The last time I saw The Last House on the Left I must of been around 15 or 16 (My God! Has it really been more than half my life ago?) and I didn't think it was very good then. Thinking about it now, I can only imagine it to be even worse than I remember it. I remember it being very cheap looking, badly filmed and badly edited. I remember watching it and feeling like I was watching a film made by a bunch of high school perverts who wouldn't know the difference between a zoom and a pan or a cut and a splice. I remember thinking the acting was so bad it made Keanu Reeves look good.
In 2009, they remade The Last House on the Left. It wasn't remade because it was a good movie or even a movie that was panned by critics but lit up the box office (a la The Amityville Horror) but for the sole reasons that a) Hollywood struggles for original ideas and b) Wes Craven directed the original. Wes Craven, the man behind A Nightmare on Elm Street, Scream and The Hills Have Eyes (a fantastic remake). I have never seen the remake but I have heard (other than a scene involving a head and a microwave) that it isn't very good.
This film was the directorial debut of Wes Craven. At this time no one knew who he was. He was working in the porn industry, honing his craft through the direction, production and editing of hardcare TNA flicks. Along with a minor horror legend (Sean S. Cunningham of Friday the 13th fame) they put together this film that I have not so fond memories of. Rape, misogyny, violence gore, perversion and controversy; all the things one would expect from the debut film from a man working in porn.
So how did Wes Craven's debut picture fare? Let's find out...
Review:
Film Rating: 68%
Breakdown (How The Last House on the Left scored 68%):
Directing: 7 out of 10
Craven, for a first time director, held it together and made a pretty good debut film. While not a masterpiece, his first film has held up remarkably well over the last 30 years. He uses techniques to scare the audience that are still in use today, pioneering techniques and a gritty sense of violence and terror. While things are at times unconvincingly amateurish, Craven does seem to possess enough visual sense and a great story telling ability that can only get better and stronger with more experience and bigger budgets.
Re-playability: 7 out of 10
How well does The Last House on the Left hold up for repeat viewings? Remarkably well for such on old and often copied storyline. It's gritty and real and extremely tense and I could most definitely watch this film again. Even knowing what happens, Craven has built an ultra tense picture that although it does have its fair share of problems, is still a film that would keep you entertained on multiple viewings. If of course, you like this type of thing.
Originality: 8 out of 10
In 1972 The Last House on the Left was actually quiet original. There had been other stories (usually b-movie schlock) that told somewhat the same story, but never in such an ultra realistic way. The entire last sequence within the house is as well quiet unique and unlike many movies of it's time. Of course now, in 2013, there have been many movies like this one, including a straight out remake, but in 1972 one would be hard pressed to find stories like this done at such a high calibre.
Production Design (Special Effects/Sets/Locations): 7 out of 10
While there isn't much in way of sets the locations used here are used to their full potential. Most of the film takes place in either the forest or within a house. Craven uses these locations to full effect. The ensuing climax within the house is nicely staged and gives a good sense of the whereabouts of all the characters involved. The forest is used brilliantly. In the open shots we see the idilic forest, the ducks and the serene world unfold. When the girls are kidnapped, we return to the same set of shots only this time the idilic and serene view of nature is underset with an ominous undertone that only gets stronger and more eerie as the film plays out. Craven does a fantastic job juxtaposing the good with the evil.
As this is a low budget indi pic of sorts there are very few effects to be seen. What we do see does look pretty good although perhaps a better job could of been done with the wounds caused by the various weapons on display.
Costumes and Make-Up: 7 out of 10
While the costumes are straight out of the seventies, they never feel overly burdening and never trap you in the era as some movies tend to do. Rather they give the movie a a time and a place and bring the viewer into the film unlike some films that make the viewer specifically point out how bad or dated the costumes are.
The make-up job in the film is decently handled and although the blood does look pretty realistic they could of used perhaps a bit more in certain scenes. But the bruises look real, and what cuts and scrapes that we do get to see are convincing enough that we aren't distracted or taken aback like many other independent films from this era.
Script: 7 out of 10
While some of the dialogue is pretty hokey and some of it is pure exposition, the arc of the story and the flow of the film is nicely structured by Craven, who wrote the screenplay himself. He has a nice sense of timing and a great knack for storytelling. The entire scenario of the girls, the criminals and the parens and how they all play together and are intercut together is masterfully done and boasts more confidence than one would expect from a first time filmmaker. Unfortunately the scenes with the cops are rather cheesy, very slapstick like and don't fit, in tone, with the rest of the picture. The good thing is that they are few and far between and the rest of the story plays so well that these scenes become quiet forgettable.
Cinematography: 7 out of 10
At first the cinematography comes off as poorly framed and amateurishly done. The open shots aren't particularly framed well or terribly crisp. But by midway through the picture, this very same look begins to grow on you. It gives the viewer the sense of urgency that is needed in the story. It begins to feel like the cameraman is an impartial observer and we the viewer are seeing what he sees. There are even some beautiful shots that start to emerge as the film progresses: shots of trees, close ups on leaves, tracking shots through the forest and intense close-up's that elevate the tension. Of course there are also some shots that are to close, to jarring and could of been done a little better, especially at the beginning. But for a low budget, first time film Craven and his cinematography pull together a unique and interesting set of images that help capture the emotions and terror of what happens on the screen.
