CHUD.com Community › Forums › CREATURE CORNER › Creature Corner Main › The Last House on the Left
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Last House on the Left

post #1 of 56
7/22/03 at 7:15pm
Thread Starter 
Just watched this said-to-be-great-classic Wes Craven rape&revenge movie.

I was really disappointed. TLHOTL had a terrible use of music, a turtle-paced story movement and horrible editing. I heard that this was "shockingly realistic", filled with "incredible scenes of pure horror" and "Extreme Graphic Violence, Nudity and Strong Sexual Content". Maybe I saw the wrong uncut version (though in fact it Was the uncut version).

Sure the 2 girls were nice and the actions of the men were horrible, but so was the whole movie ,too.

1.The actors would´ve been great if there greatest aim were the Razzies for worst actors.

2.Craven earns a dinner with Resident Evil´s licker for his intolerable handling of editing Hess´ horrible score to his horrible photography. Oh, and for his horrible screenplay.

3.Sure, the theme is scandalous and somehow a good one for a horror flick. But to me it never felt real enough to make me feel scared or even "oh no, don´t do this to them" somehow. Beginning with the horrible acting we add the logical plot holes that have an own event horizon.

Why did the one girl talk to the freak while the other one tried to escape ? Why didnt she try to escape, too ? Why does the mother blow one of the killers before biting him ? btw, NO MOTHER ON EARTH would do this to seek revenge. The stupid cops. Was that meant to be funny ? It was just plain stupid.
Coincidences happen, but that the freaks drive to the near neighbourhood of the victims to kill them was just TOO "uber".
Why the exploitation of the girl in the very first minutes ? "Um, Wes, lets begin our film with a naked girl in the shower" "Great idea" "Um, the audience should see her breasts" "Great, now they´ll sit through this mess expecting more to come!"

I just shook my head when the father took out the chainsaw...Another plain scene would´ve been 'girls want some grass. a dealer wants to give it to them in his apartment. the moment they are in, the doors are closed and their wish is punished by those stoned evil freaks from jail.' It just didn´t work in any way.

You are a gore or t&a hound ? fughetaboutid. Just because you read sth about chainsaws, evil freaks from jail and revenge doesn´t mean that this movie might satisfy you. It isn´t worth anything. When you cut yourself with a knife while cutting your bread in the morning because you took a look at the page one girl, you´re happier.

You agree with me ? Great, show me.
You disagree with me ? give me your 2 cents.

Reply
post #2 of 56
7/22/03 at 7:25pm
I don't think this movie is classic in any way. It's a Straw Dogs wanna-be set in the middle of the exploitation boom of the early 70's. Craven has gotten lucky a couple of times in his career with Nightmare OES and The Hills Have Eyes. I'll even give him some credit for Scream. But he's never shown any real vision, and I liken him to a modern-era Roger Corman. He works for the green. Last House wants to be Texas Chainsaw Massacre meets Dirty Harry meets I Spit on Your Grave, but it only ends up being a mistake.
Reply
post #3 of 56
7/22/03 at 7:34pm
Fucking garbage!

An interesting idea is here, but the lousy, lousy music, dumb humor from the cops and a slow-paced story makes this a piece of shite.

Though, I have always dug the video cover of this flick; a girl lying in the palm of a giant hand.
Reply
post #4 of 56
7/22/03 at 7:45pm
It helps if you look at the film contextually. It was one of the first of the documentary based horror films (IIRC) and aped some artsy sources (The Virgin Spring). It's been outdone and the film has dated, but it also has a raw feel that can't be denied, and the scenes in the middle of rape and torture are pretty horrific (the pee your pants scene especially). But much of the acting is lousy, and the soundtrack is fun in a dated sort of way. (Rock on Krug!) Robin Wood wrote a great essay on it, which is collected in his book Hollywood from Vietnam to Reagan

It also seemed to influence In the Bedroom.

