Wes Craven is one of my favorite directors, and I decided that I wanted to do a review marathon on it, where we will analyze the films he made (except the TV series, and the film 18+), and the first film of this director was Last House on the Left of '72.
This film is shot in the genre of "Rape and revenge" the essence of which is that someone engages in intercourse without the consent of one of the parties, mostly girls, and after a while the one with whom they engaged in this (or his loved one) goes to revenge. The most famous examples of such films are I Spit on Your Graves and Voroshilov Shooter. And the genre itself is included in exploitation films, that is, in the movie, which is made because of hype without caring about quality. Let’s talk about the movie itself.
The film is very old, very old. To date, the film causes only boredom and there is no question of any shock. The most interesting thing happens in the last 15 minutes, the rest is boring and naive, in the bad sense of the word, spectacle. And you've noticed that I've repeated the word boring many times, that's because I don't have anything else to talk about about this movie. Except when there were funny scenes. This is one of the hallmarks of Wes, no matter what the film is serious, it will still put in a funny moment.
The actors for the low-budget movie played well. The actor who played the main villain turned out to be a nasty psycho, which is good.
The actress who played the main role also played well.
The bandits turned out to be disgusting and memorable.
Deaths here are made a bit boring and pass behind the scenes.
In total, this film is a product of its time, when people were not yet used to cruelty in the movies and could faint because of a severed hand in the film. Better watch the remake of this movie. It's much more violent and spectacular. You can watch this movie if you want.
Remember the time when the telegraph pole was a common pole?
- This is no longer the case now.
As a big fan of horror movies, I've seen most of the famous and iconic horror movies. But as there's been less and less work lately, I decided to go back half a century to the cinematic past, and see how the horror genre has changed from year to year. One film for each, from 1972 to 2021. Only original films, sequels are not taken into account. Let's go!
Once upon a time, the then unknown Wes Craven decided to make a horror movie. As you know, usually the first pancake is a lump. But that's not the case. From the first attempt, Wes Craven broke into the world of cinema, and became one of the most outstanding directors of this genre.
On her birthday, a young girl, Marie, along with her friend, goes to the city for a rock concert. But they will not be able to have fun, because they accidentally fall into the hands of a gang of fugitive criminals who took the girls to the forest in order to mock and abuse them enough.
I thought I was pretty familiar with Wes Craven's work, but it turned out I wasn't. It was this movie that somehow passed me by. Having carefully read this work, I can say that Wes Craven was already a great talent and made atypical films. And even his directorial debut turned out to be very useful. What can you say about the debuts of his other colleagues?
By 2022, the plot was a little lost, but in the early 70s it was probably quite original. Such a subgenre as slasher did not yet exist, so such stories were new. At first, the viewer is introduced to the main characters, both heroines and antagonists. It doesn’t take long, which is a plus. Usually such an introduction takes at least half an hour, here they did not pull the rubber and cost ten minutes. Then the plot begins to accelerate, not slowing down until the very end of the film. The story hooked me even at the beginning, and until the end I sat on screen. It would seem that a lot of films in different genres have already been shot on such a topic. I've seen action movies, thrillers, horror movies. But for some reason, it is the “Last House on the Left” that catches on. He even managed to surprise me with the finale. I certainly did not expect to see such a story in those years.
There are no big names in the cast, but that didn’t stop me from appreciating their performance. I would like to highlight David Hess, who played one of the criminals. To the level of many stars of that time, he does not reach, but acting abilities are above average. It fits well with the villain. As for the main character, performed by Sandra Pibadi, she did not need to play much. Run and scream. So there's nothing to appreciate. The rest of the caste did not please me, but did not disappoint. I was just not impressed.
Does this movie scare you? Nope. As I expected, this is a kind of light version of later slashers, where there is an integral part of all such films - running, violence and cruelty. But that was enough for 1972. Compared to the next works of Wes Craven, “The Last House on the Left” came out even too simple and monosyllabic.
This is a very good result for the debut. Subsequently, Wes Craven will sprinkle successful horror franchises like a cornucopia. “Nightmare on Elm Street”, “The Hills Have Eyes”, “Scream” and many other successful horrors that have already become cult. Specifically, this film turns out to have a remake shot about ten years ago. I think we should get to know him at his leisure.
