The Last House on Dead End Street (1973) User Reviews

'we're all vampires'

[Kaliyugaforkix · 6/10 · 4 April 2010]

???

According to urban legend, the Manson family not only conducted bizarre ritual murders, they also filmed them for posterity and somewhere deep in the California desert, its reputed that the canisters holding said antics are buried far beneath the sand, ripe for re-discovery by some hapless soul. I think Last House on Dead-end Street would prove to be an accurate primer of whatever was stored on those unholy frames, or at least a realistic portrayal of the mindset it takes to mount such a twisted home movie.

Terry Hawkins, freshly released from the big house, sets out to make snuff films and succeeds past his wildest expectations when he orchestrates the elaborately choreographed execution of his business associates for assuming the credit for his new underground film movement.

As its been said before & which I swear by, 'bad' movies can be sublime, achieving the indefinable in their steadfast refusal to play by the rules, getting surreal results 'good' movies can't touch with their off kilter rhythms. Such monstrosities & freaks-shows are best viewed in the arena of post midnight tribulation, when you can't sleep & celluloid out-of-body experiences are most likely.

A minor work of no-budget film-making, Dead End is one of the poorest, cheaply made pieces of celluloid I've seen, and it still works. All the pieces are put together in the wrong way but the twisted logic of it remains. It survives as pure atmosphere. Admittedly it starts off dire, drifting into the aimlessness of a bad grind-house experience, the type only improved with recreational narcotics & full Mystery Science Theater treatment, but somewhere along the way (probably once the 'rituals' begin) your conscious mind takes a back seat to the nightmare-in- progress. That out-of-phase dubbing especially begins to rub in exactly the wrong/right way, throwaway incompetence that seems to(deliberately?) mask something more disquieting.

I don't really know how else to describe it: initially coming off as laughable, if you stick with it, the mangled quality of this poisonous enterprise begins to hypnotize, initial disarming shoddiness allowing a seed of something greater to burrow into your head, a deeper vision that's not as easy to laugh off once that frigging creepy Greek tragedy mask comes out. It's like a midnight transmission from Mars, the kind of experience where you question the director's mental health.Watched in a disassociated daze, the jumbled noise activates parts of your brain long dormant. Cutting the distracting dialogue all together and just going on music & footage might've even strengthened it. There's something really weird going on here.

The combination of grainy gritty film stock, poverty row locations, claustrophobic framing and vile subject matter combine to make a unique, hallucinatory mood. Director Watkins was working with peanuts here and its forever apparent, from the awful sound to the non acting- this is a sweat and blood, true labor of twisted love. Believe me it shows: Hawkins must've been one cheesed off young punk when he mounted this exercise in despair because the suppressed animosity and bitterness of a seriously miffed youth vibrates throughout the lean-mean 78 minutes..... definitely a 70's curio. When Hawkins flies into a rage at one point during the shock murders of the film's latter half, screaming over and over, "I'M DIRECTING THIS F%$KIN MOOOOVIE!" you aren't quite sure where Terry ends and Rog begins.

The sheer grunge throughout is another thing; it accesses a depraved realism through its bottom barrel-ness. Amateurishness is key. Claustrophobia, feeling trapped in a crumbling asbestos-ridden rat hole is palpable, filth and decay leaking through the screen to infect viewers. One of those fabulous times at the movies that makes you want to take a scalding shower after.

Very much a work of its day when general disillusionment abounded, the loser characters who populate Watkins's film have not much further to sink in their respective depravity- they truly are dead-ends, mouthing empty hippie jargon, running on the fumes of something long dead, all sunken eyes & bad skin. What's shown is all that's going on in these empty heads. The paltry lot are all surface and eagerly jump on Hawkin's new idea without much deliberation-like any good ambitious American- which is purely for rich upper crust smut consumers who've grown weary with typical hardcore frivolity. Snuff: the next logical step in flesh-as-commodity ( no doubt such things exist). The plot isn't really that important to Last House though, its the stiflingly bleak presentation of a scorched earth populated by only perverts and freaks, which Watkins assembles with only 800$ and a lot of recreational drugs to his name. It packs a bite 30 years on. Only the tacked-on narration feebly attempting to provide the viewer with some sense of closure is a misstep.

Through the apparatus of 'bad movie' Watkins did with a shoestring what few directors could do with lavish budgets- communicate an unadulterated vision of tangible hell on Earth, caked with dirt, sleaze and ennui. It's a shame he only churned out a few pornos before quitting the scene altogether. I hope to check them out one day.

This is a bad dream, not a film.

great snuff film...

