Was this supposed to be a comedy? - The Last House on the Left (1972) Discussion

[–] lschwartz106 15 years ago

This coudn't even be an unintentionally bad comedic movie. Because even for a movie like that, you need some soul and talent, which this film lacked.

reply

[–] rockenrohl 14 years ago

a good laugh? reminds me of the female killer in this movie who also gets good laughs from what's going on. she's *beep* insane, as far as i remember.

reply

[–] Horrorible_Horror_Films 14 years ago

Christ, is the 1989 in your name a reference to the year you were born? It must be, because your post reaks of ignorance that can only be explained by youth. And I'm not all that much older than you. Unless you maybe watched a censored version?

The 1970s was a very different time in a few ways - chief among them, the TOTAL lack of any digital technology whatsoever of any kind - which is why film and any type of media from back then looks, sounds and feels so much different, everything was done on all analog equipment, which in many ways is more difficult and time consuming. It helps if you understand that going in, as well as develop a taste for 70s cinema - go watch a bunch more films, and then revisit this one.

Also, I think there is something really, really messed up with you if the rape, torture, and murder depicted in this film didn't disturb you. Yes, obviously its fake, but it was depecited with an honesty and disturbing reality. Go read a news report about an abduction, rape and murder, then think about this film again.

Did you like Scream by Wes Craven? Sure, so did I, but the Scream franchise is more of a "fun" set of slasher flicks. This is also a slasher, and yea not exactly the best film ever made, but very different and at least as good in its own way.

You've got the touch! You've got the power!

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DarkPrincess1989 14 years ago

it was awful and thats my opinion ok, I thought the remake was much better and scarier and that does not make me lame or incapable of tolerating older horror movies because I love a lot of old horror movies, so don't judge me as if I don't know what I'm talking about and to the previous poster before roegcamel just cause I was born at the end of the 80's does not mean I can't appreciate films that were made before I was born, so I think in future you need to stop being so ageist about people and voice your opinions in a much friendlier way without trying to cause an argument.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DarkPrincess1989 14 years ago

I never said I was a better judge all I said was my opinion without being rude about it, my intention was not to create an argument and that poster was basically being ageist towards me because I wasn't born at the time this film came out. Yeah people see it as a classic horror film and fair enough but most people I have ever spoken to about it have the same opinions as me and that is ranging from people in their twenties to their fifties. The acting and script in this film was awful and there are much better films out there.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DarkPrincess1989 14 years ago

I said it was all my opinion and what you and the other posters say are your opinions, I never said they were actual facts. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and can obviously disagree with me but there was no need to make the comments so personal directed at my age and just cause someone didn't swear at me still doesn't mean that they didn't speak to me rudely.

reply

[–] trish-88 14 years ago

I 100% agree with you and I was disappointed with the movie. I finally watched it last night after hearing for years how horrifying and legendary it was. But first, I watched the original-original, The Virgin Spring by Ingmar Bergman, and thought it was a great story, so yeah, this should be good, right? Not even close.

The 1972 version is a joke, and yes, especially the music. What's with the campy & light-hearted melody playing when they're loading those girls in the trunk? Seriously? I don't care if it was 1972, that's NOT how you build fear and suspense! The 2009 version isn't exactly award winning material, but it at least has some entertainment value.

The only thing creepy about this movie was Mari's dad's obsession with her nipples. Gross.

Ugh. Definitely over-rated. Oh, and I'm 41.

reply

[–] baumer 14 years ago

I hate using absolutes like this, but in this case an absolute is valid.

There is nothing in modern horror like the 45 minutes of brutailty in this film. If you don't like the film because of the pedestrian look to it and so on, fine, but if you can really look at the rape, the degradation and murder of these two girls, and it is funny, then you need help.

I enjoyed the remake as well, but it is nothing compared the original.

reply

[–] DarkPrincess1989 14 years ago

I just thought the film did not portray terror or fear well at all, the remake did, the rape scene in that was horrific and the killers were much scarier. I mean how are you supposed to take a rape scene like that seriously when the scene keeps cutting to bumbling police men?? the script and acting in this film was just terrible and the scene where the girls enter the killers flat just amused me so much, it was like they realized straight away and went "oh *beep* I'm sorry but you can think this film is great or whatever and saying I need help fyi I'm on pills for that already :P

reply

[–] jabberttp 14 years ago

For what it's worth, I saw the remakes of "I Spit On Your Grave" and "The Last House On The Left" first. Then the originals.

In the case of "I Spit On Your Grave", I found the original MUCH better than the remake. And with "The Last House On The Left", I thought the remake was a bit better than the original, but MUCH better than the garbage known as the remake of "I Spit On Your Grave".

reply

[–] Rvrgm 14 years ago

I was about to start a similar thread and then saw this one was already going. I was going to jokingly call this a "comedic masterpiece."