Wes Craven's debut work in the director's chair. The film begins by telling us that everything is based on real events. Well... The cunning fox Craven also did not do such tricks in order for only this picture to see the light of day. Then Wes admitted that this was nothing more than advertising. As for the basis, the picture is based on the Swedish folk ballad ' Daughters of Tøre from Wenge' However, after the picture came out, inquisitive viewers began to search for the victims of that story. Stories of the House Wes Built So, 'Last house on the left'. Directed by Wes Craven.
In fact, everything shown here seems so natural that it was logical to assume: not snuff! . .
I remember when I was a child I was scared that, they say, do not go there and there, because the escaped convicts are hiding in those places. Of course it worked. Of course I was afraid... Until the fear naturally disappeared in connection with the natural maturation. I forgot to think about it. I don’t even know if these scarecrows were true, but the fact that they were justified – any parent will confirm! I forgot. Purely... Before I watched Craven... Instantly, childhood fears came to life again. But they've gone into a different phase. I am now the parent of two daughters. The film caused the deepest emotions. My heart hurt from what I saw. I was ready to cry in a couple of places. And I would have done so without embarrassment if I had not been distracted. What a movie!! The horror is not in the modern puppet sense of this devalued term. The horror is that it can happen easily. . .
Here, according to the plot, Mary is going to the late concert of the rock band ' Thirst for Blood' with a friend Philis. My parents don't approve of my friendship with Phyllis. But Mary is seventeen. Who listens to parents at this age? By the way... birthday! Parents are making cake... After the concert, Phyllis tries to find a place to buy pot. This is how girls fall into the dirty clutches of those they talk about on the radio. The escaped criminals. . .
Now a little bit about the painting... Before that, rape scenes had already been seen in thrillers. But whether from deliberate pretentiousness, from the grotesque ... I do not know ... but they did not make the proper impression on me. But Wes Craven showed it here in such a way that I understood what I was told! It's just a mess!!! Again, words cannot be conveyed without memorized phrases. . .
And now, in general perception... The picture struck and saddens from her deepest soul. At the end, the mountain spreads to the viewer. And it's all very catchy... Alas, the film is interspersed with some idiotic policemen. Some kind of inappropriate humor in scenes with them. What's that for? To dilute the action on the screen? With this?! But... It may well be that this is done intentionally. Life goes on, basically. Just like on our side of the screen. There's savagery happening somewhere. Someone is happy right now and is doing the right thing. But even if not, some scenes look a little ridiculous. Running in the woods this... It looks like cat and mouse... Or, for example, closer to the end. She was specifically waiting, yes, bye... (I can't write here - spoilers!) . . .
Given that, I think the film deserves that kind of credit. . .
This film is the directorial debut of Wes Craven, so let’s not be too strict.
The film already with the initial credits begins to intrigue the viewer, because they inform that everything that happens has real events. As it turned out, this technique was often used, deceived by the beholder in order to warm up interest. Such tricks do not paint the film, only highlight its cinematic shortcomings even more.
The script can not boast of its ornateness, everything is genre simple, in places template. Two young friends from the outback rush to the city to break away, but the escaped scumbags will very much adjust their plans. The main trouble of this film is the faded characters. If girls can be written off, they are just victims, their case is small, then villains could be more colorful. One of them is remembered, curly, but only by its activity, there is nothing to say about the character. Another constantly demonstrated a tiny knife, the third endlessly hysterical, and the fairer sex, which inspired hope, and remained behind the barrier of what is happening. Craven decided that bloodlust is enough, that is, it is easy to satisfy the average viewer - show the blood, mad faces, and more screeching, that's the secret of success. But any film, even the butcher's horror, must have a script, or it turns out some kind of cutting of a sick mind.
But the plot still does 'find ears' Let it be tight, but what happens will develop. The action sluggishly flows into the house of that tortured girl, where excited parents are ready to shelter anyone. Even this dubious company. Here, parents learn about the tragedy that befell their home and start in all seriousness. The father suddenly does household tricks, in the style of ' Home Alone' and the mother, stunned by grief, suddenly satisfies one of the killers.
The movie isn't that bad. Many scenes are disgusting, that is, the result is achieved. But partial genre competence is easily negated by police humorism. Two stupid, lazy boobs will shame law enforcement and all this against the backdrop of rampant bloodshed. Absolutely unnecessary attempt to laugh.
The film can be recommended for viewing, but only connoisseurs of the genre, the rest can safely pass by.