[MovieGuy01 · 6/10 · 10 October 2009]

I enjoyed watching Last House On Dead End Street. It is about a man called Terry Hawkins who has been released from prison for drug dealing, who has serving 1 year in jail. He decides to repay society for treating him badly, He recruits a team of four outcast people. who are stupid enough to follow the orders that he gives them. Ken Hardy Is a psychopath who was sent to an asylum, after he was found sodomising a calf at the slaughterhouse where he worked. Bill Drexil, his other friend is easy to manipulate. Kathy Hughes and Patricia Kuhn. also prove that they also are easy to manipulate. Once Ken has his team of people together he finds the victims to use in his film productions This is a very strong and violent film, with images of branding, amputation,and dismemberment by using tools, from power drills to pliers. I would recommend that you watch this film if you are able to take the amount of violence in it

Cut, cut, CUT! ...No, not the action...I meant her leg!

[Coventry · 4/10 · 7 June 2006]

Almost TOO sick and TOO depraved for words, this mean-spirited and hideously edited US exploit-flick! It might be called pure cult cinema with an enormous shock-value, still this questionable reputation can't hide the fact that "Last House on Dead End Street" is a nearly unendurable film and that you'll need at least three very long showers to wash away the dirty feeling after seeing it. All you ever read about this film is true. It's definitely a true statement that the on screen gore is ultimately gross and that the tone of the film is disturbingly nihilistic & offensive. Now, I don't have a problem with that (on the contrary, I even pro-actively search for this type of films), but I do think there should at least be a point to the violence or some sort of moral that needs to be made clear to the audience. "Last House on Dead End Street" has neither. It's just 80 harsh minutes of insane violence and nasty images of horrible looking set pieces. The plot is as simple as it is irrelevant, and handles about a misanthropist ex-con who mobilizes his former friends to help him make porn movies and earn some extra money. When he discovers that people are only interested in extreme shocks and snuff nowadays, the whole gang goes berserk and complete their film with the rich clients as real-life victims. The first half of the film is surprisingly dull and just plain awful, with some really amateurish attempts to provide the characters (that you couldn't feel less connected to) with a background and really ugly camera-work. The second half is full of gory sickness but still as awful as the first; perhaps even more so. During one of the most notorious sequences in horror-history, both a woman's legs are brutally sawn off while she's kept conscious with medication. The reason for that is that she can witness later how her stomach is cut open with a huge pair of pliers and how the intestines get removed and proudly shown to her. Sick enough for ya? "Last House on Dead End Street" could have been a truly nightmarish experience if everything (apart from the human guts) didn't look so damn fake! Especially the acting, but also the clumsy camera-work and lighting are so amateurish that it's nearly impossible to let this film affect you. Admirers (and, believe me, there are a lot of them) use the cheapness as an argument to claim that it only increases the genuine exploitation feel to it, but I strongly disagree. I've seen enough exploitation movies that are stylish and convincing DESPITE the limitations in budget. I wouldn't advise anyone to see this film (apart from some personal enemies, perhaps) but if your curiosity becomes too hard to resist, you can always purchase the brand new double-disc special edition on DVD. But do yourself a favor and wait at least three hours after you had dinner.

... what can be said?

[Moshing Hoods · 15 January 2002]

LAST HOUSE ON DEAD END STREET is literally one of the most infamous horror movies ever made. Part of this comes from the legend and mystery surrounding it, and the fact it is so difficult to get hold of. Firstly, all existing prints are EXTREMELY heavily cut... reports indicate that the original movie was around three hours long, but even the longest running version nowadays only clocks in at 77 minutes. This print also has entirely "fake" credits. One "Victor Janos" is accredited with directing LAST HOUSE ON DEAD END STREET, but any research as to who this actually is ends at the credits themselves- as is the case with all the others involved with the film. Although it is now apparent that the across-the-board use of pseudonyms was an attempt by a distributor to "steal" the movie, for a long time it simply was not known who was responsible for this film (in actuality, a director named Roger Watkins wrote, produced, directed and starred in this movie). Trying to find a good, under-fifth generation copy of this movie nowadays is extremely difficult. All of these factors add to the movie's gritty and disturbing reputation- and that's before you've even watched it!

In actuality, it isn't nearly as grueling as many would make out but is still an extremely disturbing experience. It is brash, intelligent and EXTREMELY well made considering budget issues and the experience of the film makers (Watkins went on to work on pornography after this). The scenes of violence are very extreme and graphic, but in my mind these are far less disturbing than other aspects of the film. Although the photography is simplistic in a classically "US low budget underground cinema" way, the atmosphere that the movie creates is quite unique. It manages to conjure up a true feeling of a bad dream. The same feeling has been achieved by directors such as Dario Argento but they tend to use bombardments of imagery and a "surrealist" approach. In this case, everything seems gritty and realistic but at the same time strangely disjointed. This is partly because of the heavy cuts leaving huge and bizarre holes in the narrative; partly because of the strange sound track, lighting and empty sets; partly because of the fact the film was clearly rushed; and partly because of the surreal "story line", if it could be even called that...

This is a genuine cinematic curiosity and I think that any self-respecting horror fan would be missing out by not checking it. It is truly an original, one-off work. Sure, it is ragged around the edges but that is part of what makes it so gritty and atmospheric. The movie has an almost numbing and ethereal quality and really works. Extremely disturbing and definitely recommended.

drab curio

[fertilecelluloid · 3/10 · 23 December 2004]

LAST HOUSE ON DEAD END STREET, a topnotch exploitation title, is the best thing about this film.

