Rating: 
Summary: A curiosity, but nothing more....
Review: I saw this back in college, and didn't think much of it then...Very unremarkable. Now, 18 years later (wow), I came across this again on DVD and was interested in the extras. I also thought perhaps my tastes had changed over the years and maybe I would like it.Truth be told, I don't remember much of this film at all from the college years. And I imagine I will forget it again, this time for good. It's like a bad John Waters movie without the humor. The music doesn't belong on the soundtrack. The acting is really bad, and the movie is just plain unremarkable and really sick-minded. As to the extras, it is interesting to see Craven actually partake in interviews and the obligatory commentary track, only because this is such an embarrassing mess. From the outtakes, you learn that the movie was originally titled "Night of Vengeance". There are extended outtakes that show the disembowlment of one of the victims, and this goes on FOREVER! Also, all of the outtakes are silent, as the sound portion was lost years ago. Anyway, it IS interesting to see where the creator of Nightmare on Elm Street, et al, started, but that's about where the value of this film ends. Save your money for the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre!
Rating:
Summary: Im so glad this movie is so old so people can forget it
Review: Lurid junk. The scenes in this film are disturbing yet the horrible acting is even more so disturbing.If you are to view this movie take into mind that its very primitive and savage. I don't think but about 000000000.1% of people alive today remember this. Heck, even Wes Craven forgot he made this pile or atleast he wants to forget.
Rating: 
Summary: Wes Craven was an angry young man
Review: People are missing the point to this movie as i have read some of the reviews, As with Craven's other film "The hills have eyes" (just came out with a two disc edition from Anchor bay) This is not about explotation but how we relate as humans to each other when we are faced with in human acts,what will we do to survive and Craven is not afraid to show us what that is, yes it's low budget but i felt like i was watching a documentary this movie is hard to watch,not for kids, i bought this dvd for the extras commentary by Craven mainly
Rating: 
Summary: Sickening To Say The Least
Review: "Last House On The Left", is grim, violent, and depressing. The way in which this movie was filmed, along with the acting, and the events which is supposed to be taken from true events, left me sick. A film like this one is called a "Snuff Film", and not a Slasher Flick, like "Nightmare On Elm Street". I remember this movie when it first came out. I don't want to ever see it again. If you love your family members and have a queasy stomach for sadistic, violence and seeing no hope for your family to fight and survive, then pass this booger up.
Rating: 
Summary: Maybe they got directions to the wrong House...
Review: Wes Craven's uber-low-budget freshman cinematic outing "Last House on the Left" leaves me as puzzled as his second, ever so-slightly more effective take on brutality "The Hills Have Eyes", chiefly because I just don't understand why these two laughably awful clunkers are considered so influential to modern horror movies. That said, it's useful to compare "Last House" with "Hills", since both films have a lot in common: 1) Both are astonishly low-budget---this is movie-making on the cheap, folks, not so much Low Budget as "We made this film for the price of a subway token and a Big Mac" filmmaking; 2) Both feature what are supposed to be horrific and harrowing collisions between All-American Innocence and evil, subhuman savages; 3) Both of these early Craven outtings really, really try to be shocking; 4) Both movies are abysmal and deliver absolutely zero scares. Just as there are a few celebrities floating around who are famous for being famous, "Last House" and "Hills" are movies that are shocking for the sake of being shocking. Sadly, "Last House on the Left" isn't that shocking at all. It's crudely made, most of the acting is atrocious (particularly the avenging parents and the bumptious police), and scenes of true horror are constantly undercut by comedic sequences which serve absolutely no purpose other than to ruin the film's atmosphere of unease. Why have a pair of Laurel & Hardy-esque style sheriffs in what is supposedly a film of uncompromising savagery? And why, Wes Craven, tell me why would you include the toe-tapping musical number "Sadie and Krug", meant to be a ballad to the film's two psychos and set to the accompaniment of kazoos? Yes, the film features a musical number with kazoos. "It's only a Movie"? Let's hope so. With that in mind: THE BASICS: Two wholesome, all-American girls go on a fun-filled trip to the Big Apple to score pot and attend a "Bloodlust" concert. They are picked up by a motley crew of criminals led by a ravening psycopath named "Krug" (shades of Freddy Krueger, anyone?) and get more bloodlust than they bargained for. Their killers subsequently seek refuge for the night in the home of the parents of one of their victims. THE GOOD: David Hess, who plays the surly, snarling, cold-blooded killer Krug, is actually creepily charismatic and does a good job as a Manson-esque psycho. Hess