3/4  Cult-horror classic
This 1972 verison is Wes Craven's debut film that was inspired by the Swedish art-house classic 'The Virgin Spring' (Oscar winner for best foreign language film), which I own and seen many of times. Many people say that Craven's movie was ... (read full)

2.5/4  Carnage, Revenge to the Depths of Hell

A low-budget cult horror classic, Last House on the Left takes the story from The Virgin Spring, removes any religious context, and turns it into an ultra-violent murder/revenge story.

Being the horror fan I am, I was waiting for a ... (read full)

2/4  Classic Slasher, But a Victim of Time
Even though this was released in 1972, it’s still really disturbing compared today’s standards (or lack thereof some might argue). This is Wes Craven’s first film and though it may seem really dated, it shows a lot of promise when it comes... (read full)

3.5/4  The Last House on the Left Quick Review
Living proof that Wes's early work was his best. You could not ask for anthing better, in his films. I love it, even if it is cruel and disturbing.

2/5 Lame...Boring, Too much ... Circus Benny Hill Music
  by sweet-one (Casselberry)
I have already watched the new 2009 version and really liked it. This original version is boring, i actually fell asleep 4 times. I had to stop it and come back to watch the rest the next day. This is supposed to be a horror/thriller movie, but then the benny hill type circus soundtrack is horrible. Some of the scenes are even humorous, like the police officers trying to hitchhike after they ran out of gas. The new modern version is much better. Oh ... and what's with their daughter refusing to wear a bra and showing her breasts in front of her father ... ? That was creepy.

2/5 Primal Instincts
  by Chirstopher B. Aiken (CO)
Horror is so broad now as to have an unpredictable turn of events that have the potential to rape your mind and soul while you are passively entertained. Yea, we all wanted revenge, the rape scene as long and vivid as it was did not add to the hard justice delivered in the end and only demonstrates the level of depraved morality we are expected to believe.

2/5 EXTREMEMLY UNEVEN IN TONE, BUT HAS ITS MOMENTS!
  by ! MR. KNOW IT ALL ;-b (TRI STATE AREA)
I saw this film at the drive-in many years ago and despite its following I have never been a big fan of this film. Watching it now I have confirmed my earlier opinion that this is not a great film. It's a low budget mess with horrible acting and an inappropriate music score that makes this film almost completely un-watch-able! That's not to say that this film doesn't have its moments, it's just too little too late.

The film is full of inconsistencies and goes from truly disturbing to ridiculous comedy in the blink of an eye. This is really sad because this film could have been so much better if Wes Craven had kept the tone more even. The rape and killings are pretty brutal for when it was released and it isn't an easy film to watch at times.

I also have to compare this film to much better horror films from the same time period such as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre which is far superior and even though it's a low budget film it really works for the most part and the actors seem to be more believable. I realize that this film came out a couple of years before it, but Chainsaw is a much more satisfying horror outing.

I give some props for being one of the first films of this nature, but it isn't as good as its reputation. I don't know anything about this special edition nor do I care. If this is your cup of tea then by all means buy it!

1/5 Last House on the Left
  by Lin G. Mack
I has seen this movie when it came out in 1972, this was suppose to show "never before seen scenes" ! Well it didn't !!!! There were scenes left out ! This was the worst purchase I ever made,,,I was real dissappointed.

2/5 Dumb
  by - Durrkk (Ohio/PA border USA)
I've heard quite a bit about Wes Craven's 1972 debut film "Last House on the Left" over the years and finally decided to see what the hoopla was all about.

PLOT (Spoilers!): "Last House" is a simple rape/murder/revenge horror flick about two Connecticut girls who go to the big city to catch a rock concert, but they look for pot in the wrong place and end up kidnapped, humiliated, tortured, raped and killed. When the father & mother of one of the victims find out they set out to take revenge; the culprits aren't hard to find 'cause they're, coincidently, overnight guests in their house!

This is, apparently, a loose remake of Ingmar Bergman's "Virgin Spring" (1960), albeit in a modern America setting.

WHAT WORKS: Aside from the brief Manhattan scenes, the woodsy Connecticut locations are great (Westport & Redding); the three female actors are cute; and the diversified score (by the actor playing Krug) is entertaining even while a lot of it is incongruous with the material. In addition, the film can be appreciated as an early 70s period piece/oddity or if you're a Craven fan.

Also, if you're a gorehound there's some significant gore, in particular a bloody disembowlment sequence.

WHAT DOESN'T WORK: Wow, this story is really DUMB. I'm not referring to just the goofy aspects, i.e. the two rural policemen, but to the complete implausibility of the storyline: [SPOILER ALERT!] The criminal gang just so happens to break down right in front of the rural house of one of the victims? Why sure! But there's more, way more: After breaking down on some desolate country road the gang decides to take a frolic in the woods where they torment, rape & murder the girls; their clothes are completely bloody but they're able to fully wash up in a scummy pond and deck themselves to the hilt. Where'd they get the soap and towels, etc.? (I didn't see any) Where'd they get the nice dress clothes? Didn't they just escape from prison? Then they knock on the door of the closest house, the house of one of the victims (which they don't realize yet), and her parents cluelessly allow this suspicious foursome to stay overnight, a couple of 'em in their daughters very room -- unbelievable! Keep in mind that their daughter has been missing since the night before and they should be seriously concerned about that, but they're okay enough to allow four weirdo adult strangers to occupy their home -- Why sure! The revenge of the parents is just as ridiculous. [END SPOILER]. As noted above, many of these scenes are combined with an unfitting goofy score, which makes them all the more absurd. Really, the story is so ridiculous it's as if a 13 year-old came up with the plot but, no, it was written/directed by Wes Craven, a full-fledged adult with degrees in writing & psychology -- unbelievable.

With this understanding, how can the viewer possibly take the story serious? Which is why I find it strange that some people call this "the most disturbing film ever made," etc. If the material is absurd it can't truly be disturbing because it can't be taken seriously. Is the violence in the Road Runner disturbing? No. Why? Because it's a cartoon and it's preposterous. "Last House" may not be a cartoon but it's the same principle because it's just as preposterous.

The reason 1978's "I Spit On Your Grave" works, for what it is, is because it's presented to the viewer in a serious, realistic manner (well, except for parts of the revenge scenes in the last 20 minutes -- but even those sequences are believable compared to the inanities of "Last House"). Consequently, "I Spit On Your Grave" is disturbing, "Last House" is not.

One may defend the film on the grounds that it was the first of its kind as far as gore goes. I don't think so. "Night of the Living Dead" came out four years earlier and has more gore, albeit in black & white. "Night" is a thousand times more disturbing and horrifying because, again, it takes the material serious.

Some may object to how sick & sadistic the criminal scumbags are, but they're supposed to be appalling because this is a rape/murder/revenge horror flick. It comes with the territory.

BOTTOM LINE: I generously give "Last House" 2/5 Stars for the positive elements noted above but, really, this is one of the dumbest flicks I've ever seen. I find it hard to believe it ever got a green light. You gotta see it to believe it, meaning it's definitely worthwhile as an early 70s curiosity.

The film runs 84 minutes and the original cut 91 minutes.