Originally titled THE CUCKOO CLOCKS OF HELL, one of the most evocative titles I've heard, this was reworked, reshot here and there and refurbished by director Roger Watkins (aka Richard Mahler aka Victor Janos).

Watkins' porno flick with Jaime Gillis, MIDNIGHT HEAT, is a much better, more accomplished thriller than this.

The first ten minutes set a grim, nihilistic tone as Watkins' snuff filmmaker character is introduced outside an abandoned college. The music here is extremely effective and foreshadows a pretty rough trip.

Unfortunately, the rest of the film is drawn out and saddled with an almost indecipherable sound mix. It's a low budget exercise, but it's simply inept for the most part and the climactic "snuff" footage is plain silly.

There's a little gore here and there and some ugly fornicating, but the endless scenes of losers talking produce boredom and the main character's one-dimensional ranting wears very thin.

Barrel's DVD features some terrific extra material about director Watkins that is more interesting than his film.

I will hold onto my Venezuelan dupe as the film seemed seedier on crap tape.

Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid movie. Terrible writing, horrendous acting.

[bignothingdrake310 · 1/10 · 15 January 2017]

I am going to keep this one short because I really do not have much to say. This is one of the absolute worst movies I have ever seen in my entire life. I know that it is a cult favorite and usually I gravitate towards these types of movies, hell I liked The August Underground Trilogy, I enjoy movies like The New York Ripper and I even enjoyed Cannibal Cookout and I love exploitation films. I'm a huge fan of Jack Hill, his whole filmography is a huge part of what got me through high school. So I thought that I would have a blast with this one but it was just atrocious. The acting was horrible, absolutely horrible the performances here make The Room look like Oscar winning material, that by far is the worst part. The writing, I mean I'm not expecting Shakespeare what I am expecting at least some level competence but the dialog was so ridiculous and hackneyed oh my god, I can't decide which is worse the acting or the writing. It is laughably stupid, the dialogue is so ridiculous that even Dolemite would be embarrassed by it. It is actually very rare that I don't enjoy movies like this. I've been waiting to see it for years and now that I have, I want that hour and twenty minutes of my life back. This is retarded, plain and simple this movie is retarded. I don't know how it has found this large of an audience, it is just crap. If I could give it a zero star rating, trust me I would.

Notorious in its time, reflection changes that notoriety

[leagueofstruggle · 7/10 · 9 March 2004]

When The Last House on Dead End Street was released on DVD it certainly spelled the end for this film and its legend. Once upon a time Last House was mentioned off handed, it was a film of urban legend made by an unknown director with an unknown cast. Of course any amount of research, made even easier with the rise of the internet, reveals the truth behind this film. Originally the film seemed even more brutal and bleak for its mysterious origins if nothing else. With the release of the DVD all mysteries are solved and the film becomes grounded as an amateur production with a history of cult status. No longer is the film relegated to video pirates selling dark, grainy, and mostly unwatchable copies now it is released in a slick package with all the answers. With all the reputation dispelled the film can be evaluated on its own merit now for most people. My eyes are still glossed by the esoteric appearance of this film and as such I probably give the film more credit than it may warrant. Original in its time and, as mentioned, dribbling in mystery of production the film has its peaks and valleys. The disturbing scenes I had heard about in this film were actually a little flat. Anyone a little older seeing this film now will probably be too jaded or numb due to overexposure to understand what it was about these scenes that was so awe inspiring or offensive. Some of the scenes are shot with a slick zest that shows Roger Michael Watkins knew what he was doing. At points the movie moderately drags as if trying to find its feet and also meanders a bit, but really the plot is straightforward about a man jaded by society directing snuff films and little else. It's really about how much mileage Watkins gets out of this simple set up. There's no protagonist, no one in the film to empathize with, no heroes, and no justice given to the characters unless you count the tacked on titles at the end of the film. Last House on Dead End Street could be retitled A Week in the Life of a Snuff Director. Despite postproduction dubbing, which you have to ignore because focusing on it will tend to annoy, the film rises above many modern genre films. The fact that there is not a single likeable character in the film will keep this movie forever relegated to its cult status. Still indie filmmakers would be advised to check this film out, as it is a true demonstration of what sort of excellence can be reached on virtually no budget. On the same note, any movie claiming a lack of budget as a crutch for a horrible movie would do well to watch this and realize talent, true talent, can overcome budgetary obstacles. What the film lacks in sound quality and easily consumable plot it makes up for in impressive visuals. Some scenes are indeed creepy and disturbing and it is the handling of the camera angles and scene set up. Given the subject matter of the film, most mainstream cinema viewers will ignore any of the film's strengths and focus on the film's shortcomings completely ignoring this as a cinematic representation of what can be done on a zero budget.

