Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Last House On The Left (1972)

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by HorrorMovieFan View Post
    "The Last House On The Left (1972)"....A very good suspense thriller with a few shocking moments. The brutal slaying of "Phyllis" was disturbing. Lucy Grantham did a top notch job playing the character. Other standout is David Hess as "Krug". Such a menacing performance and have to say he is very handsome and has a nice body. The music score was all over the place and think it should have had more menacing and suspenseful tones to it. Wes Craven's directing was pretty good and the outdoor scenes are wonderful. All in all a pretty good thriller from the early 70's...but I think the 2009 remake is alot better.

    6/10
    I actually like the cheesy 70s music.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by CountOrlok View Post
      I actually like the cheesy 70s music.
      Agree, David Hess' original music set the tone perfectly. And the score it itself is so goofy that it fits right in.


      Is he going to lose both bones?

      Comment


      • I actually like a lot of those rape & revenge movies, & I'm a woman & I've been raped, but they're strangely theraputic. This is one of the best.

        Comment


        • this is one of cravens' early best.

          (8/10)

          Comment


          • "The Last House On The Left (1972)"....A very good suspense thriller with a few shocking and disturbing scenes of violence and bloody gore. The brutal slaying of "Phyllis" is disturbing. Lucy Grantham did a top notch job playing the character. Other standout is David Hess as "Krug". Such a menacing performance and have to say he is very handsome and has a nice body. Most of the cast is actually pretty good in fact. The music score was all over the place and think it should have had more menacing and suspenseful tones to it. Wes Craven's directing is pretty good and the outdoor scenes are wonderful. A pretty solid thriller from the early 70's...but I think the 2009 remake trumps the original.

            7/10

            Comment


            • I can't stand Last House on the Left. Oh sure it has some pretty shocking moments but it also has all the crap with the bumbling cops and the fun folky tunes. Did I wander into the wrong movie? At times It sure feels like it. In my opinion the inconsistency in tone absolutely destroys the movie.

              Comment


              • Anyone heard about or seen Chaos (2005) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0405977/ (not to get confused with Jason Statham Chaos (2005)

                which is actually the first remake of The House on the left but change names in the movie, I have yet to see it.

                I actually liked 2009 remake, i Thought it was really good, I don't remember much from this one, I need re-watch, I don't think i was to keen on it when I watching it!

                Comment


                • I love this movie and think the hardcore violence and silly cops/music make it very original and entertaining to watch. I think this beats the remake all to hell.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Frey View Post
                    I love this movie and think the hardcore violence and silly cops/music make it very original and entertaining to watch. I think this beats the remake all to hell.
                    the remake is great too

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by RomeroCarpenter Fan View Post
                      the remake is great too
                      I think the remake is actually better than the original. However I still find both to be rather boring.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by zigwardScissorHands View Post
                        I can't stand Last House on the Left. Oh sure it has some pretty shocking moments but it also has all the crap with the bumbling cops and the fun folky tunes. Did I wander into the wrong movie? At times It sure feels like it. In my opinion the inconsistency in tone absolutely destroys the movie.
                        Yes! I think stuff in this film is some of the most shocking in horror. But it's just so inconsistent.

                        I spit on your grave is a thousand times better because there's only one tone. Horror. And there's not any wacky music to get in the way.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Death Bed View Post
                          BTW: The remake sucks.
                          Yes. It does.


                          Originally posted by Frey View Post
                          I think this beats the remake all to hell.
                          It does.


                          Originally posted by LivingDeadGurl37 View Post
                          the remakes always sucks!
                          Almost always. But what's important is that: they never surpass the original.

                          Not after 1986, at least.


                          Originally posted by twoslowjoe View Post
                          Did anyone notice that in Cabin Fever and Last House On The Left they both used alot of the same music?
                          Well, it was an homage in Cabin Fever (which... yeah, was 30 years Last House's junior).


                          Originally posted by Tool Shed View Post
                          The music does suck though.
                          I believe when I used to think this movie was cruddy, I was still impressed with Hess's songs. After learning a bit more about the movie and gaining a serious respect for Craven, of course I think the film is a near masterpiece. My opinion on the music... has never changed.


                          Originally posted by labyrinthworm View Post
                          yeah but when that movie came out, theatres refused to show it , or at least made craven edit the hell out of it.
                          Craven mentions on the 2002 DVD bonus features that he didn't edit a thing out of the movie, various theaters did that themselves.


                          Originally posted by stl7dust View Post
                          It's a great movie of irony and revenge, but I Spit On Your Grave is better.
                          I completely disagree. But this is because it's possible Mr. Writer/Director of Spit was offended that Last House wasn't a rape film. I'm tempted to say he was disappointed that he didn't get to enjoy the rape and that's where his interest lied all along - considering how pandering and bordering-on-glorifying his film was - but I know better. I've come into contact with several people who felt the film lacked realism. So, I get it- that people think it is a rape film so it needs to be realistic and portray rape as a step-by-step thing. Frankly... there are a lot of motherfucking rape films. Compared to those films, Last House is extraordinarily unique.