also penned the haunting ditty "The Road goes on to Nowhere" and the rest of the film's soundtrack, though if he's responsible for the kazoo number he should do hard time. The three other psychos that make up Krug's merry men are also competent. Jeramie Rain does an itchingly nasty job as Krug's gun moll Sadie, serving up a convincing performance that is a little too chillingly close to Charles Manson's adoring female 'Family' members. Marc Sheffler plays Krug's slightly less repulsive younger brother Junior, and manages to convey his wormish, torn character's drug dependency and weakness. Fred Lincoln also does a nice turn as Fred "Weasel" Podowski, who's just there for the ride but is as happy as Krug when the claret begins to flow. Incidentally, Mr. Lincoln evidently found his metier later in the Porn industry, starring in such family fare as "Devil in Miss Jones Part II" and directing charmers like "Heidi Does Hollywood" and "Anal Intruder 10" (I'm not kidding: check out Lincoln's bio on IMDB if you don't believe me). Sandra Cassel and Lucy Grantham are, I think, quite convincing as the two teenage girls in peril, and the scenes of their rape, torture, and subsequent murder at the hands of Krug's thugs are unpleasant and shot with an unflinching camera. Doubtless this would be rough, grueling stuff, if not for.... THE BAD: The young Wes Craven really, really wanted to shock his audience, but unfortunately there's no suspense here, no shock, no horror, nothing remotely scary. You have a lot of sloppy editing, and the sequence in which Cassel and Grantham are tortured and murdered, though harrowing, is undercut by the brutish, forced comic scenes with the blundering deputies. And what's with the ornate American Gothic house featured in the creepy cover art? Nothing remotely like that appears in the film; what you get here is a typical 1970's ranch house that appears to have been decorated, from a K-Mart, a few minutes before shooting started. THE UGLY: Gaylord St. James and Cynthia Carr as the avenging parents are unremittingly awful and completely ruin whatever tension and suspense the movie might have delivered. And Marshall Anker and Martin Cove as the blundering policemen are mind-blastingly horrible. There's a sequence where the Sheriff and his deputy, their car having broken down, try to get a ride in a chicken truck. Why were these scenes included at all? Finally, you also get a kazoo sing-along, which in its own fashion is pretty terrifying, though not in the way Craven intended. THE VERDICT: Abominably bad, not shocking, and somewhat repulsive. If you want to be shocked, you'll find more shocking stuff in 30 seconds of "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" than you will in this atrociously bad film; come to think of it, you'll find more terror in 5 minutes of any of the "Friday the 13th" movies than you will in all of "Last House." If you're a Wes Craven completist or have a few hours to waste on a morbid curiosity, then you may want to check it out. Otherwise, you'll not have missed anything if you avoid this monstrosity.
Rating:
Summary: You can Love or Hate it..But You can not Ignore it!!
Review: As far as directorial debuts are concerned,Wes Craven's Last House on the Left is a great achievement.The film was his first to be credited as a the sole director after sharing this responsibility earlier in '71 with Sean S. Cunnigham for the family movie Together.
I waited so long to watch the film, since it was banned for ages in the UK because the British Board of Film Classification-BBFC-had their knives out and were admant not to let this film 'corrupt the morality of society'. Not before the departure of its famous chairman James Ferman, that British audiences got finally the chance to rewatch previously banned films thanks to the long awaited BBFC's new more liberal policies.So I really wanted to watch Last House on The Left to see what the fuss was all about, and whether the controvery was well justified,( being personally against most censorship in Cinema).
Well my first impression was that the film is indeed disturbing.Very. It is a heavy and violent journey into the twisted and sadistic minds of four escaped convicts, torturing and killing two innocent women. The violence and sadism in the film is unrelenting, and very raw, at times psychologically claustrophobic, at others gory and shocking.
I never thought I would say this one day, but in some way I could see where the BBFC were coming from. I believe their most area of concern was that this unexplained and extreme sadism, which is both suggestive and graphic was is some way gratitious. Although the message of the film as Craven explains himself in the DVD extras, is anti violence, none of the characters, even the dim witted 'Junior Stillo' show any remorse for their act. The sex crimes which the four psychos brag about,is in reality a very serious crime, and the sexual sadism and pleasure they get from it is very disturbing without any moral or redemptive outlet, the forced peeing in the trousers, the forced lesbianism, the rape, are all images that test the boundaries of human evil and suffering, and will make the viewer squirm in disgust: Craven too admitted in his introduction to the film that Last House on the Left is an ugly movie.
My first question was: Why??