Probably the biggest shame is that it appears Roger Michael Watkins became what the character he played despised, a porn director regurgitating the same cinema blandness over and over. I've never seen one of his porn films so they may be different but it's still porn and can't possibly be to groundbreaking seeing how all plot is just to get two or more individuals into compromising positions. It seems dishonor to himself that he went or was forced down this road. Hopefully we'll see a real project from Watkins in the near future. Last House on Dead End Street is an excellent indie project for those with a taste for alternative grue filled cinema. It's at the very least an exercise in guerilla filmmaking that current directors would be advised to see. All the money in the world cannot cover hack work. On the same note, money is only an obstacle to be overcome for a director with talent.

Sleazy and rather dull 70s trash about snuff movies.

[BA_Harrison · 4/10 · 7 January 2007]

Terry, a drug-dealer recently released from jail, decides to venture into film-making, and sees a possible gap in the market—snuff movies. He and a group of like minded sleaze-bags show their first attempt to a pornographer who is looking for something new to sell to his jaded customers, but are cheated when the smut-peddler releases the film under his own name. They decide to exact revenge by making him and his associates the stars of their next movie.

Shot on a shoestring budget, The Last House on Dead End Street is a poorly made 'grindhouse' shocker that has gained much notoriety through the years due to its mysterious origins (the cast and crew all used pseudonyms) and controversial subject matter. With grainy, washed-out visuals, bad dubbing and shaky camera-work, the film achieves a genuinely seedy quality that is befitting of its iffy themes, but even with its convincing atmosphere, exploitative subject matter and and some nasty scenes of gore, I found the whole affair rather disappointing.

The first half of the movie is incredibly dull, and a real test of endurance: with some ponderous scenes more akin to an art-house movie than an exploitation film, The Last House on Dead End Street meanders from one dull, badly directed scene to another for what seems like an eternity, before finally delivering the yuck-factor that most viewers have been waiting for.

When Terry and his gang of sick reprobates finally mutilate and kill their three victims for the benefit of the camera, the movie lives up to its notorious reputation as one sick little puppy. The first victim is stabbed and kicked to death, and the last is drilled in the eye, but it is the second that receives the most brutal demise. A knife is run all over her face and then her legs are removed with a surgical saw. As a finale, she is opened up with a pair of huge cutters and her organs are removed.

The 'snuff' footage is admittedly disturbing, but it doesn't compensate for the wearisome dreck that precedes it, and my final impression of the film was that, whilst it was an interesting curiosity that I was glad I had been able to watch, it just didn't live up to my expectations.

Why this movie is scarier than anything you've ever seen before...

[jpilkonis · 10/10 · 17 November 2005]

You'll read plenty about the background of this movie, how it was nearly lost, miraculously saved and lovingly restored. You'll read about the trials and travails of Roger Watkins in the making of this film (much of it revealed by the excellent deluxe edition DVD release; nice work, Barrel Films). But what you might not read about is exactly why this film works as well as it does.

The thing is, it really shouldn't work at all. The viewer should be scoffing and snorting from scene one at the appalling acting, the flimsy plot (especially in the first half of the film, where the plot has to hold us), the muddy sound, poor lighting, and so on. This film should be dismissed out of hand and roundly ignored.

Just try it.

If you allow yourself to be carried off into this film, however, you'll find something so utterly engrossing, so roundly terrifying, that you may very well have to tell yourself, "It's only a movie...it's only a movie." In its weird, hell-bent way, the film's inadequacies trap the viewer in the madness on the screen. Unlike a normal slasher film, the viewer doesn't get a chance to step out of the horror to rate the special effects, or even to laugh at the badness of the thing. This movie grips you by the throat and doesn't let go.

I've read comments about this film saying that the first half of this film is the worst horror film you'll ever see and that the second half is the best horror film you'll ever see. That's a very accurate assessment, and it's this aspect of the film which adds to its impact. By the time the real horror starts, the viewer is unprepared for its intensity.

Watch this film in a dark room, all alone. Let this film pour over you and drown you in its madness, and it'll scare the hell out of you more effectively than anything else you've ever seen. This movie is unique. There's nothing else like it, nor will there ever be.

Good snuff stuff!

[The_Void · 7/10 · 24 July 2006]

Also known as The Fun House, this film is often mistaken for being one of the UK 'Video Nasties', and that's not surprising - as it's rather nasty. Bizarrely, however, the film wasn't included on the list as in a cock-up typical of such people that would sift through a back catalogue of movies, banning everything with a slight hint of blood - they banned the wrong film! (Tobe Hooper's "The Funhouse"). Ironically, this would have been one of the more worthy films on the DPP list as the violence is often relentless and always uncompromising, and the snuff scenes are far more grisly and graphic than the one seen at the end of the notorious 'Snuff'. The film is shot on an ultra-thin budget and it shows, but this time it actually helps the film as it appears much like the underground snuff movies that it attempts to imitate. The plot is resoundingly thin and simply follows a deranged young man who gets out of prison and decides to repay his debt to society with movie-making - only he's not making feel good movies, as he uses his film stock to shoot footage of people being brutally murdered!

