MovieChat Forums > The Last House on the Left (1972) Discussion > This movie was terrible on all levels.

This movie was terrible on all levels.

posted 14 years ago by censure360
21 replies | jump to latest

I'm a movie fan. I enjoy pretty much all genres. I seek out exploitation and violent horror films with the same enthusiasm I'd give to a well made Hollywood blockbuster. In the film depravity scale, I've witnessed a lot of ****ed up movies, yet this is one heralded "classic" I put off seeing until the other night (not because I was apprehensive).

Anyways, I feel this movie failed in pretty much every department. The acting was universally awful, the musical score hyper-ironic to the point of self parody, the film quality and production in tatters, the editing choices undermining, the editing and directing misguided, the continuity/timeline porous, the writing/dialogue unrealistic, and the premise a far-fetched coincidence.

I'm sure it shocked back in the day, and it does have some awful scenes, but I found nothing at all redeeming in this film. I do not know how it achieved its cult status. Ultimately it was ineffective in my opinion. I'll go so far as to say this is one of the most hyped, terrible movies I've ever seen.

Keep in mind I went into this movie expecting an exploitation blueprint from the golden age of cinema, willing to overlook all the budget restraints and technological limitations of the time.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] censure360 14 years ago

I wouldn't dare attack the film's fans or question their tastes because I'd assume we all share a lot of similarities in the movies we choose to view. This movie just happens to be an exception for me where I disagree. And I do believe I've read the review by Ebert, it was just a long time ago that I can't remember any passages in vivid detail but I do recollect the general thesis. I respect Ebert as a critic and all, but his justification for this movie earning his praise seems to contradict some of his other prose slamming movies of a similar nature.

You'll never agree with every critic, as you'll never agree all the time with every fan. I can't speak for everyone, but I believe this film holds its status because of its taboo-shattering content based in the context of the times. Too bad it doesn't hold up well.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Trajanc 14 years ago

I generally agree. Finally saw this for the first time a few weeks ago and was amazed at how bad it was. Not the worst movie I've ever seen but definitely not good. The one (?) person involved in it who went on to a long successful career and was the main reason I watched it is the director and the directing (and editing) was probably the worst things in the movie. Bizarre.

The Survivor Funny 115:http://www.averdata.net/~locbaseb/funny/funny115.htm

[–] leehindmarsh4 14 years ago

The Acting was Atrocious

[–] klules664 14 years ago

I'm in total agreement!
Oh Blanche? You know we got rats in the cellar

[–] CCRider01 14 years ago

I seek out well made low budget films, but TLHOTL was just bad, the 5.7 rating actually flatters it. Bad acting and cheesy sound track, nullified the interesting concept and story line.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] censure360 14 years ago

Enlighten us neziah22.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] The_Great_Pantubo 13 years ago

"Expertly made on a tiny budget..."

Yeah? Is that referring to the unbelievably awful music, the shoddy camerawork, or the painful acting and dialog?

"Some have seen the film as a critique of the nuclear family, exploring the threat of patriarchal violence that lies beneath traditional structures of domestic authority."

No, asshat. There is not a single person on Earth who has seen this laughably atrocious film as anything close to resembling that. Christ.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bureau203 14 years ago

Agreed. Terrible on every level. The only thing notable about it is that Craven elected to go beyond the period's comfort levels and depict more rape and violence than had been seen before. This is just shock filmmaking, it takes no talent. Everything else was far below standard. This film does not deserve the accolades it gets. It just sucks.

"I've seen things that would make you want to write a book on how to puke."

[–] fayesbridegroom 14 years ago

around the 1970's hustler magazine was introduced introduced as a rival of playboy magazine.
it allowed the middle classes to use porn , but detach themselves from the act as the porn was "really" made for "working class low lifes."
I believe "last house" takes a same kind of model.
the music ,the cops the comic elements are all designed to infuriate the watcher ... i.e you and me.

had a similar music score to say "psycho" been used. the effect on society would be different too as would the context of the rape.
i would be surprised if this same comic element was left in the remake and yet it is by far the most shocking and disgusting part of the film.

saying that any film that makes a comedy out of rape is really scraping the bottom of the barrel for $$$.
had wes craven been to a women's refuge beforehand , maybe this film would of been made differently?

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]