I think there is no need to represent Wes Craven - even if you are not fond of horror, you have in any case ever heard of "A Nightmare on Elm Street" or saw the killer mask from the movie "Scream". Yes, these two works are the most famous in the genre, but let’s go back to 1972, when Craven was still 12 years old before the appearance of Freddy Krueger. Even the cannibal creep "The hills have eyes" will be released only in 5 years, Craven no one knows, on his account there is not a single job. Who knows how fate would have turned to him if not for the debut film. Some consider it one of the best works of the master, others scold, but it is simply impossible to ignore this film.
So, here we have the horror Wes Craven "The Last House on the Left". Note that the director had only $90,000 in his pocket – that is, he could not see any normal actors or cool scenery. But does it really matter if you have a good script in your head and a desire to make a movie? I think not. In addition, in terms of such films, Craven had no one to look up to – all Halloweens, Friday the 13th and other famous films had not yet been released. Let’s see what the novice and unknown director shot and what his debut turned out to be.
The film tells us about two schoolgirls who go to a rock concert in a not very prosperous neighborhood. One of the girlfriends has a birthday, and before leaving, she receives instructions from her parents who care about her - it is clear that she is from the right family. However, care, and after the concert and want to walk, so friends begin to look for entertainment substances. In the end, they stumble upon a lonely guy who promises to get them drugs if they come with them to his house. Girlfriends agree, come to his house, and there they are waiting for a company of fugitive criminals who really want someone hard to break away. Meanwhile, the right parents of one of the girls decorate the house for her birthday, prepare a festive table and begin to wait for the return of the daughter.
I’m not going to beat around the bush – I think for 1972, Craven shot real shock content. Yes, you will now say – what a shock content, even murders are not normally shown there, but back to the main argument – the 70s stood in the yard. In 2020, Carpenter’s Halloween is also difficult to shock, but then people really watched this movie with their mouths open. Also here – let’s not forget that the film did not even want to give a rolling rating, and Craven simply put it himself.
Also, the film is seriously pressing psychologically - the director shows us not only scenes of violence against defenseless schoolgirls, but also the parents of one of the heroines who are preparing for her birthday. And only the viewer understands that while some are baking cake for the holiday, others have already been tied up and taken to the forest. And the fact that the criminals' car stalled right next to one of the heroines' house? When is salvation so near and yet so far away? Yes, the film is above the roof of strong moments, which in the early 70s, I am sure, were perceived even more.
Someone will say that the film spoils the soundtrack, which is completely out of place. I will not agree, since the songs complement the atmosphere of the film well, and if you add to them even stupid police heroes, there is a feeling of hopeless indifference at all - some scumbags torture girls in the woods, while literally next to them are two idiot policemen who are trying to take a place in the truck among the cages with chickens. And against the background of all this, light music plays, which seems to hint – and so it should be. In general, there are quite a few moments in the film when the happy outcome has almost happened, but suddenly something goes wrong and you think to yourself, “Oh, come back, fuck, they’re over there!” And if someone does not like a slow story, well, here it is. Besides, I can’t agree that the film is long and slow, especially with its 84 minutes. It is clear that this is not non-stop action, but was the same "Halloween" or the first "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" stunned by what dynamic? Then they shot in such a slow style, it is absolutely normal for a film of the 70s. It is in the late 80s people, having seen the hurricane fighters, began to demand a rapid development of the plot, and in the 70s the plot developed gradually, this in no way makes the film worse. According to personal feelings, I can only attribute to the minuses the not too convincing play of the actress who played the role of Mary in some scenes, but on the other hand, it is good that Craven found someone for this role at all, since he had almost no money. In addition, this is the first role of this actress, who ended her career in a porn film only 3 years later.
To sum up: an excellent debut of a promising and promising director who confidently entered the genre and subsequently became one of the most famous horror makers in world cinema. Nothing to add.
Wes Craven is a special director for me, one of the most beloved directors, whose films “Nightmare on Elm Street” and “Scream” are the reasons for my great love for the genres of horror and slasher. Of course, I’ve already seen most of his work, including the 2009 remake of The Last House on the Left, but somehow I didn’t get to the original, so I finally got there.
