Last house on the left

daveg

Has anyone seen it? Is it as bad as reviews make out (disturbing bad that is). I've got my hands on a copy.

Dudess

It's the one with the tagline "Keep telling yourself it's only a movie, it's only a movie, it's only a movie" etc. Haven't seen it, but not sure I could watch it. I've read tons of reviews and they're all agreed on one thing: it'll have you cacking.

Loomis

Is this the Wes Craven movie?
I've heard about it but only by name.I love 'scary' movies - the new generation of teen slasher ones that were spawned from Scream.I love them but don't actaully find them scary.Just very entertaining.
So the tagline and reviews you're on about saying it'll have you cacking it;is that on a par with Scream,I know what you did last Summer,Jeepers Creepers wil have you cacking it?Or is it a step up?

Dudess

Mr. Anderson wrote:

So the tagline and reviews you're on about saying it'll have you cacking it;is that on a par with Scream,I know what you did last Summer,Jeepers Creepers wil have you cacking it?Or is it a step up?

Totally different kind of film, mate. The ones you mentioned are, as you said, entertaining, with dollops of humour and irony thrown in. This is from a time before all those knowing, self-referential, in-jokey 90s movies (the 70s). It's more likely to be thrown into the same category as Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Driller Killer, I Spit On Your Grave and The Hills Have Eyes.

Dudess

Actually, Last House on the Left is apparently based on this: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053976/

Loomis

So is it actually good?
The thing I always find is I just can't seem to take older movies seriously.I think it's the whole look;picture quality,acting et cetera.I mean slag the slaher movies all you want (I love them) but you have to give them one thing;they're full of people who can actually act very well.
Like I saw the original Texas ChainSaw Masscare and it was just bleh to me.But seeing the remake I thought parts were scary.I just find older movies hard to watch in that way because of the aforementioned characteristics.

lodgepole

It's a grim piece of work. Nowadays it's very easy to look at some of it and laugh but it's certainly worth watching. Don't expect a masterpiece in terms of the visuals and try to ignore everything involving the two cops. I guarantee that some of it at least will unnerve you.

koneko

I didn't think it was very shocking or unnerving, worth watching though.

lodgepole

koneko wrote:

I didn't think it was very shocking or unnerving, worth watching though.

Even the piss yourself segment? I thought from the moment Krug and company start torturing up until the point that they leave the woods and go into the house is pretty grim and disturbing stuff. It all gets a bit too comic book from then on.

Running Bing

Mr. Anderson wrote:

I mean slag the slaher movies all you want (I love them) but you have to give them one thing;they're full of people who can actually act very well.

:rolleyes:



The diffence is budget. Most of these movies like last house on the left, the hills have eyes and the texas chainsaw massacre were made on tiny budgets. Naturally they were unable to get top notch actors and had to skimp on certain things which are taken for granted nowadays. Despite this(or because of this?) these films will always be better because they have something big budgets cant buy and thats the passion and heart with which they were made.

Wolff

I personally thought it was utter sh1te and Im a wes craven fan - the acting, storyline and the plotting was completely naff.


big disapointment - and I dont buy into any excuses about it being low budget - plenty of low budget films are just as good as their mainstream counterparts - this film was just a joke

Henry Portrait of a Serial killer was low budget and very disturbing - well acted and well plotted etc

This film really is a joke !

lodgepole

Babybing wrote:

The diffence is budget. Most of these movies like last house on the left, the hills have eyes and the texas chainsaw massacre were made on tiny budgets. Naturally they were unable to get top notch actors and had to skimp on certain things which are taken for granted nowadays. Despite this(or because of this?) these films will always be better because they have something big budgets cant buy and thats the passion and heart with which they were made.

I thought the Chainsaw remake was decent on a purely visceral level. With the lights turned off and the volume up it delivers pretty well. Not as well as the Tobe Hooper one but pretty well none the less. I'm looking forward to the Hills remake, I didn't think the original was great at all. Wonderful idea and decent execution in parts, but overall it was a bit rubbish.

Last House is ripe for a remake. Keep the nasty tone but give it to film makers with more ability (Craven and Cunningham were not good film makers at the time). I'd love to see it in the right hands because the basic plot (a remake of The Virgin Spring) is good.

Running Bing

Wolff wrote:

I personally thought it was utter sh1te and Im a wes craven fan - the acting, storyline and the plotting was completely naff.


big disapointment - and I dont buy into any excuses about it being low budget - plenty of low budget films are just as good as their mainstream counterparts - this film was just a joke

Henry Portrait of a Serial killer was low budget and very disturbing - well acted and well plotted etc

This film really is a joke !

I should have saying i havent actually seen it yet. I was responding more to mr. andersons post about old v new movies. So I wasnt actually commenting on lhotl in particular.

Wolff

Well replying to Mr Anderson who has a problem with old films he has to remmeber that no matter how bad they look or sound without them the much inferior in most cases remakes could not have been made.

He seems to have the same view a lot of people have about black and white and foreign movies

The Hills have eyes and Texas Chainsaw were made on small budget using very lowtech equipment but still are way above LHOTL which has to be seen to be believed how bad it is I was aware of its reputation but to be honest it just doesnt live up to it

complete and utter rubbish even leaving aside the small budget crap actors etc

Decent horror films that were made on tiny budget - Evil Dead Evil Dead 2, Dawn of the Dead, Day of the Dead etc etc

lodgepole

Last House on the Left was made for considerably less than any of those films. I actually think that overall it's a more worthwhile film than The Hills Have Eyes. Disregarding the bad stuff (the acting outside of the torture, the cinematograpy, anything involving the police) it has more content than the fairly empty Hills Have Eyes. I think that a remake of The Hills Have Eyes could make me disregard the original quite happily, but no matter how good a Last House on the Left remake is, the original holds enough originality and enough power to keep me going back to it.

To be honest... I think it took people who really had no clue about film making to make a film like that. Would Tobe Hooper have taken Texas Chainsaw Massacre so far two years later if Last House hadn't raised the bar in terms of how intense a film could be?