This film won't appeal to anyone that likes their movies fluffy and nice, but it should do the trick for anyone that enjoys scenes of torture. I can't say that I'm the biggest exploitation fan going, but it's hard to deny that this film successfully achieves what it set out to do. It's fair to say that the death scenes aren't all that realistic, and it's always clear that this is nothing but a movie - but the masses of gore are delightful and it's good that director Roger Michael Watkins wasn't happy to have all of his victims killed in similar ways. We've got a variety of weaponry on display, which ranges from hedge saws to power drills and all of them are put to their unintended uses. At one point in the movie, the would-be director states that a good horror film needs good actors, although this film doesn't have any. The director himself does put in an interesting performance, however, and always convinces as the sick character that he's portraying. There isn't a great deal of humour on display, but the action is always fascinating and this is a good film if you're into this sort of stuff.

Sadistic and harsh torture-porn

[tomgillespie2002 · 2/10 · 13 February 2011]

Written, directed, produced and staring Roger Watkins (he used the pseudonym Victor Janos for this title), in 1973, but not released until later - he had only previously (and subsequently) made porn movies, Last House on Dead End Street is a gruelling piece of cinema. This is not to say that the gore (or special effects), are of particular note, but that it is, in the essence of the film, an incredibly hateful, almost evil one, that pervades the raw material of the cheep 16mm home-style movie cameras. The title was a cash-in, by distributors, of the success of The Last House on the Left (1972), but was previously named The Cuckoo Clocks of Hell, and The Funhouse. The film poster also "used" the ...on the Left tag line: 'It's only a movie....only a movie'.

Terry Hawkins (played by Watkins), is a pornographer, who wants to film something new, something different. He settles on the idea of making a snuff movie. It would be quite an epic, as Hawkins finds a derelict mansion, with many empty rooms, decaying and dank. He invites friends over to 'make a movie' - albeit people who had f****d him off in some way. They are humiliated, abused, and many don't survive. Hawkins is the "snuff" movie director, barking a vicious hate from his very soul (this is quite tense and realistic acting from the actor). You can believe these excruciating scenes seem painfully real, as Watkins/Hawkins genuinely excretes animosity, to the other actors, to the audience. At moments during the filming, another cameraman would move the lens of his 16mm camera towards the screen we see. The audience is almost made implicit to the horrific torture played out on screen, the camera now staring into your eyes, watching you viewing gruesome terror.

The film has many of these harsh and morally contentious moments. You do question yourself whilst watching. It actually does appear to have been made by a psychopath. In one strange sequence, a man is forced to suck on an animals hoof that is protruding from the unzipped trousers of a woman. There is a lot of pseudo-Grecian mythological iconography here. Masks and mild symbolism can be seen in the 'rituals' of the torture/killings.

It is an exercise in sadism, much more gruesome than modern day torture- porn (also known as gorenography) such as Hostel, or the Saw franchise. This is because it gets under our skin with its deep-rooted malevolence, and its ability to almost scrutinise us. The amateurish style of the film really adds to this. The original cut of the film, has been authorised by Watkins, was nearly 3 hours long. Not sure if could handle the 'directors cut' for this one. Filmed in New York, it could almost have been an Andy Warhol film, before Paul Morrissey started directing movies for Andy Warhol Productions. I'm doubtful that I will ever watch this film again.

www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

A gory nugget of gold lost on the dusty video store shelf.

[Kelly G. · 8/10 · 27 February 1999]

Every fan of horror cinema enjoys searching the back recesses of their local video store looking for that those obscure little gems that they can call their own. "Last House on Dead End Street" is one of my favorite flicks, a movie so obscure, I've only been able to find it at one video store. (And I bought their copy when they went out of business, so THERE!)

This bargain-basement production has a small-time director of homemade porno films discovering that his distributor no longer wants to buy his movies, claiming that they are boring. Desperate to find something new, he discovers a brutal series of "snuff" films made by an ex-convict and his demented friends. Realizing that actual death on tape could be the next big thing, but unwilling to make a film himself, he steals some the convict's movies and takes the credit for himself. When the true filmmakers discover what happened, they kidnap both the thieving director, the distributor, and their respective wives for an evening of torture and humilation back at their wharehouse hideout, all of it to be captured on tape for another "snuff" film.

Sure this is disgusting with all manner of nasty acts committed by sleazy characters. But what makes this memorable in my book is its suprising sense of humor. This film about snuff directors is actually designed to look like a snuff film itself, with credits that consist entirely of pseudonyms, grainy handheld camera work, and even a movie box that is tailored to look homemade. It's that creepy attitude that, along with the look of the film, is something that just can't be duplicated. Happy hunting!

It gets rough.