I will either not compare the original with the remake at all, or will be extremely small, because I think it is more appropriate to compare the remake with the original, and not vice versa, as for the original, the plot here is as follows: two friends Mary and Phyllis are going to a concert of some thrash-rock band, which naturally takes place in the dirtiest and wildest area of the city, on the way to this concert, the girls are having fun on the lake, drinking a little alcohol, and in the end they think, well, since they were in a bad area, not to buy weed. To help them comes a guy who accidentally stood on the porch of the house, who is not a drug dealer, but a member of a family of bandits and sadists. It is not difficult to guess what happens to the girls.
If you look at “The Last House on the Left” as a debut work, then it was certainly talented, and in some places quite strong. But there are also flaws that I would like to mention. First, a completely inappropriate soundtrack – I think that Wes Craven wanted to make his film not as dark and scary as he might seem because of the abundance of scenes of violence in it, and therefore added fun music to it, but such a soundtrack is more suitable for comedies than horror films, it does not contribute to the creation of an atmosphere of horror and fear. Second, the police line. It is not clear to me and why most of the scenes with their participation were comical, it is a little of course defused the situation after the scenes with the torture of girls, but also confused: one moment you are afraid for the girls, and the next scene you laugh from another stupid act or replica of these characters. And the third actors: they sometimes, then did not play, then too crooked overplaying.
But all these flaws are quite acceptable for the debut work and there is nothing wrong with them. Scary (in a good way) was in the scenes with the abuse of Mary and Phyllis, that’s what the remake could not outdo, so these scenes. They were really terrible and disgusting, I did not think that in the original bandits would be so frostbitten and ruthless sadists, in the remake this family is still kind compared to the family in the original, and in timekeeping they were given much more time with their tortures here than in the same remake. Not surprisingly, the film was not given a rating of R.
In general, to sum up, we can say that “The Last House on the Left” 1972 release is good, cruel and sometimes terrible horror. As the debut work of the great master of horror Wes Craven, this film is extremely interesting, especially for fans of the genre. Yes, there are certain downsides and downsides to the film, but even so, it is an order of magnitude higher than many modern horror films. This film is undoubtedly part of the history of the horror genre and as an acquaintance with the story is simply necessary to watch.
7 out of 10
Almost every horror lover knows such a name as Wes Craven. This legendary director made many of the favorite classic horror film. Nightmare on Elm Street, cult youth slasher "Creek", two films about a family of cannibal freaks The Hills Have Eyes, Thriller A stranger in our house and so on. I really loved the films of this director and decided to get acquainted with his first debut creation called Last house on the left”. Produced by Sean Cunningham (known for the slasher “Friday the 13th”). I’ve never seen the movie before, only a couple of times I’ve seen it remake in 2009. Well, I've seen this movie and my opinion is:
The movie looks with tension, fear and excitement for the first fifty minutes, and then the atmosphere disappears. We are presented with the adventures of two clowns-policemen and how the parents of the murdered daughter are going to take revenge on criminals. The punishment parents came up with an interesting, but it looks somehow completely indifferent and tedious.
When women are abused, there is fun music. I don't think it's a flaw. On the contrary, in this way they try to convey to us all the tragedy and sadness of this film.
The actors were perfect for each role. The girls were really incredibly sorry. Until the last, you hope that everything will be fine with them, but no.
The murders shocked me. For the '70s, all murders are damn realistic. Especially remember the scene with the death of Philipps, unbearably disgusting.
After watching, there is something to think about. The film is about real events that can happen to any innocent person. People, just be careful. Such bastards as the Circle (the main bandit) is full.
Wes Craven, when he was young, managed to make such a strong film. Talent.
Wes Craven was embraced by the film industry quickly, and unopposed, just as warm butter lends itself to a well-honed knife. But a knife is a knife, and, as Alice told the cake, few people like it when it is cut. The directorial debut of Craven, although it was a good monetary success, the impression of the public of the seventies left ambiguous, and even now faint of heart to view is not recommended. Eyes before the all-seeing censorship gradually clumped together, on the screens of the sloppy grindhouses of America for a decade reigned exploitation. To shoot the horror film category “B”, which does not require large financial costs, was a move almost win-win. It will turn out very bad, not just bad - no one will notice, and the creation will still collect its modest cash register.
Taking as a basis Bergman's film "Maiden Spring", Craven destroyed the original to the literary foundation and began to sculpt his first child on the ruins - the story of two girls who wanted to go to a concert, but instead ran into major trouble in the face of a small group of thugs. And then this irrational child somehow received the status of a cult. Either the atrocities of the Manson gang at that time did not have time to forget, or the film grew to recognition like Craven himself, who later became one of the main masters of cinematic horrors, but the Last House on the Left stubbornly does not want to be covered in dust and surrender to the archive, where his less fortunate contemporaries have long been lying.