Do we need to actually SEE these boundaries? Would the real intended message of the film be served by these images?
Probably not.
There is even some humour in the film, which I found somehow misplaced and in bad taste because it somehow deflects attention from the suffering of the victims,instead of giving the viewer some relief as intended.
The quality of the film is similar to many small independant features of the period, and not unlike Texas Chainsaw Massacre. (Personally I very much prefer Tobe Hooper's film, because of its clever suggestive style).Craven was to build a career for himself as a renowned horror movie director, however the career of most of the actors in the film did not fare as good. The two women victims, Sandra Cassell and Lucy Grantham stopped making films soon after, Fred J Lincoln became a 'porn' director, while Jeramie Rain, the psycho woman of the gang, became Mrs Richard Dreyfuss!!(the one and only Mr D.)
So Last House on the Left is not to everybody's taste, and it guarrantees to leave you with a feeling of unease, disgust and horror.You might hate it, or love it but you sure can not ignore it, and this is the power of movie making,to make you think about the film long after you watch it regardless of your opinion of it, and for this alone it is a great achievement from Craven.
Rating: 
Summary: The first......the last....the best......
Review: To begin this review, let me just say to the fellow reviewers, that this is the film that really started the teen slasher genre. (Then came texas chainsaw massacre). This is such a great and underated movie! It really is good (in a sick sort of way.) Another thing, if you all wan't to see the version that was banned from theater's, by the the unrated director's cut. It is totally awsome. The transfer and sound were great.
Again I say to you, see this movie, it really is worth the hour and half that it takes to watch it. peace out.
Rating:
Summary: Disturbingly Real For The 1970's
Review: By the time you read this review I am sure you will know the basic story line, the flawed attempts at comic relief, and the fact that the acting truly isn't award winning. Yet,in my opinion, to really understand the intention and direction of this film you'll need to let all of that go and and allow yourself to somehow relate to the two teenaged female victims with abandoned empathy. Look at them as your daughter and her friend; you and your friend talking each other into making a stupid decision; or fill in the blank with other females in your life as needed- neices, your students, etc.
In the 70's it was just that easy to get caught up in trusting people you should never trust under any circumstances. Girls hitch-hiked regularly, people bought pot off of strangers, nearly everyone was viewed as a potential friend, and not as an enemy, as we do today. And that's where the real fear lies in the film. Yes, it really could have happened, and yes, people can be that twisted, desperate, and deranged.
I saw it only once, in the theatre, when it was originally released,and I can easily replay the scenes that take place in the woods over in my mind, because that's how deep of an impression they left on me. The begging, the laughing, the humiliation, the torture, it was disturbing because I or any of my young friends could have fallen victim to the entire premise. Now that's what I call scary.
If you're looking for the slickness of Silence of the Lambs, forget it. But, if you're ready for gritty, flawed, realistic, frightening, disturbing, dirty, film making, you came to the right house. Or should I say Left House.......
Rating:
Summary: It's ONLY a Movie
Review: Back in 1972, the advertisment for this movie created a long line at our local drive in. The ad claimed to be so scary that to avoid fainting you had to keep repeating it's only a movie, it's only a movie. After it was over, we all felt cheated because the movie was not scary and did not make sense. Apparently, we saw an edited version back in '72. The new DVD has the restored version and lived up to it's orginal advertisement. I'm a fan of horror movies and not easily shocked but I had a hard time watching "Last House on the Left". The first part of the movie concerns the kidnapping, humiliation, tortue and brutal death of two teenage girls. The second part concerns the revenge exacted on the thugs who killed the girls. The brutality seems so real that it's difficult (for even jaded me) to be entertained. I'm giving it two stars because I can recognize it is well made but it's extremely difficult to watch; and being a gore hound/horror movie buff, that's saying alot.
Rating:
Summary: Very, very disturbing
Review: I am a huge fan of Wes Craven and I really enjoy horror movies but this one was really disturbing. The movie is about two teenage girls, Mari and Phyllis who decide to go to a concert in the "big city" to celebrate Mari's 17 birthday. When they stop in the city for some pot, they are held captive and against their will by four criminals: Krug, Junior, Weasel and Sadie. When the two girls meet this sadistic group, torture and murder begin. They force Mari and Phyllis to do some of the most disgusting and sickening things ever seen on film. Eventually, the two are both killed and left in the woods. Krug and company face car problems so they pose as salemen and approach a house. Unfortunately for the group of killers, Mari just happens to be the daughter of the residents. When they find out what happened to their daughter, the line between villian and victim becomes blurred.
|
