Movie Review - The Last House On Dead End Street

The Last House On Dead End Street

AKA:  The Fun House 

1977

Production Concepts Ltd. / Today Productions Inc.

Cinematic Releasing Corporation / DCS Video Screams / Fright Video / Vinigar Syndrome

6.5 / 10

This film isn't as bad as it should be.  Let me explain, the concept is that after serving a sentence in prison for drug related crimes Roger Watkins has had an epiphany.  Kill people for fame and money.  To do this he will make snuff movies with the help of his friends.  Then for it to be told from the miscreant's point of view is a horrifying idea.

However, writer, director, and actor, Terry Hawkins does not turn this into an exploitation film or glorify or condone the horror's portrayed within.  What he gives his viewers is a psychological chiller, which is heavy on the chills.  Hawkins actually makes the audience think and reflect on the nature of the participants of the crimes committed.  I came away feeling mentally cold and more than a little sickened, which is a pretty hard thing to do as I have a strong stomach.  This emotion is a good thing though as I believe it was the aim of the filmmaker.  This is thought-provoking entertainment and not a happy and joyful performance; you should not come away from this movie feeling cheerful.  It should make the audience at least start to wonder how dark the thoughts within mankind are.  How far would one go to make money(?)  Or to be the person they are under their "Normal-World" mask?

The original title when the film was released in 1974 was The Fun House and there are rumours of the BBFC getting it wrong by banning the wrong Funhouse by choosing Tobe Hooper's film of that name from 1981 - see my review here.  When it was rereleased in 1977 to larger audiences somebody had the idea to use Wes Craven's success with The Last House On The Left to rename it to the present title.

I liked the way Hawkins builds up to the story.  The movie starts out slow as he paints the picture of Roger Watkins', his dream, the recruitment of his friends, and the choice of his victims.  Then when the killings start he takes his time to pull all the tension and disgust out of his viewers with some very nasty and graphic images.  The special effects team, as well as the lighting crew and cameramen, do a magnificent job of making all of this feel and appear realistic.  I've seen some pretty nasty horrific special effects, though this is one of the few that has stayed with me.

There's also the concept of what's next(?)  In this film, Hawkins asks the question of the porn business.  When people have become used to and complacent with the normal sex acts and even S&M is becoming run-of-the-mill then what's the next big thing(?)  To some extent, this is still evident today on the internet, so this notion and opinion are still viable today, especially when you get psychopaths posting animal cruelty videos online.

Hawkins is also a pretty good director and though it feels like it's been shot on a handheld 8mm there are some good camera angles and iconic shots which also add strength to the movie.  The use of imagery, particularly the use of Greek masks adds a nice eeriness. Apart from the unrelenting depravity, the only thing which makes this film a little grating is the acting which is below average, though to be fair, most of the actors are students.

Would I recommend this to anyone?  Yes:  To anyone looking to create horrific imagary, either for a horror or a thriller film then watch this movie... this is how it should be done, this is the kind of atmosphere you should be looking to create.  The same can be said of directors who are working on a budget.  If you're a film fan and have a strong constitution and enjoy thought-provoking movies then this could be for you, but don't think you'll be a happy bunny at the end of watching it.

Movie Review - The Hills Have Eyes (1977)

The Hills Have Eyes

(1977)

Blood Relations Co. : Anchor Bay Entertainment / Vestron Video

6 / 10

In the 1950's science fiction used people's uncertainty and fear over nuclear power to bring them mutations that ran wild and wrought havoc on the populace.  In the 1970's writer and director, Wes Craven brought this vision to a new height when the radiation created a race of mutated humans.

Because of this mutation, they were shunned by their family and banished from their home to live in the nuclear wastelands of the Nevada desert.  This harsh life made them savages and when they couldn't barter for food and supplies they had to live off the land and eat what they caught, which sometimes included lost tourists.

Enter our lost tourists, the Carter family, who are looking for a silver mine that was owned by their family.  Not listening to the Gas Station owner to stay on the main road and forget about the mine, they proceed to take a dirt road, which doesn't lead them to the mine but to a fight for their lives.

This was Craven's third writer and director project and it shows,  When they did the remake in 2006, had they let Craven direct I think it would have been a much different film with a darker feel.

What we have here is a survival film.  On one side you have the mutants trying to survive by any means necessary.  In this instance by stealing from the tourists, even if it means killing them.  The tourists are trying to survive the desert and the attacks from the mutants until they escalate into carnage.  I've always seen the movie in this context, even back in my youth.

There's not much horror or tension in the film as it's played for the thriller element since the action comes thick and fast in the form of attack and counter attack.

I wasn't impressed with the acting of the cast and I'm still not.  There's nothing subtle about this film and that can especially be said for the over-acting cast, though some are worse than others.  All the characters seem to be over-the-top and unrealistic.  The only character I found I could just about believe in was Pluto, at least Michael Berryman tried to give him some depth.

This was certainly a film of its time which got everybody talking, though, as with The Exorcist, I couldn't understand what the fuss was about.  In my eye's there were better films in the same genre.

If you haven't seen the film then it's worth watching just to see what all the fuss was about and it does has cult status, as well as being a milestone in the industry.  Though one viewing should be enough.