Reply
post #5 of 56
7/22/03 at 7:47pm
I agree with you. Personally I think it's fucking awful.

You're supposed to feel PURE HATE for the baddies, but David Hess and his "gang" are to be pitied. They're about as menacing as a carton of organic nectarines. The music doesn't belong in this kind of film, and the less said about the comedy coppers the better. Compared to its 1970s contemporaries the film has dated very badly and does not justify the rep. Watch I Spit on Your Grave or uncut Death Wish II instead.
Reply
post #6 of 56
7/22/03 at 7:53pm
I'm not a fan either, but it's one of those films that's important in the history of horror, as many of the films that Myers critiqued it for being as good as might not have existed were it not for this one.
Reply
post #7 of 56
7/22/03 at 7:59pm
I enjoyed the documentary on the DVD alot more than the movie itself.

Sorry to veer off topic for a sec, but Shigemichi-san, do you have the uncut Death Wish 2?
Reply
post #8 of 56
7/22/03 at 8:52pm
I have seen a bad quality DW2 workprint. The main selling point is the vicious rape scene that was censored in most countries. This version was recently released on DVD in Brazil and Scandinavia. The violence is uncut but there are a few minor dialogue scenes missing.

And LHOTL's importance in horror film history is often overstated (Straw Dogs and Kubrick's Clockwork Orange came first). The only meaningful contribution to horror that I concede is liberal use of a chainsaw.
Reply
post #9 of 56
7/22/03 at 9:16pm
Just curious, cuz I had a VHS tape recorded off Japanese TV where Kersey's daughter's molestation/rape scene was intact, but I don't recall any other addtional or padded scenes.
Reply
post #10 of 56
7/22/03 at 10:07pm
The rape of his daughter doesn't get cut so much, although sometimes they trim the part where she jumps out of the window and is impaled on the spikes.

It's the rape of the housekeeper near the start that is heavily cut in almost every territory. The basic scene is there in every version, but the workprint version goes on much longer than the US or UK cuts. Winner doesn't know when to quit and it's pretty damn horrifying. But unlike LHOTL it sets up the rape-revenge scenario perfectly.

"You believe in Jesus?

Well, you're gonna meet him."

Reply
post #11 of 56
7/23/03 at 12:52am
well,it's a classic because it's one of these 70's exploitation films that paved the way for the kind of gore and violence we've all gotten jaded to nowadays.It pales to anything that's considered shocking and disturbing now but it was a milestone back then.
Reply
post #12 of 56
7/23/03 at 6:58am
Usually, I won't discredit a film if it borrows, or is influenced, by another piece of work ... However, LHOTL is hailed as "groundbreaking" by some, and that just begs for VIRGIN SPRING to be mentioned ...

In the past year, I've watched THE HILLS HAVE EYES and LHOTL and both were mere shadows of what I remember them to be ... HILLS was especially disappointing: I hadn't remembered the made for TV feel that was apparent on the recent viewing ...

At his best, I feel Craven is vastly overrated .. and that's about the closest thing to a compliment I can give the guy ...
Reply
post #13 of 56
7/23/03 at 10:10am
This film is just retched. I doubt I'll ever sit through it again. Poorly written, acted, and scored to say the least.
I don't even agree with it being an important milestone for it's time. TCM and others used this technique successfully. This movie was artistically bankrupt.
Craven explored the theme of becoming your enemy much better in The Hills Have Eyes.
Reply
post #14 of 56
7/23/03 at 11:28am
Ya, I agree with most of the sentiments so far.

I've only seen it once, but have the DVD and have thought about revisiting it with my expectations in check (as opposed to the first, hyped up viewing that left me very disappointed).

One thing that will always get me (and please don't turn this into Ebert bashing) is how Roger Ebert (a man who I generally respect, if not always agree with) said this was one of the best horror films he had ever seen, but said 'I Spit on Your Grave' was the worst thing ever put on celluloid. Both movies suck (in my opinion) but at least 'I Spit' had some decent production values...
Reply
post #15 of 56
7/23/03 at 12:54pm
Well, you're missing the obvious distinction betweren the two: in one the rape victims die, in the other the woman gets revenge. There's a great article about that very same subject in MEn, Women, and Chainsaws.

