The Last House on the Left (1972)

A Disappointing Continuation

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

To celebrate her seventeenth birthday Mari Collingwood plans to go to a concert in the city with her friend Phyllis Stone. On the way the radio reports that dangerous criminal, Krug Stillo, has escaped from jail along with his drug addict son, Junior; they are helped by psychotic Sadie and Fred "Weasel" Podowski. Before heading to the concert Mari and Phyllis decide to buy some cannabis; unfortunately the person they ask is Junior. Once they are in the flat with the criminals things soon get very bad. The next morning the two girls are drugged and bundled into the boot the thugs' car. They drive out into the country where, following a breakdown things get much worse. While this is going on Mari's parents are concerned that she is very late returning home so contact the police.This film may be over forty five years old but it still has the power to shock and disturb thanks to the fact that it feels quite real for the most part. The antagonists the sort of criminals we hear about on the news not supernatural fiends. The use of pleasant music and some ridiculously comic moments, usually involving two police officers, just serves to make the nasty bits seem even more disturbing. Once the girls are in the clutches of the criminals there is a constant sense of threat; sometimes the violence is physical and sometimes sexual. The film does rely on one very unlikely coincidence involving just where the criminals' car breaks down but that is needed for dramatic reasons. The final act, which relied on that coincidence, does go over the top somewhat but even this doesn't feel too out of place. The cast does an impressive job making their characters believable. Overall I'd say this is a must see for fans of classic horror films but it certainly won't be for everybody.

"The events you are about to witness are true. Names and locations have been changed to protect those individuals still living"Ha! Already the filmmakers have over done the comic elements.With the opening credits seemingly censoring the nudity in the opening scene, we're off to a really odd start, and it gets even weirder, in this early slasher about a mother and father taking brutal revenge on the group of thugs who killed their 17 years old daughter and her friend. Brutally horrifying, almost impossible to watch scenes of pedophilic, thieving killers Krug and Co. (one of this film's alternative titles) taunting, torturing the two girls, before killing them, are juxtaposed with the most inane, idiotic hillbilly banjo music, and super lame country hick humour. Mary's slow, hypnotic walk into the lake, resigned to her fate, as Krug takes aim, fires, the fatal shot piercing the silence and ringing in the air, is a genuinely terrifying moment, exactly what every horror film wants to achieve - immediately followed by a hillbilly jamboree, as the parents (unaware of the horrors committed) cheerfully plan their daughter's birthday party.Even after the crimes have been discovered, and the parents are exacting their revenge, the hillbilly banjo music and local yokel cops seem to commandeer every other scene. Between that, and the theme song, I wonder if this was originally two separate films, edited together by someone who hadn't watched either cut?Even the theme song itself (written by Krug himself, David Hess) seems to be begun by one writer with one tone in mind, but completed by someone else who hadn't listened to its beginning: "And the road leads to nowhere" All right, that is appropriately dismal and bleak, but the next lyric: "And the castle stays the same" What? What castle? "And the father tells the mother, wait for the rain" So, in the midst of all this horror, there is still room for the weather report.I can't honestly rate this from 1 to 10, nor can I recommend it, but if you have a strong stomach for things like this, maybe give it a go, just be prepared for some unbearably tense moments, and jarring changes in tone.I watched an old Vestron VHS tape of this, getting another early start on my 31 days of Halloween, and the tape includes a post-credits text: "Coming soon to a theatre near you. From the producers of Last House On The Left, and the director of Friday the 13th Part V, ... The Last House On The Left, Part II. You won't believe your eyes!" Apparently, due to an injury Friday the 13th part V's director suffered, the sequel never happened.

Wes Craven's first film is without a doubt one of the most brutal, intense and shocking movies you'll ever see. Before our eyes a catalogue of atrocities are carried out through the grainy eye of the unblinking camera. To make matters worse, Craven makes us get to know and care about the characters before the violence begins, which of course makes the eventual bloodshed all the more worse. Indeed this film made me queasy while watching, and it's not an easy film to sit through. It might be a good film, yes, but its definitely not enjoyable. Would you want to watch it again? I don't think so.The film's low budget merely adds to the overall gritty feel of it. The only thing out of place is the inappropriate cheerful music which keeps popping up all of the time, we could have done without this. All characters are three-dimensional and understandable, even the psychopaths. Yes, they're psychopaths, but these people could be real, such things really do happen in real life. David Hess went on to carve himself a niche in these type of roles, as to portray a cold-blooded sadist was something he did with frightening realism. Cassel and Grantham are likable and heart-breaking as the subjects of the violent attacks, scenes hard to watch. Everybody in this film puts their heart into it.Craven even experiments with manipulation of the viewer, in the final scenes getting us to cheer on a chainsaw murderer. The film questions violence and the primitive way in which it is a part of human nature. I wouldn't really recommend this film, see it if you have to. One viewing is way more than enough though.

hahahahahahhaha......they killed a priest and 2 nuns....LOL!...what could be worse?..........".....by an animal-like woman...."...hahahahaa!....what exactly does a woman have to do to qualify as being "animal-like?"...bark like a dog?....hahaha....this is so hokey.....In the scene where Phyllis's hand sticks out between Weasel and Sadie and eventually falls to the ground, its obvious that whoever is attached to the hand is still alive because the fingers move....you'd think Wes craven would have caught that before putting it in the film......another thing too....if you were a woman and a man just killed your daughter, would you allow him to put his penis in your mouth?....i don't think so.......Also, just exactly what did the doctor hope to accomplish by stringing wire outside the bedroom doors and smearing shaving cream all over the floor?.....so the killers would fall down....woop-tee-do...Seems like a lot of work to go to for nothing...all that would do is make the killers MADDER....It didn't accomplish one thing.....Also if the killers were murderers who escaped prison, every law enforcement official in the country would be looking for them...that being the case, why would they waste all this time torturing and killing a couple of teenage bimbos?...What would be the point?...i think in real life, the killers would either be hiding or trying desperately to get out of the country.....Lastly, why were there so many movies made in the 70s like this one, which portray the police as stupid, bumbling, clumsy, redneck, keystone-type cops?..is that really how people saw law enforcement as being back then?