Editing: 6 out of 10
The editing of this film is a mish mash of well done sequences and poorly put together ones. While it is perhaps not the fault of the editor and more the actual shots he had to use, many sequences suffer from poor matching and bad cuts. Sometimes scenes linger on to long, many of them belonging to the two cops within the film. But at other times the editing works very well to propel the story. As mentioned above, the use of the same scenery and shots that convey different menings at different times within the film was done rather effectively. And the editing of the rape and murders is done quite well, showing a lot but not too much, and giving the audience a feeling of seeing more than they actually do.
Acting: 6 out of 10
The acting in this film is rather curious. When the film begins the acting is rather bad. It feels like we are watching a student film with friends as actors. But as the film progresses the acting does get better and the performances become more realistic. Sandra Peabody and Lucy Grantham, as Mari and Phyllis, are rather convincing in the rape scenes and the four criminals come off as maliciously evil throughout the film. Sometimes there performances slip back into the student like vibe as do the performances of Mari's parents but for the most part as the film progresses the acting does get better.
Music: 6 out of 10
Perhaps the weakest part of this film is the music. While there were times when the music was rather effecting, rather tense and quiet good there were other times (too many times) when it was just plain 70's cheese bad. At these times, such as when Mari's parents are setting up birthday decorations, the music is so bad it almost destroy's the film. There are also moments when the music just isn't right for what you are seeing on the screen. Case in point being when the bad guys are throwing the girls into the trunk of their car. Why is the music so slapstick-y? The music does play very well, and is extremely tense, when the violence erupts but otherwise it is to dated and even back then too amateurish.
***ALERT: THE REST OF THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SERIOUS SPOILERS: ALERT***
***ALERT: THE REST OF THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SERIOUS SPOILERS: ALERT***
And I when I say enjoy, I don't use that word lightly here. This film isn't one that I can walk out of and say how much I enjoyed it. It's filled with nastiness, graphic adult sick nastiness. Rape and murder, pain and suffering, deplorable characters and realistic terror. Yet it is still a film I would recommend to anyone who enjoy's a solid and scary horror film.
Craven, in his debut, has pulled off a marvellous feat of filmmaking. He takes cues from Hitchcock and Kubrick and interweaves them into a grindhouse cinema experience. And he never lets up. Two girls head out on the town for a concert. Trying to score weed, they get kidnapped, raped, tortured, raped again and then brutally murdered. The killers coincidentally arrive at one of the girls parents house. The parents discover the truth and set about taking revenge by killing the killers. The film ends almost immediately after the last killer dies.
Like Hitchcock did in Psycho, Craven kills off who we think are the heroines of the film way before the film actually ends. Unlike Hitchcock, and most other mainstream films from that era, Craven seems to use the grindhouse influence of extreme violence and sex to get his story across. It also appears that Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange (released one year before) was a big influence on this film. Not only does it contain extreme rape, violence and murder but in an overt reference you can hear one character singing Singing in the Rain while in the bath.
So Craven has taken Kubrick and Hitchcock and grindhouse and fused them all together to make one ultra realistic and utterly terrifying debut film. It's incredibly intense throughout and the villains are so realistically creepy and are truly evil. What other movie shows two killers having sex in the backseat of a car, next to another killer playing with a knife while two freshly raped teenagers are tied up and stuffed in the trunk?
Even though this film was much better than I thought there are still parts that just didn't work. The music was pretty weak in most parts with really crappy folk songs and ultra cheesy rhythms playing in the background. The acting does get better but starts off pretty awful and the editing is very student film like. When the film first started I was groaning to myself about the really crappy cinematography. Did I really have to sit hear for close to 90 minutes and watch this? But then I realized that, although cheaply done, the footage and the way it was shot captured the realism and the moment and made the film better for it.
And then there is the worst part of the film. The part of the film that is just eye rollingly bad. That part being the two cops that infrequently make slapstick appearances. I can understand how Craven wanted to juxtapose the visceral and intense violence with comedy but boy did he go the wrong route. These scenes are so far opposite of the rest of the movie. They feel dated with the humour and are just plain stupid. They almost ruin the movie but thankfully they don't appear enough to detract to much. Playing the younger of the two cops is a very young Martin Kove who would later rise to fame as Kreese, the villain in The Karate Kid.
So I will say it again: I was wrong about The Last House on the Left. It is a better movie than I remembered and a better movie than I thought. A film that is deservedly a classic, not just because it is the debut of Craven. Craven showed some real skill in piecing together this film in both his writing and his directing. (Interestingly enough he worked with both Sean S. Cunningham and Steve Miner on this film and all three would be big names in horror in the 80's, although none as big as Craven.) Albiet there are missteps and a slight sense of naivety and amateurishness in the proceedings but Craven shows enough originality and uses a lot of horror tropes (for the first time) that are still used to this day that The Last House on the Left comes off as a must see for grindhouse/horror junkies like myself.
No comments:
Post a Comment