[BandSAboutMovies · 7/10 · 7 October 2020]

Somehow, some way, this movie played the Cannes and Berlin Film Festivals in 1973 as The Cuckoo Clocks of Hell. It also was named The Fun House, which is possibly how Tobe Hooper's The Funhouse became a video nasty. It was finally released in 1979 under this title by Cinematic Releasing Corporation, who tried to pass it off as a film connected to The Last House On the Left.

Because every name the film is a pseudonym and no one came forward to claim making this movie, there were rumors for years that this was a real snuff movie. In 2000, Roger Watkins came forward to take ownership, even telling how Otto Preminger had gifted him with the Bolex camera he used to film the snuff sequences. He was also hooked on amphetamine while making it, spending $2,200 of the movies $3,000 budget on drugs.

Watkins, who apprenticed with Freddie Francis and Nicholas Ray, would go on to make several adult films under the name Richard Mahler. His films Her Name Was Lisa and Corruption are less porn than art movies with penetration.

Let me state this up front: this movie is not for those looking for an easy watch.

Terry Hawkins just got out of jail for a year on drug charges and wants to make something beyond pornography. He wants to capture murder on film. He rounds up a crew of like-minded people and gets Jim and Nancy Palmer involved. Jim's a porn director who says that people are getting too desensitized. Terry's just the guy to shock everyone.

From real animal mutilation to people being forced to orally satisfy goat hooves - and oh yeah, body parts being torn apart while smelling salts are used to keep people awake - this is a movie about horrible people doing horrible things.

As for the square up reel at the end, where a voiceover claims everyone was punished for their crimes, distributor Leon Fentonand his assistant Bernie Travis added that as they felt that some punishment had to be delivered to the bad guys. Watkins felt that this ruined the film.

Don't believe the hype.

[Thom-P · 1/10 · 7 February 2000]

I'd heard a lot about this film over the years and a friend recently sent me a copy which I just finished screening. In my opinion, its notoriety is totally unwarranted. There is nothing disturbing or even remotely unsettling about it, except for the fact that some people think it's a good movie. They speak of its aesthetic qualities and how the grainy images (looks like it was shot on super-8) lend an authentic feel, but for the life of me I can't see how considering the amateur acting and dime store special effects, not to mention that all of the dialogue and sound was obviously post-dubbed and completely out of sync.

I expected something uneasy along the lines of Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer and Clean, Shaven, but with less production value. Or perhaps subversive cinema in the tradition of Cannibal Holocaust and Nekromantik. Instead, I saw a film which barely rivals the 8mm movies I used to make with friends back in high school. Come to think of it, if Dead End Street can do it, I should dig out all my old reels and string them into a feature. Heck, I may have a cult hit on my hands! What a joke...

In its original form, this film is unspeakably scary

[cassruss2000 · 9 August 2003]

While I applaud Barrel Entertainment's supreme efforts to create the definitive video version of Roger Watkins' The Last House On Dead End Street, I suspect that the greater availability of this title, especially in this package, is unlikely to draw the film any new fans.

Available now in a wonderful 2-disc DVD full of extras, The Last House On Dead End Street has been completely demystified. While for many years this title existed only as a rare find, an urban legend of sorts--more talked about than actually seen, it now exists for everyone to see, warts and all, and sadly, it's unlikely to impress the more jaded viewers who've seen all the more technically accomplished films that have come along in its wake. For its time, this film was like nothing else...uncompromising and unspeakably scary.

As someone who first saw this film (or had it forced upon him) as a Venezuelan bootleg (with Spanish subtitles, no less!), it worked its spell on me like something that was forbidden, evil and not meant to be seen. You see, there was a time when NO ONE knew who made this film, what its purpose was or if it was real--kind of like a real life "Ringu", if you will. The act of viewing it made you feel uneasy, scared and not a little unclean. The fact that the version I saw was a copy of a copy of a dozen others only added a layer of mystery to it. The imagery was dark, the sound dull, making it all seem much more real. For years I've wanted to know more about this movie, and now I do, thanks to Barrel Entertainment. It's nice to know that Roger Watkins is actually a rather pleasant and intelligent filmmaker with a good sense of humor and not the dark gangster type I imagined "Victor Janos" to be. It's also great to know just what went into the making of this film, and I appreciate it as a genuine work of art and labor of love more than ever before. This DVD is a genuine treasure for all those fans of the film who were as affected and haunted by it as I was.

Pathetic crap.

[digger-06358 · 2/10 · 2 July 2019]

I mostly enjoy horror, gore, bondage, visual oddities and the like. There is nothing in this film that makes me like anything about it. Lunatic makes snuff films killing people that have wronged him. That is the entire plot and story. Production value is worse than home video. Performers are either the worst actors money could buy, or were institutionalised and this was part of their punishment for their crimes. It disgusts me that other reviewers have the nerve to compare this crap to any other movie made other than that it might be the worst ever. There is no point to be made here. Nothing about this made me think it could ever be anything real. If a movie can't do that then why bother?

Stay away from this garbage. There is nothing here that is either entertaining or worthy of the time wasted. I hope that the real people involved in this never worked again if this is an indication of what they can do.