                          Originally posted by Chainsaw Suicide View Post
                          It definetly is dated though.
                          Not sure I agree. It's about a moment in time, true. But it's a definitive moment. Dealing with the death of the Peace & Love 60's. Which itself was a defining moment in history, which represented a lot. Which kind of revolutionized pop culture. And many still talk about today. So, I think fans and critics have a tendency to read it this film the wrong way. It's not really about what people do. It's about what happened to some people as a result of what happened to everyone.


                          Originally posted by sykoc666 View Post
                          wtf ever this movie is amazing but only if exploitation is your thing
                          Disagreed. I think the film is horror, through and through. It's tonally both genuinely grave and intelligently dark. I find exploitation films are more like trolls- they like to stir up trouble, irritate people, and rarely make a point about the world we live in. They just throw in familiar words with some real life significance. (Though I'm not exactly the world's #1 exploitation expert.)


                          Originally posted by SlayerX View Post
                          It was a shocking movie when it originally came out but with the shit we see in movies and on the news today, it is terribly dated and weak compared to everything else. That is why it no longer has any impact and is a pretty boring movie.
                          I knew someone would say this.

                          I'm extremely "quality over quantity" when it comes to... everything, in film. Some people liked Trick 'R Treat. This will always baffle me but what I think I've observed is that people like casually nonchalant streams of childish obscenities thrown at them by no one particularly special (in a film's own context). I'm of the opinion that the ones with bite are the ones that count. For others, a smattering of shit seems to do the job just fine. Now, replace dialogue with gore, torture, rape, home invasion, kidnap- you get the picture. Context is important to me. Style is important to me. Quality onscreen brutality - and all that it represents - is earned through intelligent design (somehow that doesn't sound right), not careless gratuity.

                          I think horror has fallen into really bad patterns over the last 10 years- almost every movie I see because I'm told it has a powerful effect actually goes for impotent quantity of gore and "brutal" violence (and they love to sell their product as better or more important than it really is) rather than quality. So, I'm inclined to disagree with you. I actually saw Mari and Phyllis as people when they were being violated. It's so hard to see the victims in almost any of the movies to follow as real people these things were happening to, between the way movies gaze at the women (it's almost always women, let's be honest) as though they were objects or portray them as cheap, foul-mouthed idiots (Rob Zombie, I'm looking at you) or take a break from the story to show the killer giving himself a blow job with a severed head. Wow: I don't think I'll ever be the kind of person to find that anything but stupid. If Uwe Boll had balls, I would have expected to find this in Postal. (That being said- having balls doesn't make you smart.)

                          And... what do you see on TV? I admit this is jaded, but when I hear a story about kids tormenting each other on social networks or posting embarrassing videos of them fighting or Project Xing on YouTube, I tend to go all "product of their environment." Which I always see as product of bad economics, an offshoot of bad politics. Which is a giant can of worms but usually works hand-in-hand with high jobless rates and poverty among the middle class in the face of Republicans' ever-promoted high standard of living. Any clue on how to adequately fight that?

                          As for real-life horrors like war and natural disasters... why would you even bring that up? Last House on the Left can't compare- um, can any movie? At all? Is that even horror's job, to out-horrify real life?


                          Originally posted by Ferox13 View Post
                          Its almost like early torture porn flicks.
                          I wish horror fans would stop regurgitating this facile term. It was created by the media to further pigeon hole and criticise the horror genre, much like 'Video nasty' was in the 80's.

                          Horror has always been about sex AND violence - it didn't start with the medias reaction to the work of Eli Roth and the Saw series.
                          I want to agree with you, especially since I never use it, but I know why others do. They don't always use much discrimination but it's meant to reflect the now-modern ultra-emphasis on gratuity in "horror" within the mainstream. Which has failed to draw a line between horror and exploitation, because calling shit like Saw horror is literally upgrading it. There's just a bit of residual respectability in calling these films horror thanks to Silence of the Lambs and Misery netting Oscars, and of course the whole Bravo Horror Special phenomenon (it did lead to A LOT of horror retrospectives in the U.S.). To name a few.

                          Things in the genre have changed. It's a fact. I wouldn't be talking about it right now otherwise. So much of what made horror great is flat-out gone from the "modern" product. Because an idea is all that matters now, screw execution.


                          Originally posted by Ferox13 View Post
                          Originally posted by toolbox_massacre View Post
                          LHOTL was the first film to portray violence realistically and showed the true senselessness and suffering of it
                          Really? As in the first ever in all time ever? LOL

                          Ever see All Quite on the Eastern Front?
                          I think he meant the first Horror movie. I really do.