Listen, you guys are just going to have to accept that this movie has not held up over the years the way other movies have. Granted, the concept and theme is extremely disturbing. The callous nature of the killers is chilling - and the scene where Mari is whimpering when they first strip her brought a tear to my eye.

HOWEVER . . . the cutaway's to the dumba$s cops really destroys the mood that these early scenes had built. I don't know if Craven felt such comic relief was necessary to try to deflate the ickiness of the rest of the film or not, but for a film that is heralded as one of the all time most disturbing films, I was very shocked to have such scenes as the gap-toothed chicken truck driver trying to give the cops a ride, or the teens fooling the cops into thinking they would give them a ride, then shouting "we hate cops" as they speed away . . . and the music - dear Lord!

The supposed "45 minutes of brutality" . . . actually, the sequence in the woods spans less than 30 minutes in the film, and with all the cutaways and dialogue excluded, it really pares down to less than 10 minutes of actual shown brutality, most of which pales in comparison to an average episode of THE X-FILES or MEDIUM.

I don't think the "it was different in the 70s" argument holds up when you can look to the unrelenting terror of films like ALIEN, THE EXORCIST . . . or hell, even JAWS. Those movies are loads more disturbing than this one.

reply

[–] bite_me_loser_86 13 years ago

I couldn't agree more! You hit the nail on the head. I watched the remake of this movie before I watched the original, and this is one of the rare examples of when a remake is actually BETTER than the original. The remake was certainly not a great or even particularly good movie, but at least it made you FEEL something other than annoyance and impatience for the movie to end, like this movie made me feel. A movie with a theme as disturbing as this is obviously supposed to make you feel horrified and sad for the girls, but the constant cuts to the idiot cops ruined the entire mood. The script wasn't believable in the least, the soundtrack ridiculous and the acting was garbage. Really, I would say what ruined this movie for me the most was the 'funny' cops and the poor acting.

Yes, some things were very shocking, as I suppose Wes Craven intended, but not nearly enough to be deserving of the kind of reputation it has. I actually avoided this movie for years because I thought it would be too extreme, but when I finally watched it was so annoyed and bored that I actually ended up fast-forwarding through the last 10 minutes.

reply

[–] CCRider01 14 years ago

"Christ, is the 1989 in your name a reference to the year you were born? It must be, because your post reaks of ignorance that can only be explained by youth. And I'm not all that much older than you. Unless you maybe watched a censored version?

The 1970s was a very different time in a few ways - chief among them, the TOTAL lack of any digital technology whatsoever of any kind - which is why film and any type of media from back then looks, sounds and feels so much different, everything was done on all analog equipment, which in many ways is more difficult and time consuming."

Christ, do not defend this pathetic movie via the analog vs digital debate, all kinds of great movies (well acted and truly scary) were made long before digital, including during the 1970's, can you say "The Exorcist". The OP is correct, the sound and feel of this movie was not bad because it was made on analog equipment, it is was bad because of the terrible acting and the cheesy sound track the director/producer DECIDED to use in their film (making a good soundtrack was possible even in the 1970's stoneage LOL). The tone and feel was more due to the films low budget, and NOT because of analog.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] penguinofdeath07 14 years ago

I watched this movie for the first time last night because I have always heard that it is one of the best horror movies of all time. Now I love the Old Chainsaw Massacre and I spit on your Grave...but Last House on the Left sucked. I was left completely confused 90 percent of the time, and laughing my ass off at how ridiculous it was. Acting was bad, the music didn't fit the movie and I really thought this was an attempt at Horror/Comedy like Evil Dead. I have only seen the first 30 minutes of the remake and that blew the original out of the water.

reply

[–] DarkPrincess1989 14 years ago

totally agree with you

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Myrkwood 14 years ago

I completely agree with you. The original movie was what started all of the gorey slasher movies. It had nothing to base itself off of so it pretty much set the stage. The murderers were acted very well, the parents were a little bland but not too bad.

One of the reasons the comedic relief is in the movie is because this was the 70s. Not everyone watched gorey movies every day. People didn't know what to expect. In case you don't remember the whole, "to keep from fainting keep repeating, 'it's only a movie, it's only a movie.'" that was in there for a reason. I personally think the rape scene, the girl's guts being cut out and played with, girl getting her arm chopped off, father making his dope fiend son shoot himself in the head, forced humiliation of a girl wetting herself and the forced lesbian scene were pretty damn strong for the time period. The last 2 were scenes that were cut from the movie but if you actually cared enough to see the movie you would have found a way to see em.