I dunno if I buy Straw Dogs and Clockwork Orange as being influential on stuff like I Spit on Your Grave or TCM. I'm mulling that one. They seem to be classier meditations on the subject, and with either likable protagonists (Clockwork's rape is horific, but oddly funny, or at least it was when I was 14), or shades or gray undetectable in LHOTL (those chicks don't want it, while Susan George has mixed feelings about the first guy, though the second one...)
Reply
post #16 of 56
7/23/03 at 1:25pm
Quote:
General Zod:
Fucking garbage!

An interesting idea is here, but the lousy, lousy music, dumb humor from the cops and a slow-paced story makes this a piece of shite.

Though, I have always dug the video cover of this flick; a girl lying in the palm of a giant hand.
what! the music is the only fucking good thing about the film.

Reply
post #17 of 56
7/23/03 at 2:02pm
I think the lingering sadism on display in Clockwork Orange was clearly a major influence on both LHOTL and the stuff that followed.

I reckon TCM owes more to Deranged than LHOTL, while I Spit On Your Grave is a 50-50 Deliverance/LHOTL split. And besides, whatever TCM or I Spit took from LHOTL, they made BETTER. So I'd place them closer to "milestone" than LHTOL. After all, if it was just the seed of an idea that granted a film milestone status then Carnival of Souls would be getting all the glory instead of Romero's Night of the Living Dead.

As far as Craven goes, I do like his films but mostly the ones from later in his career. I have this theory that he learned how to make a decent horror film sometime in the mid 80s. I don't think much of LHOTL or The Hills Have Eyes or Freddy 1. But I loved People Under the Stairs, thought New Nightmare was the best of that whole series, and am rather partial to Scream. IMO the most powerful scene that Craven ever directed was in the TV movie "Chiller". Michael Beck's speech about there being NOTHING on the other side, beyond death. eek!

Reply
post #18 of 56
7/23/03 at 2:11pm
Part of being influential (IMHO) is showing that something along those lines was financially viable, and that's part of why I don't see the Kubrick or Peckinpah film as meaningful.

Also it showed that acting levels don't matter as long as you deliver the sequences the audience came for. This though is derived from master of Drive-In entertainment Herschell Gordon Lewis.

Reply
post #19 of 56
7/23/03 at 2:55pm
It's got a good DVD, I can say that for it.

I don't particularly think it's a great film, although shows flashes that predict Craven's later success. Whatever you say about the film itself, it has some disturbing performances, including David Hess, who has forever burned himself in my mind as one of the most horrible screen characters ever. It's definitely influential, and I think, for how twisted and evil the characters are, getting down and showing something that nasty on screen was a huge and brave thing to do. It also gave me one of my unforgettable film memories, with the dentistry dream sequence.

Not a pleasant film to watch, but not one devoid of any value.
Reply
post #20 of 56
7/23/03 at 2:58pm
Quote:
Andre Dellamorte:
those chicks don't want it, while Susan George has mixed feelings about the first guy, though the second one...)
IIRC, that was one of the main problems that the BBFC had with the film in the UK, and banned it because it occasionally gave the impression that she might be enjoying it. It also gave way to one of the funnier cuts in cinema history, when they cut around the rape but did it so incompetantly that instead of just being raped, it looked like she was being buggered.
Reply
post #21 of 56
7/23/03 at 5:19pm
Well yes, the producers of exploitation flicks do consider the financial viability above all else. But taking inspiration from another film just because it was a moneymaker is really the lowest form of influence IMO. Most of these directors are smart enough to know a good idea or a strong image when they see it, regardless of the box office.