Didn't do a damn thing for me.

[ElijahCSkuggs · 3/10 · 1 April 2008]

It's not often I'm disappointed by a gritty, disturbing flick. Hell, I can probably count them on one hand. Well, looks like I got another one. Last House on Dead End Street, has been repped to me by a number of people. And I have no clue why. It may be one of the first snuff- based stories out there, but hell, that doesn't make it a good one.

It's just so, damn, dull. It took me three attempts to finish it actually. Usually I enjoy the grit and the grime movies give off, but this is just something completely different. It felt like these people embodied grit. Sh!t, and I would be one to say that is a cool thing to say about characters in a flick. Man, I'm confusing myself. It was just a very uninteresting, and uneventful flick. When things took place, you didn't give a damn. Well, I didn't give a damn, or a sh!t.

The movie wasn't a total bust afterall though. I did appreciate some of the camera-work. It was amateurish, but once in a while they'd hit this noir-type cinematography that looked pretty cool and stylish. But it was most likely just a fluke luck shot. And even though I disliked almost every single character I did like the lead, a little. The raspy voice, the alright delivery, the sketchy look...it worked.

LHonDES is a hardcore flick. It's perverse, gritty, amateurish, and just a tough watch. But it's a tough watch for all the wrong reasons. And surprisingly, not a single scene of the snuff shots were even slightly disturbing. But again, it's a flick for a specific crowd. Even if you call yourself a fan of gritty exploit flicks, beware, this still may not be for you.

Unbelievably dark and strange

[Sandcooler · 7/10 · 19 December 2013]

"Last House On Dead End Street" was allegedly made by an entire cast and crew of heroin addicts, and that definitely helped to make this movie as sleazy and unpleasant as possible. It also helps that none of these people were even identified until 2002. All the credits are actually pseudonyms, mostly the kind of pseudonyms people with dysfunctional brains would logically come up with. Produced by Norman F. Kaiser, directed by Victor Janos, those are the kind of names you come up with when you're 17 and you're trying to buy liquor. It gives this movie plenty of mystique, but it's more than just mystique it has to offer. It's genuinely fairly well-made, stylish and shocking, and it deals with its shortcomings well. All the audio is dubbed in, but while occasionally it looks and sounds like crap it's generally handled pretty well (masking the characters for the ending scenes was a good fetch). The cheap gore effects also look pretty real if you have no idea how effects work, to this day some (badly informed) people still claim this is an actual snuff film. It isn't quite realistic enough to make that mistake, but this is a very grim underground flick. Not the recipe for an all-too-pleasant evening, but it's definitely something you...need to watch? Have to watch? I don't know, but it's a strangely fascinating ride into the darkest pits of filmmaking.

it does have an indescribable energy to it

[Jonny_Numb · 5/10 · 23 January 2003]

"The Last House on Dead-End Street" is overrated (at least on this board), but does have a certain energy that left me compelled, albeit in a manipulative way. The film has an ex-con who, in order to make some money after getting out of jail, starts making snuff films (which, by the way, are ill-conceived and generally unconvincing) for a group of rich weirdos who "have nothing better to do but sit around and watch pornos all day." Uh huh. Anyway, the con eventually gets fed up with the weirdos and gives them a taste of their own medicine one fateful night.

There are a lot of technical problems with this film, particularly the poor lighting (and the resulting grainy image--the movie's two dominant colors are yellow and purple) and the soundtrack, which was obviously dubbed in post-production. The way the scenes are edited to flash back from past, to present, to past again is often confusing. And the acting...well, what needs to be said? For a movie that's trying to capture 'realism', some of the performances are awfully self-conscious.

However, "Last House" is a video nasty that's so RARE it does warrant a certain exclusive pleasure upon viewing it. The grainy image does help capture a low-rent, bowels-of-hell feel to the settings and characters, and lends some scenes an intensity they wouldn't have otherwise. The amateurish acting (including Roger Watkins' commanding, OTT performance) is sometimes a source of unintentional laughs, and the resulting murder scenes do have grueling relentlessness to them. Not quite garbage and not quite gold, this "Last House" rests snugly in the middle of "Last House on the Left" and "I Spit on Your Grave."

5/10

The most depraved film I've ever seen

[Casey-52 · 9/10 · 11 December 2000]

Snuff films have been and forever will be a very powerful urban legend. The idea that underground filmmakers kidnap people and graphically murder them on film, then make profits from selling the tapes through the black market is an intriguing one and would help explain the rash of unexplained disappearances every year. But it is also a wholly unbelievable idea. LAST HOUSE ON DEAD END STREET uses this idea to create its horror, most of which is genuine, but it's also hard to call entertainment at the same time.

Terry Hawkins, a drug dealer, is just out of prison. He decides to make a horror film with the help of two sadistic prostitutes, a porno cameraman, and a bestial pervert. His crew kidnap three people and graphically murder them in an abandoned warehouse. That's about it. There's also some S&M, softcore sex, real footage of cows having their throats cut in a slaughterhouse (gross!), and really bad "adults only" footage.