The atmosphere of “The Last House on the Left” resembles the famous “Mother’s House”, published six years later. In fact, the plot basis is almost the same: a bloody crime and an even bloodier revenge that follows a bad deed. Tons of fake blood spilled as a result of sophisticated torture and murder against the background of gloomy forest landscapes, scant in bright colors. But while “Mother’s Day” is a film that is entirely in the same style, disgusting and thus masterpiece, “The Last House on the Left” at some points seems to be trying to retreat from its essence. It seems that the creator of the film is sometimes frightened himself, and, stunned by his own courage, takes the camera aside, and with it the viewer, giving him a break from pain and horror.
Apparently, innovation for the sake of Craven introduces a separate storyline of extraordinary misadventures of two secondary heroes - police officers engaged in the search for the missing heroine. And, of course, one is fatter and the other is thinner, Don Quixote and Sancho Panza. Characteristically, when cops appear on the screen, almost operetta light music sounds, as a soundtrack suitable for more French comedy with Louis de Funes in the title role. The appearance of a template comic duo, insulting the consumer beautiful, probably even in the days of Cervantes, carries a not very clear semantic load. There are two obvious options: either Craven wants to emphasize the cruelty of the human race by contrasting scenes of abuse of heroines with satirical episodes demonstrating the naive clumsiness of the police, or defuse the situation with a small amount of humor. In the first case, the combination of the incompatible brings the result to the absurd, turning the film into a cocktail “Bloody Mary”, prepared according to all the rules, and vodka with tomato juice is not mixed. Absurd does not become the cement that connects the episodes of the picture into a single whole, and it crumbles into separate pieces of the puzzle. As for the second option, unfortunately, humor can not be taken like a smear and simply smear negative emotions previously obtained from contemplating the humiliation of girls.
Craven's debut didn't reveal a single movie star to the world except for Craven himself. For some actors engaged in roles, this film remained the only one, and the most impressive career was made by Fred Lincoln, who later retrained as a pornographic director. The lack of professional skills in the acting team rarely plays into the plus picture, and there was no happy exception to the rule. However, the director himself did not try to correct the situation, squeezing the maximum out of his wards, focusing on the action, not on its performance. Actually, this is not the worst approach to creating a low-budget, designed not to delight, but to shock. And yet, action should not be the only lever driving a work of art to success, especially when action is essentially a sweet and arousing dark thoughts savoring violence. As Mario Puzo once said, “Evil is no secret in men.” The secret in people is love. With all the obvious drawbacks, “The Last House on the Left” is still a good experiment, but also the first.
Everything in life has a logical beginning. The beginning of a separate story that draws us completely. The beginning of the work of a great director, who necessarily started small and achieved more. The latter can certainly be safely attributed to the work of the cult director Wes Craven, who began his work as a director of porn films (naturally using a pseudonym), and later a makeup artist on the set of horror films loudly declared himself as a director with this picture. This picture, which drew the attention of the public to the previously unknown director and gave him a huge chance that made him the “king of horror films”.
Of course, it is worth admitting that this is not the best work of the cult and genius director. Moreover, not so scandalous and shocking movie, which it was called at the time of its release and perhaps even holds this kind of laurels to this day. Personally, I thought the film was quite modest even at that time. Nude is there, but it is catastrophically small. Scenes of rape are also available, but the camera shamefully turns away from what is happening and does not allow you to “enjoy” the process. And as such, the scenes of violence and bloody brutality in the film turned out to be much less than expected not only in terms of quantity, but also quality. Thus, making this film quite chaste not only by the standards of the later remake of director Dennis Iliadis, which I personally found more brutal, frank, cruel and bloody, but also by the standards of modern horror films, which enthusiastically demonstrate the naked female bodies and cruel violence.