As a horror fan, I admire those films that are well made and that have lasting impact and resonance. Or at the very least satisfy the basic requirements of a lowly rape-revenge thriller... Whether the victim dies or instead goes on to avenge herself is really a moot point. The important points are:

a. Was the victim's experience really really horrible?

b. Do you really really hate the bad guys as a result? Are you happy/satisfied when the bad guys cark it? Is it a moment of pure catharsis for you when Bronson blows the most formidable bad guy away using a rocket launcher, indoors and at point blank range?

(c. is optional- Do you feel guilty at point b? Does the film leave you with an empty feeling inside, having witnessed too much death, thinking that nothing means anything, etcetcetc?)

And before anyone brings up Ferrara's Ms 45, that was NOT a rape-revenge thriller. That was a rape-insanity thriller, and therefore does not count.

Reply
post #22 of 56
7/23/03 at 6:07pm
I think though, looking at the history of Horror films, the influence of any major turn in the genre has everything to do with returns. All one has to do is look at Scream or Halloween to prove my point. Often what filmmakers were responding to, especially the ones who used the genre as a springboard, was the ability to make a film on the cheap that by delivering the necessary frights might lead to bigger and better, or at least some change in their pockets.
Reply
post #23 of 56
7/28/03 at 6:23pm
OY! Sounds like “Last House on the Left” is a sore spot for some of you fine folks, but consider the film an interesting footnote more than a qualified classic and you’ll find it’s true worth. The movie was designed to satisfy a specific audience at a particular time when movie theaters would sometimes finance films themselves to precede a feature. Last House was a low budget film made simply to make a few bucks during a minimal theatrical release long before home video would come along to perpetuate the shelf life of even the worst films. Craven/Cunningham wanted to make films, so they scored a few bucks and created a knock off “exploitation” picture, same as you and I would do in the early seventies had most of us been born yet (or at least have tried to make something “different” ya know?). The film was more hype than anything (it’s only a movie, it’s only a movie etc…) but it’s such a product of its time that it’s truly indispensable, it’s like watching reruns of ancient sitcoms on TV, one where the jokes are so outdated that you wonder how hard up for entertainment our parents were. When you watch films like this and films like “I Spit on your Grave”, they speak of a genre that was essentially tried and died, you’ll never really see a movie like that come out of North America again for better or worse and for that fact alone Last House should forever have a place in cinema history.

As for those Craven bashers, give it a rest man. The guy’s done a fuckload to supplement our favorite genre. If anything, chalk up his misfires as just that, one cannot possibly succeed every time. If you have ever heard the man talk, he’s a smart cookie so don’t for a minute think that the choices he makes are strictly to add a new wing to the Craven mausoleum. He chooses to work this genre because he loves it.
Reply
post #24 of 56
7/28/03 at 6:36pm
While I agree with many of Swan's thoughts, I'd like to go off topic for a sec...

Can any of you UK folks tell me the differences between the 2-disc Last House on the Left that came out on your shores recently and the MGM version we received over here?