                          And on that note, can people please stop comparing horror films to films in other genres in an attempt to say a horror film's impact isn't what it should be. Dramas, thrillers, science fiction, fantasy, and westerns can have horrifying concepts but horror is not the same thing. I don't think we'd be here if it were.


                          Originally posted by black coffee View Post
                          wow, I cant believe you guys are comparing The Exorcist with TLHOTL.
                          Both have their strong suits, but I think Last House is easily superior.


                          Originally posted by Dimebag lives \m/ View Post
                          the dumb ass cops pissed me off.
                          Then whatever you do, don't watch Halloween 5.


                          Originally posted by AleisterArcane View Post
                          Wes Craven just sucks in general.
                          Couldn't disagree more. In fact, the more I watch any movie of his, the more I'm convinced that most people just don't get him. I think this- the reason I'm a little more hesitant to say it flat-out is because I have a lot of patience for interesting movies, interesting ideas, and interesting filmmakers. Swamp Thing and The People Under the Stairs should be unsalvagable. Yet, I rewatched them this last spring and, they were fantastic! The latter especially. After so much bitching about so many 2003-2013 movies billed as horror and everything they were lacking, People Under the Stairs was glorious. Everything I wanted that I wasn't getting from the new movies- this movie gave me. SO MUCH of it, too. I was so happy. I love horror so much, I miss it. Rewatching Craven's earlier films is just a great reminder of why I loved the genre to begin with. And I think Shocker is fucking horrible. But I'm going to watch it again this month. Because it's a fuckton more rewarding than Splinter, Dead Snow, Ills/Them, High Tension, Trick 'R Treat, etc. Even if you regard Craven as just formulaic- his films continue to register with me as far closer to what horror should be.


                          Originally posted by Cotton the Egg Man View Post
                          I'm beginning to think Craven made his movies intentionally awful, so he could bank of bound-to-be-improved remakes

                          But then there's ANOES to consider - maybe that's why he let the character be whored out to become the worst horror franchise ever?
                          Um, have you seen many franchises? As far as at least 6-7 movies in?

                          I think Nightmare on Elm Street, much as I personally care for it, clearly has more faults than Last House. It relies very heavily on special effects that have not aged well in the least (mattress on the stairs). The acting also has more importance placed upon it and fails considerably. The ending was studio-managed / micro-managed and doesn't make any sense. Many dialogue moments are dated and pointless.


                          Originally posted by dead breed View Post
                          The remake is 1000 times better then the crappy orig.
                          I've spent a lot of time and effort thinking the movie through, so I can hardly tell other people it just works and they're wrong. But I do this process with quite a few horror films. I read up on them, watch the bonus features over and over again, think the movies through, re-watch them and wait for anything to change. All these years later, my opinions / reactions haven't budged on Re-Animator or Day of the Dead- I don't like the former and I think the latter is a terrible film. But- Halloween III, Motel Hell, Prom Night, House by the Cemetery, several movies I've lived with for 5-8 years and they do get better.

                          Either way, I do not support people just Shouting Down this kind of opinion on a very ambitious horror film. Which did in fact help shape the genre in one of its most groundbreaking eras- the 70's.


                          Originally posted by The Revelator View Post
                          the remake functions as a great movie, not just a controversial one.
                          Any remake of this film is poised for failure where it counts: you can't remake this movie and expect it to have the same meaning as the original film. The 60's never happened again. You see? The remake came off the heels of the Bush (Dubya) Administration- one of the most remarkably braindead periods in our collective culture. There's no meaning to tap into with the girls, with the parents, with the killers. There's no point in re-telling this story, except to just show bodies expiring. I don't believe it referenced anything real in our world that it didn't borrow from the sewer where survival "horror" all cull their ideas from, it didn't understand the original film at all. If you don't understand the source, what the fuck is the point?


                          Originally posted by streetcleaner View Post
                          Last House on the Left is a clumsy send up of the superior art house classic by Bergman.
                          The Virgin Spring is not a horror film. The Last House on the Left is. Not a thriller or exploitation film marketed as a horror film, Craven understands the genre a lot better than he gets credit for.

                          I don't want to insult anyone, but I'm so sick of seeing this statement being made with zero thought given to differences in genre. I get that other people don't define things or think it's important to separate them but there is a serious issue of context and placement in history here. People seem to be shitting on LHotL more than they should be because they think it's reputation has overshadowed Virgin Spring. That has nothing to do with Craven or anything else in horror- it's the fact that the genre is more popular than art house.
                          Last edited by No-Personality; 09-13-2013, 10:25 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Shitty movie end of story

                            NOES is one of the GOATs. No fucking way The Last House on the Left is better in any way.

                            The Last House on the Left remake is pretty solid and infinitely better than the original.


                            Put "2 Fast 2 Furious" in B&W and Se7en thinks he's watching a Bergman film.
                            I find the Metal Gear Solid series to be mediocre at best.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X