Smallness confuses and a certain comic atmosphere and staging, which unexpectedly occurs in individual moments and a little lubricates the general mood of what is happening on the screen action. Nevertheless, the film looks with special interest. Largely because of the story, which is inspired and borrowed a lot from the “Maiden Spring” by Ingmar Bergman and “Straw Dogs” by Sam Peckinpah, is quite an interesting and relevant idea. Hence, it is not surprising that it was based on this film directed by Wes Craven that the world saw such examples of the genre as “Woman’s Day” (including the remake of “I Spit on Your Graves”), “Murders on the Night Train” and much more, the plot of which almost completely copies the content of this film. To convey in full the general idea, heartache and identification of human nature to the director of the film Wes Craven, alas, failed as well as the director of the remake Dennis Iliadis, but it can certainly be counted as a credit. In many ways, bribing rather classic for the films of the director of the cult “Friday the 13th” Sean Cunningham (he is also the producer of the picture) approach to the retelling of screen events.
The young victims performed by Sandra Pibadi and Lucy Grantham are quite good. Universal beauties, which they are described by the heroes of the picture, they are not called, but with their tasks, the girls coped quite well. As well as such actors as David Hess, Fred J. Lincoln and Jeremiah Rain, who quite confidently fit into the images of brutal killers. Much more modest can be considered the contribution of Richard Towers and Cynthia Carr, who frankly did not play to the main plot of the picture, and then completely replayed to the fullest.
5 out of 10
The last house on the left is perhaps not the best example of both the genre of horror films and the work of the cult director Wes Craven, but certainly the first brick laid by Craven to meet his reputation as the “king of horror films”. Of course, the years did not spare the film, but I think fans of the genre will watch the film with special interest for sure.
PS: Dedicated to the bright memory of the brilliant director Wes Craven, who so unexpectedly and tragically left this world. Rest in peace and let the earth rest. Remember. Grieving. Don't forget.
Two heroines go to a concert, but on the way decide to buy some weed, which leads them to a group of people who turn out to be violent maniacs, wanted for numerous crimes. Having mocked the girls enough, they kill them, and decide to stay in the same house for the night. But the trouble is that the parents of one of the killed heroines live in this house, who are “pleased” to meet the maniacs.
Wes Craven's directorial debut is a pure grandhouse movie with all the ensuing. Amateur manner of shooting, average acting, cheap action scenes (of which there are almost no), some shaming and so on. But interestingly, the debut picture is not so much a horror film, but a very competent grandhouse thriller (because this movie does not pull on horrors).
The storyline of the film is really interesting, and, consider, moralizing. Heroines who said to be careful, disregard all the rules, and decide to break away. Perhaps their mother told them as a child, “Don’t visit other people’s uncles,” and this rule is actually valid for all ages. They themselves attack the maniacs, and themselves resist, for which they are mercilessly tortured and subsequently killed. The move is interesting, the meaning here acquires a cruel and unfair subtext. Well, isn't that right now? The world is cruel.
The first half, which is also moralizing (according to the Director), smoothly flows into the second - Every action has a reaction. Maniacs themselves unknowingly fall into the house of the parents of one of the murdered girls. Guess what happens next?
Here the most interesting thing begins: the simple peasants, who may never have held arms in their hands, themselves begin the offensive. The fight begins not for life, but for death. And who will win: violent maniacs or a simple couple? And the fight itself looks like a grand house kite: stylish, bloody and brutal.
However, in the moments described above, Craven often inserts quite positive melodies, especially in moments of murder. The unsophisticated viewer will find this outright stupidity, but I find in it an ironic connotation that goes along with the one described in the third paragraph. And to distract the viewer from the main tense line, the director introduces a line with two police officers who are only “stupid” rather than trying to do anything. Again, it's for the sake of irony. However, the trouble is that Wes with this irony often overdoes.
Overall, Wes' directorial debut was to my liking. Interesting, a little moralistic, brutal and bloody grand house thriller with a dose of irony. For many, this movie will seem like a passerby because of the absurdity of what is happening (I mean fun music during violent scenes), especially after watching the remake, but this is not the case.
8 out of 10
A generation that received cameras and cheap consumables concocted the cinema baggage of stamps and a ladder for degradation. If in the 60s and early 70s everywhere there were beautifully dressed vampires with girlfriends to match, a thoughtful plot and at least some acting, then with the arrival of those who are able to shoot only the struggle on chainsaws and pseudo-snuff everything fell apart. Villains became as close as possible to people living around, as stupid, angry and simple. The years of freedom have ended and the era of conspiracy theory has begun.
But even this is not the main thing, over the years, both westerns and gangster films have sunk, the worst thing is that films like this make fun of the heat at the root, mock the narrative and stick around imbecile jokes wherever they get, on which the world is built that goes back to Poe, Lovecraft, Beers and other mass murderers of irrational fear.