I'd love to check it out.
Reply
post #25 of 56
7/28/03 at 6:40pm
I can't, but here are the specs:
-Widescreen Presentation Enhanced for 16x9 TVs
-Audio Commentary with Writer and Director Wes Craven and Producer Sean S. Cunningham
-Second Audio Commentary with Stars David Hess, Marc Sheffler and Fred Lincoln
- Celluloid Crime of the Century: 49 minute featurette with Wes Craven, Sean S. Cunningham, David Hess, Jeramie Rain, Fred Lincoln, Martin Kove and Marc Sheffler
-Scoring Last House: featurette with David Hess (12 mins)
-Krug Conquers England: documentary charting the theatrical tour of the UK which included the first ever legal screening of Last House on the Left
-Twenty minutes of Outtakes and Dailies
-U.S. Theatrical Trailer
-German Theatrical Trailer
-TV Spots
-Radio Spots
-Poster & Stills Gallery
-Talent bios
-Night of Vengeance: Excerpts from early shooting script
-Tales That Will Tear Your Heart Out: Exclusive first release of early unfinished Wes Craven short starring David Hess
-Sex, Lies and Videotape: Essay on Blue Underground's fight to get the movie passed without cuts
-Krug and Company: extremely rare alternate version
Reply
post #26 of 56
7/28/03 at 6:42pm
<a href="http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/index.cgi?page=Review&id=1368&story=4431" target="_blank">Here's a link</a> to a review of the content.
Reply
post #27 of 56
7/28/03 at 7:07pm
I have that, and the content is really good. I'm not the biggest fan of the film by any means, but it's a great package.
Reply
post #28 of 56
7/28/03 at 7:22pm
Thanks, dudes. I'll have to pick this up when I head back to L.A. later in August.
Reply
post #29 of 56
7/28/03 at 8:00pm
You know...the first time I saw this flick, I hated it. I really did. I thought the same of what most of you have been saying. Then I watched it again a few times, and I found myself liking it more and more. Why? I can't tell you. It's a very poorly made film, from begining to end. But there's a certain "realism" about it that just gets under my skin. Maybe I like it because
David Hess gives such a scumbag, shit-eating performance(as usual), that he stands out as an all-time movie villain to me.

I'm not sure, but I like it. I'm not going with the hype either. I bought the DVD ready to enjoy it, and upon my first viewing thought it was horrible. But I gave it another chance one night when I was bored, and since I have enjoyed further viewings of it. Don't get me wrong, I hate the rape/torture scenes. I think they're so brutal and realistic, that it hurts to watch, but at the same time, it's because it is so brutal and realistic that makes me watch it.

This movie is no masterpiece. I've seen much better films that get shat on much more than LHotL, but I have to say, it's a movie that has grown on me.

- Fixxxer
Reply
post #30 of 56
7/28/03 at 8:17pm
Got to disagree strongly there. Speaking as a movie villain connoisseur, Hess is one of the absolute WORST I've ever seen. Like a ten year old's idea of what a bad guy should be.
Reply
post #31 of 56
7/28/03 at 9:19pm
Quote:
Shigemichi Toscani:
Got to disagree strongly there. Speaking as a movie villain connoisseur, Hess is one of the absolute WORST I've ever seen. Like a ten year old's idea of what a bad guy should be.
Yeah? But imagine him in a room with your girlfriend.

- Fixxxer
Reply
post #32 of 56
7/28/03 at 10:59pm
My girlfriend would have his guts for garters. His "gang" too.
Reply
post #33 of 56
2/21/09 at 2:26pm
I found five threads on Last House on the Left; this was the one with actual discussion (you circa 2000 posters can blow it out your ass about the "good old days").

Excellent points raised above, but after giving this film yet another spin, I can't get past the disdain I feel for the filmmakers while watching it.

Craven's clumsy, smudgy fingerprints are all over the thing, and if you love his later work, I guess it's interesting to see what he attempts in this nascent stage, but it's SO goddamn sloppy. Tonally, it's like a bunch of kids playing "naughty". The scenes of comic relief that are INTERTWINED with the "legendary" scenes of brutality betray an amateurish, giggling hand guiding this ship (as do blowjob revenge scenes and artlessly directed climaxes).

The film itself has become a boogeyman, given strength through word-of-mouth reputation and way too few actual screenings. The film was no doubt shocking to the teen audience that ingested it in 1972, but since it couldn't play on TV in the 70s and 80s, it gains this legendarily brutal reputation.

A glimmer of dark artistry here and there do not a classic make. This film should have been in the "You Got It All WRONG!" feature.

Apparently the new DVD that comes out next week has all the same features as the UK edition Andre mentions above.
Reply
post #34 of 56
2/24/09 at 11:59pm
Wow. I'll have to give this another spin. My last viewing, probably my 3rd or 4th total, was probably 10 years ago, when I was around 17 or 18. It's quite possible I'd feel the same as most everyone else about it now.