I bet the people that like the remake more also like the remake of Halloween 1 & 2, Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street because the production of the originals was terrible with bad acting. Am I right?

Edit: I bet these people would say the same thing about Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer.

reply

[–] CharteredStreets 14 years ago

I think that's probably a common modern response but I think you have to look at it in context. It was made in 1972 as both a grindhouse exploitation flick (if you think THIS looks trashy you should check out some of the other movies that fall into that genre) with a troubled, angry soul. It is about the end of the 60s and Vietnam and the death of the era of peace & love; the posters of Mick Jagger and the peace necklace are very deliberately, and ironically, placed.

So I think you need to be used to the conventions of grindhouse for the movie to work on you, because it is the tension between these conventions and the grim matter-of-factness of what happens that makes the central passage all the more disturbing. I understand every criticism the movie gets, but ultimately for me the things they complain about are what made me so uneasy watching it (I've seen everything from Texas Chainsaw Massacre to Salo, and this is the only movie to make me feel physically sick): part of me was thinking, this just doesn't belong in this context. This story doesn't belong in this movie. These characters don't belong so far from home (and so far from 'peace & love'). This shouldn't be played to that music. This shouldn't have scenes of comic relief. This just plain SHOULDN'T BE HAPPENING.

And how else, really, should you respond to a scene like that?

If I have to tell you again, we're gonna take it outside and I'm gonna show you what it's like!

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] yojimbo2006 14 years ago

Just watched this film again last night. Saw it first about two years ago.
I think that many criticisms are valid.
Last night I came to the conclusion that this film is a very dark comedy for the most part and for the rest a stark meditation on the true nature of violence.
While I like certain pieces of music, I do feel that some cues could've been taken out or replaced. The bumbling cops are pretty dreadful, their scenes could've been handled better.
Some of the acting is poor, though I think David Hess is good (and funny) and the two girls (especially Phyllis, who dies first) are okay.
For me the film goes down hill once the killers arrive at the parents' house. The behaviour of the parents just doesn't ring true. I mean, five minutes after the father has discovered his dead daughter, he's spraying shaving foam on the floor! And setting up other 'Home Alone' style booby-traps. It gets a little farcical at that point.
Those final scenes for me are almost pure comedy. I mean, Krug getting shocked by the doorknob, come on.
It has its moments, and the incidents of real violence committed against the girls are quite shocking and more powerful than most stuff you see in cinema, especially these days.
I haven't seen the remake and don't know if I will bother.

reply

[–] Rvrgm 14 years ago

The remake did EXACTLY what you'd expect for our time - toned down the rape/humiliation (because misogyny is so 19070s) and amped up the gore in the revenge section (because we are a blood-thirsty lot today) and even added a completely unnecessary violent kill in the opening scene (again, because we can't WAIT to see that red stuff!)

The rape, while still horrible, is so quick and effortless you might miss it if you ran to the lobby for the bathroom. As such, the horrendously icky revenge the parents take (especially considering the daughter is still alive) seems way over-the-top and barbaric. Particularly the final kill, which is literally tacked on to the end of the movie after the main story has ended.

The remake is just standard horror/violence fare, and will never achieve the notoriety of the original.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] piper_lovegood13 12 years ago

90% of the time I prefer originals to remakes when my friends are usually the opposite, however the cutting to the police men made the original hard to watch for something as serious as a rape scene. But the torcher was watered down in the remake the parents acted more like a parent would in this one. I understand why the 'comic relief' was added. I think if the rating system wasn't so hard they probably could have taking the remake further. This is one of the only exceptions I have when it comes to 'new vs old'.

reply

[–] BloodylocksBathory 14 years ago

Your last statement about Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer is pretty harsh. I really like Henry, but I didn't like the original Last House. Henry is incredibly harsh and yet at the same time has a sense of humor to it, which in effect makes the film all the more disturbing. Also I found the acting of Henry to be very well done, but that's a different matter. I can understand a first time film to have some awkward performances in it, and the long running consistency is that cheap films often have this problem too (I Spit on Your Grave for example, another great exploitation film). A remake doesn't necessarily warrant any better acting or storytelling, as anyone can assuredly tell say.

Back to the humor. Last House's humor took me completely out of the story. I tolerated the askew nature of the music playing as Phyllis and Mary are abducted and stuffed into the car, but the slapstick cops actually irked me quite a bit. It's incredibly out of place. I had figured that Wes Craven was only able to get Last House into as many theatres as he did by including such silly scenes, perhaps like a short break from the horrible scenes of violence and rape. Even so, seeing the film nowadays makes those cops scenes even more awkward to watch. It felt as though I had blacked out and awoken to a completely different movie.

