, the countryside is one of the girls' backyard. The killers take up with the girl's parents, who when finding out about the killing take up revenge.
Wes Craven tries to use light music and comedy angles to make light out of the rape and murder scenes. The ending was predictable and the last 30 minutes of the movie is completely stupid.
Another movie this is compared to is I Spit On Your Grave. Like that movie, this one attempts to make you hate several characters and then then give you the satisfaction to watch them die. The problem with them both is that they attempt humour where there should be none. The victims in both also put themselves through more humiliation in order to get revenge.
There is not even any good gore. This movie is for rape scene freaks only.

Rating:
Summary: Another chance, please
Review: From humble beginnings, comes greatness. I hate to see a film such as this being trashed by people that don't understand how important something like this is in the film industry. There's something more important here than just the average slasher movie. Think about the time when this movie was made. In 1972, these films were only made from a select group of people. People like John Waters, Tobe Hooper, and all the masters under the thumb of Roger Corman had a mission and a clean canvas of the times. Before them, there was nothing. Now in their wake, all the rest come.

I protect this film for the fact of what it was ORGINAL in its time, and a piece of art that has endured through the years.

Recently, I received information regarding a reunion, movie and memorabilia expo in Ohio, which reunites some of the original cast of Last House on the Left. For these people alone, this movie launched careers and began something new in the movies that people would never get tired of.

Scripted and shot on a low-string budget, Last House on the Left has reached beyond what most of the producers at the time thought possible. Other than "another drive-in" movie, this still has watchers in awe of its brilliance. Look beyond the high-cost brain-candy that is spun out today like recycled dryer lint, and see the film for the first time all over again. Whether you squint or just watch straight through without blinking, you'll find some wholesome horror entertainment.

For you people out there that read other reviews about how bad the film it, as yourself, does it have to be a masterpiece of Francis Ford Coppola to come out of 1972 to be worth a look? No! For anyone that like to follow the production line of certain directors, this is for those that appreciate the film for what it was and what it still is...The Last House on the Left!

Rating:
Summary: Interesting first movie
Review: Wes Craven's first movie as a director was "The Last House on the Left". It is the story of a gang of escaped killers and theives who come across a couple of girls. They horribly rape and murder them and then, accidently, shack up with the victoms' middle class parents, who exact a grusome revenge. This is a pretty dark and grity movie, even worse than Craven's masterpiece "Nightmare on Elm Street". (By the way, the villian's name in "House" is Krug, which of course is a shortened version of Kruger, Freddy's family name, coincidence, I think not.) This movie is relentlessly dark, edgy, and very violent. It's bleak point of view is a negitive strike against it. The way the good parents became just as brutal and bad as the killers is not very well thought out, and happens too quickly; real people would probably have called the police. And speaking of the police, these cops are set up as comic relief, but it is silly slapstick humor that badly contrasts the seriosness of the rest of the story. The major problem is that no body acts like reap people would in a similer situation. You may say that the parents in "Elm Street" did the same thing, but they waited until the killer was relesed on a technicality before they acted. The DVD is interesting if you turn on the commentery by Wes Craven and Sean Cunningham (Friday the 13th), it is insightful and funny, makes me want to meet Craven.

Rating:
Summary: They don't make films like this anymore
Review: Mari & Phyllis going to see bloodlust in concert... they are kidnapped by 2 escaped convicts, Krug Stillo, Fred Podowski, and tagging along with them is Krug's girlfriend Sadie, and his son Junior. They are driven into the woods where their life ends in rape & murder. The gang unknowingly and co-incidentally take refuge at mari's parents home. When Mari's parents find out what happened to their daughter, they show the killers that civilised normal people can be pushed to the limit.

Director Wes Craven made his debut with this film and what an impact it made. When first released in 1972 it was banned. Craven made several attempts over the years to have it released, but he didn't make the cuts needed to have the film released...until Craven made the correct amount of cuts... in August 27th 2002 (May 26th 2003: UK) the film was released.

This film was based on true events. The names and locations were changed to protect the identity of those still living. This film is not for the faint hearted. It shows the madening space between life and death.

Overall Review : Buy It!!

Rating:
Summary: They don't make films like this anymore....
Review: Marie Collingwood, and Phyllis Stone, headed out to the city to see thier favourite band "Bloodlust". The pair try to get some grass before the show, unfortuneately they meet Krug Stillo, Sadie, Fred 'Weasel' Podowski, and Junior Stillo, three killers on the loose (Junior is krugs little brother). Being killers they show the girls they can do what they do best, in the most horrific ways. Marie and Phyllis are beaten drugged, stuffed in a car boot, and drove down to the woods, about 100 feet from Maries house, where their horrific ordeal ends in torture, rape, and murder. Krug and his gang, seek refuge coincidentally at Estelle Collingwood, and Dr. John Collingwood's home (Maries parents). Civilised people, warm and welcoming people. After finding out what the three done to Marie and Phyllis, the parents show the killers, that civilised people, can turn worse than the worst killers. The parents seek and find bloody revenge, where they torture and kill the three, one by one.

This was Wes Cravens second film, and it made a hell of an impact the year it was released (1972). This film isn't a piece of trash or a load of crap as some people have written in the reviews, this film offers you a chance to see the madening difference between life and death. This film is a Wes Craven classic. As my title says "They don't make films like this anymore". After its release in 1972 the Uncut version was refused to be rated by the board of Television. Therefore it was banned, 31 years later, on the 26th of May 2003, the film was released on video and DVD. This of course was the cut version. From the day it was released, the board of televison all agreed, the Uncut version of this film would never be released ever again.

I warn you... this film is not for the weak-hearted, "To avoid fainting... keep repeating... its only a movie... only a movie... only a movie..." it says on the cover. It is true. This film is a cult classic, and one of the best films i have ever watched. It isn't just a film of crap made by a sicko. It shows you what goes on in the world. My overall review is

"The best horror/cult film i have ever seen, and has to be the most disturbing film i have ever watched"

For more info on classic horror/cult films, visit my homepage
www.freewebs.com/