Still, I remember the music, the goofy humor and all of that and don't remember being bothered by it. I'm still trying to find a good cut of Hess's Wait for the Rain that isn't instrumental. That song gives me the creeps.

I didn't notice the 2003 date at first. Was going to ask Chris if he was drunk while posting the original topic.
Reply
post #35 of 56
2/25/09 at 12:06am
I just saw this for the 1st time last year. While I agree that it is overrated, I can see the diamonds in the rough that made it so revered in many peoples' minds. I'm sure for 1972 it was shocking, and probably deserves some credit for being aboundary pushing film in its day. I kinda liked it, but not enough to buy it, even for archival purposes.
Reply
post #36 of 56
2/25/09 at 12:10am
I haven't changed. Have I?
Reply
post #37 of 56
2/26/09 at 5:35pm
NIGHT TRAIN MURDERS (a.k.a. NEW HOUSE ON THE LEFT), an Italian rip-off from underrated giallo director Aldo Lado, is elegantly photographed and extremely suspenseful and disturbing. It's also tonally consistent, unlike Craven's misfire. Available on DVD from Blue Underground. Check it out.
Reply
post #38 of 56
2/26/09 at 8:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil View Post
The film was no doubt shocking to the teen audience that ingested it in 1972
I can vouch for that. My girlfriend had me take her to the drive-in to see it, because she enjoyed the kind of safe scares that we expected from most "horror" films. At the time neither of us had any idea that you could MAKE horror films that were designed to do more than give you a few "scary" jolts. And the crudeness that borders on amateurism was a stark contrast to, say, Dr. Phibes.

It was NOT one of our more pleasant date nights; I've still never seen the end of the movie.
Reply
post #39 of 56
2/26/09 at 9:34pm
Whoah! Tell us more. How did drive-in audiences react to that?? Did you last longer than other cars? Any complaints?

Was the film playing the second half of a double bill, or the first? What was it playing with?

Did you catch Texas Chain Saw, The Exorcist, Night of the Living Dead, other films from around then, at the theater or drive-in? I'm really curious to hear how certain films played to the crowd back then.
Reply
post #40 of 56
2/26/09 at 10:33pm
I watched this after reading how brutal and realistic it was, expecting to want to look away or turn it off in disgust. But I didn't. It all felt like it was censored or something. The camera would NEVER go for the money shot. It would always hang above the action or look away from any brutality going on. Which is fine in most movies because it lets you use your imagination, but this was supposed to be a shocking movie and the only part that was anything like that was the blowjob revenge scene.

It's also just not a well made movie. I admit though, I loved how it ended.
Reply
post #41 of 56
2/26/09 at 10:39pm
It's all about context. By today's standards, Night of the Living Dead is extremely tame, but at one point is was the ne plus ultra of gore. Some people try to maintain that Last House on the Left retains it's power to unsettle, but I don't think that's at all true.
Reply
post #42 of 56
2/26/09 at 11:26pm
I've never found LHOTL to be as unsettling as it's been made out to be, so I'll wholeheartedly agree on that. I first saw it back in 2000, and the vhs tape's grain added to it, but the only scene that even remotely unnerved me was the final rape before Krug shoots Mari. He's on her, and has his face smashed against her's, and when he gets up, he leaves drool on her cheek.

Hess plays a great villain, and I will say that his similar role in the similar House On The Edge Of The Park is WAY more brutal and disturbing that Last House On The Left.

I have the soundtrack, and Hess' music is so soothing. Particularly the haunting "Now your all alone."
Reply
post #43 of 56
2/27/09 at 12:47am
In context, I sort of dig this one. When I first saw it (about eight or nine years ago), I was a big Wes Craven fan and dying to see this. The very positive review that Ebert gave it made me want to see it even more. Well, it was okay. I expected much more, but I could sort of understand what people saw in it. The "piss your pants' scene still sticks in my head all these years later, so I guess parts of it work.

