I've heard quite a bit about Wes Craven's 1972 debut film "Last House on the Left" over the years and finally decided to see what the hoopla was all about.
PLOT (***Spoilers***): "Last House" is a simple rape/murder/revenge horror flick about two Connecticut girls who go to the big city to catch a rock concert, but they look for pot in the wrong place and end up kidnapped, humiliated, tortured, raped and killed. When the father & mother of one of the victims find out they set out to take revenge; the culprits aren't hard to find 'cause they're, coincidently, overnight guests in their house!
This is, apparently, a loose remake of Ingmar Bergman's "Virgin Spring" (1960), albeit in a modern America setting.
WHAT WORKS: Aside from the brief Manhattan scenes, the woodsy Connecticut locations are great (Westport & Redding); the three female actors are cute; and the diversified score (by the actor playing Krug) is entertaining even while a lot of it is incongruous with the material. In addition, the film can be appreciated as an early 70s period piece/oddity or if you're a Craven fan.
Also, if you're a gorehound there's some significant gore, in particular a bloody disembowelment sequence.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK: Wow, this story is really DUMB. I'm not referring to just the goofy aspects, i.e. the two rural policemen, but to the complete implausibility of the storyline: ***SPOILER ALERT*** The criminal gang just so happens to break down right in front of the rural house of one of the victims? Why sure! But there's more, way more: After breaking down on some desolate country road the gang decides to take a frolic in the woods where they torment, rape & murder the girls; their clothes are completely bloody but they're able to fully wash up in a scummy pond and deck themselves to the hilt. Where'd they get the soap and towels, etc.? (I didn't see any) Where'd they get the nice dress clothes? Didn't they just escape from prison? Then they knock on the door of the closest house, the house of one of the victims (which they don't realize yet), and her parents cluelessly allow this suspicious foursome to stay overnight, a couple of 'em in their daughters very room -- unbelievable! Keep in mind that their daughter has been missing since the night before and they should be seriously concerned about that, but they're okay enough to allow four weirdo adult strangers to occupy their home -- Why sure! The revenge of the parents is just as ridiculous ***END SPOILER***. As noted above, many of these scenes are combined with an unfitting goofy score, which makes them all the more absurd. Really, the story is so ridiculous it's as if a 13 year-old came up with the plot but, no, it was written/directed by Wes Craven, a full-fledged adult with degrees in writing & psychology -- unbelievable.
With this understanding, how can the viewer possibly take the story serious? Which is why I find it strange that some people call this "the most disturbing film ever made," etc. If the material is absurd it can't truly be disturbing because it can't be taken seriously. Is the violence in the Road Runner disturbing? No. Why? Because it's a cartoon and it's preposterous. "Last House" may not be a cartoon but it's the same principle because it's just as preposterous.
The reason 1978's "I Spit On Your Grave" works, for what it is, is because it's presented to the viewer in a serious, realistic manner (well, except for parts of the revenge scenes in the last 20 minutes -- but even those sequences are believable compared to the inanities of "Last House"). Consequently, "I Spit On Your Grave" is disturbing, "Last House" is not.
One may defend the film on the grounds that it was the first of its kind as far as gore goes. I don't think so. "Night of the Living Dead" came out four years earlier and has more gore, albeit in black & white. "Night" is a thousand times more disturbing and horrifying because, again, it takes the material serious.
Some may object to how sick & sadistic the criminal scumbags are, but they're supposed to be appalling because this is a rape/murder/revenge horror flick. It comes with the territory.
BOTTOM LINE: I generously give "Last House" 2/10 for the positive elements noted above but, really, this is one of the dumbest flicks I've ever seen. I find it hard to believe it ever got a green light. You gotta see it to believe it, meaning it's definitely worthwhile as an early 70s curiosity.
The film runs 84 minutes and the original cut 91 minutes.
GRADE: D-
PLOT (***Spoilers***): "Last House" is a simple rape/murder/revenge horror flick about two Connecticut girls who go to the big city to catch a rock concert, but they look for pot in the wrong place and end up kidnapped, humiliated, tortured, raped and killed. When the father & mother of one of the victims find out they set out to take revenge; the culprits aren't hard to find 'cause they're, coincidently, overnight guests in their house!
This is, apparently, a loose remake of Ingmar Bergman's "Virgin Spring" (1960), albeit in a modern America setting.
WHAT WORKS: Aside from the brief Manhattan scenes, the woodsy Connecticut locations are great (Westport & Redding); the three female actors are cute; and the diversified score (by the actor playing Krug) is entertaining even while a lot of it is incongruous with the material. In addition, the film can be appreciated as an early 70s period piece/oddity or if you're a Craven fan.
Also, if you're a gorehound there's some significant gore, in particular a bloody disembowelment sequence.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK: Wow, this story is really DUMB. I'm not referring to just the goofy aspects, i.e. the two rural policemen, but to the complete implausibility of the storyline: ***SPOILER ALERT*** The criminal gang just so happens to break down right in front of the rural house of one of the victims? Why sure! But there's more, way more: After breaking down on some desolate country road the gang decides to take a frolic in the woods where they torment, rape & murder the girls; their clothes are completely bloody but they're able to fully wash up in a scummy pond and deck themselves to the hilt. Where'd they get the soap and towels, etc.? (I didn't see any) Where'd they get the nice dress clothes? Didn't they just escape from prison? Then they knock on the door of the closest house, the house of one of the victims (which they don't realize yet), and her parents cluelessly allow this suspicious foursome to stay overnight, a couple of 'em in their daughters very room -- unbelievable! Keep in mind that their daughter has been missing since the night before and they should be seriously concerned about that, but they're okay enough to allow four weirdo adult strangers to occupy their home -- Why sure! The revenge of the parents is just as ridiculous ***END SPOILER***. As noted above, many of these scenes are combined with an unfitting goofy score, which makes them all the more absurd. Really, the story is so ridiculous it's as if a 13 year-old came up with the plot but, no, it was written/directed by Wes Craven, a full-fledged adult with degrees in writing & psychology -- unbelievable.
With this understanding, how can the viewer possibly take the story serious? Which is why I find it strange that some people call this "the most disturbing film ever made," etc. If the material is absurd it can't truly be disturbing because it can't be taken seriously. Is the violence in the Road Runner disturbing? No. Why? Because it's a cartoon and it's preposterous. "Last House" may not be a cartoon but it's the same principle because it's just as preposterous.
The reason 1978's "I Spit On Your Grave" works, for what it is, is because it's presented to the viewer in a serious, realistic manner (well, except for parts of the revenge scenes in the last 20 minutes -- but even those sequences are believable compared to the inanities of "Last House"). Consequently, "I Spit On Your Grave" is disturbing, "Last House" is not.
One may defend the film on the grounds that it was the first of its kind as far as gore goes. I don't think so. "Night of the Living Dead" came out four years earlier and has more gore, albeit in black & white. "Night" is a thousand times more disturbing and horrifying because, again, it takes the material serious.
Some may object to how sick & sadistic the criminal scumbags are, but they're supposed to be appalling because this is a rape/murder/revenge horror flick. It comes with the territory.
BOTTOM LINE: I generously give "Last House" 2/10 for the positive elements noted above but, really, this is one of the dumbest flicks I've ever seen. I find it hard to believe it ever got a green light. You gotta see it to believe it, meaning it's definitely worthwhile as an early 70s curiosity.
The film runs 84 minutes and the original cut 91 minutes.
GRADE: D-