The only thing that pleases, the guys who filmed this are deprived of a sense of humor (except intelligence), and all the real laurels of low-budget went to such fun as Lloyd Kaufman.
3 out of 10
I didn’t expect it, but I recognize the depth of this film. I watched after the 2009 remake and initially saw only a more old-fashioned and primitive version. Even more violent. And the first reaction was to put in a personal video library 4 points.
But the next day the movie didn't go out of my mind, to my surprise. And only then did it become clear. It's a film about human nature. That we are far from being as kind as we imagine, flattering our self-love. When a person feels cornered, and he can feel that way simply because he is “unlucky”, then nothing restrains him who he really is.
And we must admit that the restraining principle is quite superficial and ephemeral. It just happened, and now it's gone. We are not so much bloodthirsty as indifferent. We just don’t care about others deeply, deeply, no matter how much the entire human culture camouflages this sad fact. Beginning with the image of the crucified God-man. In the film by Wes Craven, the indifference of others from the “background” sometimes turns into a “figure”.
How's Dostoevsky? “The world is going to die, or should I not drink a cup of tea?” The answer is, “Let the world perish, but I will drink a cup of tea.” And when you watch the 1972 version, you see it with your own eyes, and you realize that it is – not only in a movie.
You read the news - on the beaches of Italy, games and fun do not stop in the presence of bodies lying nearby for hours (well, there is no one to take them out, or leisure). Such news is usually forgotten once and for all. But not after that movie. And if they rape and kill on that beach, but only in such a way that everyone present knows that they are not personally in danger of anything, even the police will not ask them, will these people not just run and have fun? "Hahaha, hehhi, Delwig writes poetry," laughter, like a delusion of fact, overwhelms us from birth to death. And these laughs are very appropriate in a horror film with philosophical overtones.
Isn’t all humor based on the fact that someone is hurting, but not us. From circus clowning to Dante’s Divine Comedy. For there to be heavenly fun, there must be a hell in which losers suffer. And if losers ("losers) never swap places with winners ("winners), then it becomes boring. No, we need the risk to be small. Well, that's the movie. How “lucky” from a family of real “winners” in 10 seconds turned into a “loser”. And how nature itself rejoices and rejoices. In ancient times, the priests returned meaning to life - sacrificing to some Moloch the most beautiful virgins from the noblest families of Carthage.
And the actors played 5, especially those who played the criminals and their victims. And the montage quite underscores the contrast between the anguish and despair of the victims - and the utter mundaneness of the day for the rest of the world. Seagull, cake. Even parents don’t really care, no, they try not to care. They just don't do it very well. They hurt, but not too much. It's more of a shame.
However, they do not care about criminals to a much greater extent, and therefore the reason is more than enough. I had to prove to myself that I didn’t care. They won't be punished for some beast. Rebel losers, without any position in society. For the sake of such a sheriff, even laziness will write a report. 8.5 points.
I have long wanted to watch the very first film of the famous master of horrors Wes Craven, in which the features of his unique directorial style are guessed and there is an answer to the question: “why a university teacher of literature” needed to make a movie. I saw it. Let me tell you right away, making a movie like this for $9,000 and earning $3,000 is an incredible financial success in 1972. To do this with unknown actors, to clearly build a script, to drive the audience to madness about the chilling plot is undoubtedly worthy of a high award in the form of recognition of this man as the master of horror films.
Why "chilling soul"? Because the intonation of the film is easy, sometimes even ironic - if you take the screening of misadventures not particularly smart police (which, by the way, is completely absent in the recent remake), beautiful young faces of the actors smile, the world and death is red. And she appears unexpectedly and takes away the main characters with special cruelty and realism. Of course, I watched the incomplete version, the film is still banned from screening in several countries, but even what I saw is scary precisely because of the realism. When you think everything is happening, you're stupidly filming on your home video camera, traveling through the woods with slightly crazy but cute crazy friends. The fact that they will turn out to be bloody maniacs and are able to kill with inhuman cruelty, as well as the couple who went mad after losing their daughter, is believed with great difficulty.
Craven deliberately and very slowly unfolds the narrative, builds contrasting lines, which he then will do faster and harder. But here it is appropriate and does not create an impression of protractedness.
The end of the movie is a bit blurred, but that’s what happens in life. I also understood why Craven made the remake after almost forty years. But that's in the review.