I haven't even seen the trailer yet for the remake, but I saw a commercial recently - can't say I have an opinion.
Reply
post #44 of 56
2/27/09 at 1:15am
On the other hand, I found the original Hills Have Eyes even MORE disturbing than the remake. There's a lot more child endangerment in the original.
Reply
post #45 of 56
2/27/09 at 1:20am
Hills feels so damn phony to me, even next to Last House. I enjoy it more than Last House, but the remake really supplanted the original for me.

Here's an old thread when the remake was first announced.
Reply
post #46 of 56
2/27/09 at 2:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil View Post
Hills feels so damn phony to me, even next to Last House. I enjoy it more than Last House, but the remake really supplanted the original for me.
What do you mean by phony?

There's a crudeness; a raw style that makes the original Hills work. Early Craven, if not a 'master of horror", was an effective button pusher.

The remake is great tho.
Reply
post #47 of 56
2/27/09 at 3:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil View Post
Whoah! Tell us more. How did drive-in audiences react to that?? Did you last longer than other cars? Any complaints?

Was the film playing the second half of a double bill, or the first? What was it playing with?

Did you catch Texas Chain Saw, The Exorcist, Night of the Living Dead, other films from around then, at the theater or drive-in? I'm really curious to hear how certain films played to the crowd back then.
I have no memory of the other cars at the drive-in (not noticing other people is one reason to take a girl to the drive-in); we finally left after the BJ scene, as she was starting to get really upset, and I'm not sure about the rest of the audience.

My recollection is that it was a double-bill, and we probably skipped whatever was on top.

Didn't actually see Living Dead or Chainsaw till I went to college, and we had several rep houses in the area, so the audiences were mostly idiot college guys like us that enjoyed MST3K'ing movies (I still remember busting out laughing at some of the lines in Night; "Don't worry dear, I'm Helen Cooper!", for some reason, had us on the floor-- I think it's her smile as she delivers the line).

Exorcist was another deal altogether. Saw it in December of '73, on a weekday afternoon when I had finished registering for winter quarter classes and had some time to kill. Saw it at one of the upscale theatres in Westwood, CA. Massive sold-out crowd: this wasn't a horror film, it was Oscar-winner Friedkin's latest. And the film just wrought havoc on that crowd. Invoke your favorite cliche: tension you could cut with a knife? And then some. You could feel the place completely wound up and on edge. People screaming, whimpering, and more than a few leaving before it ended. Up to that point, probably the most intense moviegoing experience I'd ever had, and I haven't had many to match it since.
Reply
post #48 of 56
2/27/09 at 5:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malmordo View Post
NIGHT TRAIN MURDERS (a.k.a. NEW HOUSE ON THE LEFT), an Italian rip-off from underrated giallo director Aldo Lado, is elegantly photographed and extremely suspenseful and disturbing. It's also tonally consistent, unlike Craven's misfire. Available on DVD from Blue Underground. Check it out.
I've told several folks to watch Night Train Murders instead of Last House on the Left since I saw it a few years back. Lado is one of the unsung heroes of Italian cinema, better than Lenzi, Bava Jr., Deadato (not including Cannibal Holocaust), and many other favorites, though probably not the big three (Bava, Argento, and Fulci).

I watched Hostel 2 with the Tarantino/Roth commentary, and they bring up Night Train Murders a lot.
Reply
post #49 of 56
2/27/09 at 12:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Elvis View Post
What do you mean by phony?
I never buy it; the bad guys are too self-consciously bad, without the acting chops to really sell the gimmick. As shitty as the rest of the film is, I kind of buy David Hess in Last House; I don't buy anyone in Hills. The star is the scenario*, which works in spite of the clumsy acting and dialogue.

*And the German Shepherd.
Reply
post #50 of 56
2/28/09 at 10:08pm
Yeah, that David Hess can play a good scumbag.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Creature Corner Main
CHUD.com Community › Forums › CREATURE CORNER › Creature Corner Main › The Last House on the Left