In addition, I didn't like the Halloween remake, hated its sequel, and despised the remakes for Nightmare and Friday. Just because someone didn't like one original of a remade film, it doesn't mean they love every remake that's spewed out of Hollywood's ass.

--

It's like death eatin' a cracker.

reply

[–] aGua421 12 years ago

I have to agree. I watched the remake and decided to watch the original. I definitely wouldn't recommend anyone waste their time with the orignal. Its only redeeming quality is it lent its idea to a great remake. The music (and cheesy closing credits) was enough to make me laugh at this cappy film.

reply

[–] spaminput 14 years ago

I thought the "comic relief" with Andy and Barney was totally misplaced. This movie depicts some horrific acts very well and then we're supposed to laugh at the slapstick of two guys falling off a chicken truck like the two stooges. OK, count the driver for three stooges.

Feh!

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] CharteredStreets 14 years ago

^I think it's more that he thought the central rape and degradation sequence would be too much for the audience to take so he had to lighten it a bit with the cops. Obviously he was wrong, but you have to remember Craven and Sean Cunningham had hardly made a movie before; they really didn't know what they were doing. While I think oddly the flaws of the movie make the central stuff all the more tough and nihilistic, you would have to be crazy to say they're not flaws.

If I have to tell you again, we're gonna take it outside and I'm gonna show you what it's like!

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fuchsiasattic 14 years ago

I felt exactly the same way!
It had a bit of a John Waters feel to it....anybody else get that? :-P

reply

[–] eccomicfan 14 years ago

While I respect your opinion about the film, you're judging it by the standards of a new era in film making. I actually loved both, but if you're judging by the standards of today's films then of course you're going to like the remake better. In my experience (this is in no way meant to be an insult) there are two types of people who like horror. Those who are simply horror fans and enjoy the laughs and action a horror film delivers, or those who are horror connoisseurs who enjoy the genre's interpretive nature and philosophical dynamics. I'm guessing that you are the former (again not trying to insult you). If, however, you are or wish to be the latter and are willing to give the film another try I'd like to recommend some things for you to read and watch to help you better appreciate the film. Firstly, watch the portion of the documentary "American Nightmare" devoted to "The Last House on the Left". Second, an article entitled "A Point of Little Hope: Hippie Horror Films and the Politics of Ambivalence". Lastly, compare and contrast it with the original "Texas Chainsaw Massacre". You'll find that, despite differences in budget, they're very similar. All three of these things I feel will help you better understand the environment and circumstances in which the film was made. Furthermore, if you do this I think it'll change your mind on some of the things you mentioned or at least help you understand the reasoning behind those choices. This movie is best when you're not watching it at face value, and when you're not looking for the cheap thrills that many other movies deliver. It operates best when you're watching it from a thematic point of view. It's, more than anything, a filmmakers movie really, and one of my all time favs. Hope this changes your mind. Happy hunting.

reply

[–] fayesbridegroom 14 years ago

"rape" and "comedy" is a sure fire way of getting onto the video nasty list.
people focus on the gore and violence in films. but i think rape and comedy sums up the main criteria for media to be banned.

reply

[–] eccomicfan 14 years ago

I think "Films" and "banned" sums up the main criteria for a depressing and sad society.

reply

[–] i-m-i 14 years ago

Oh come on. This film was BOTH disturbing and funny. And I agree that you really have to judge the film by the times. I'm not all that familiar with past movies either and I still know that a lot of them are going to have parts that are campy and have the bad music and it's ok to laugh at that.

I liked that you didn't really know whether this film was supposed to be more disturbing or more funny and I thought that made it a fun movie to watch. Obviously I don't think what happened to the girls' is funny but the rest of it was.

BTW: The cotton scene, lol, I had honestly thought that part of the song that played would mention cotton. I could just see that happening.

The Re-make IMO, is slower. If you like films that are darker or more intense, you'd enjoy it.

'I Spit On Your Grave', the original is very graphic. The Re-Make isn't nearly as much so yet is still disturbing.

"I'm gonna do a public service and, uh, let you know that you over-share"

reply

[–] tamofoda 14 years ago

I think that is normal that younger people cannot be affected by this sort of movie anymore. I mean, it had no blood and no gore (well, just one scene to be precise) and today bloody movies are usual. I think that much worst things are shown on TV everyday. But it is sad that they cannot appreciate true horror on flick. Like much people said, if you think that rape and murder is funny, well I think that something is wrong with you. The remake is good, but weak, after all there is no reason for the violent revenge of the parents, and I won't give any spoilers, but is obvious what I'm talking about. Other thing, on remake it is obvious that is a movie, the original could be sold as the real deal. Normal people, not models, this is the true difference between them. David Hess rules as Krug, no one else could do it so scary and terrifying...

reply