DEAD END STREET was obviously made to cash in on the success of LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT, which is a much superior film. Yet DEAD END still manages to be as effective as LAST HOUSE in an eerie kind of way. The film itself has a grainy, washed-out look, making it look authentic, has awkward post-dubbing, and a pretty claustrophobic and terrifying set in the old warehouse. Steven Morrison, who plays Terry Hawkins, is also the director under a pseudonym. He does a pretty good job, but nobody else does. The first half of the film is rather dull, but the second half is an endurance test in many ways. There is undying tension in some of the buildup to the gory butchery and the "surgery" scene will no doubt have many viewers turning from the screen in disgust. While the special effects are not top-notch, they are rather believable and the fact that they are overdone on grainy film stock and are badly lit make them all the more effective.

LAST HOUSE ON DEAD END STREET is a film I could never recommend to anyone with a clear conscience. It would be like condemning them to the rack, as this film can be seen as a form of torture. I have no idea why so many people have rated this film a 10 on the IMDB, it's not THAT good, but it something special in the annals of horror. Many people still have not seen it, making it a great triumph for those who managed to survive the viewing. Recommended to those who think they can take it, but believe me, this is really strong, graphic, demented stuff.

"This isn't even a movie, this is for real!"

[Stevieboy666 · 7/10 · 30 April 2022]

A young man, fresh out of prison, makes a horror movie but instead of using special effects he and his crew kill people for real, on camera. Hence this is a snuff movie. Only it isn't as people weren't really killed, they obviously nipped to their local butcher and got a load of animal guts etc. I used to have a VHS bootleg of this, the picture quality was barely watchable but the mystery factor that surrounded this movie made it highly desirable to gore and video nasty addicts such as myself. Now I have it on DVD, they obviously used a VHS rip but at least it is perfectly watchable. Like Abel Ferrara in Driller Killer Roger Watkins both acted and directed Last House. The film was obviously shot on a shoestring budget using non-actors but that helps make it more "believable". It is a nasty, sleazy and disturbing film but also compelling and thought provoking. We know that this is not a real snuff movie but surely out there such things must exist, and that is a scary thought. Gore films were nothing new but to come up with the idea of making a "snuff" movie in 1973 makes this ahead of its time and it would be three decades later when torture porn became mainstream. I am sure that that vast majority of the general public would have no appetite for this film but to those of us who enjoy dark Grindhouse movies then Dead End Street has cult status.

cannot recall viewing a worse film than this......ever

[omar-32 · 1/10 · 6 July 2005]

simply atrocious on every level imaginable........couldn't't be any worse than it is, surely. gives cult movies a bad name- the acting is abysmal, the plot stinks and the gore recalls HG Lewis at his most inspired. The film is a miserable, depressing mess from beginning to end and now that it is readily available on DVD, the aura of mystery around the film has also evaporated leaving it exposed as a worthless piece of drivel that it is. Basically just a cheap and dire rip off of Last House on the Left, which is a majestic work of art in comparison to this turgid garbage. Only for die hard horror fiends who simply have to watch everything

The stuff of legend

[longlivethenewflesh · 8/10 · 5 March 2006]

It is doubtful that any movie could live up to the hype surrounding this movie, but in spite of the reputation that precedes it, it still manages to jar the viewer with it's no-holds-barred approach and the atmosphere of vindictiveness that pervades it.

Director Roger Watkins, a film student at the time, set out to make this movie as "Cuckoo Clocks Of Hell" in 1972, after which the film was all but lost until it was edited and released under it's present title in 1977. Apparently Watkins' original cut of the film was around three hours long, so thank your lucky stars it's this version that is available to viewers today. Even at 77 minutes, it's a little long as the story is undeniably thin and the acting amateurish, although Watkins own portrayal of Terry Hawkins is suitably unhinged.

This film has become legendary due to it's uncertain history and allegations that it was a genuine 'snuff' movie. All of the credits used on this film were pseudonyms; most of the technical duties on this film were handled by Watkins under a variety of different names. It was only in 2001 that Watkins came forward and admitted to making the movie. As for the 'snuff' claims, clearly they were made by people who were unfamiliar with the actual content of the film, as no snuff film in history would come with a background story about a guy getting out of prison, rounding up a cast and crew and finding financial backers to pay for the production of his movie. None of that would be necessary for a snuff film. The conceit of the movie - that the easiest way to make the footage look genuine is to kill people for real - plays like an extremely sick joke.

This has the look of an arty student film, and although the film stock used was fairly poor and some scenes are badly lit, this only enhances the menacing atmosphere of this insidious movie. With a limited budget, Watkins saves the gore for the second half of the film, but when it comes it doesn't disappoint, and a few of these scenes have become legendary. Ultimately though, it's the mean-spirited vibe that stays with you.

So strap yourself in and prepare for one mean mother of a movie that nearly lives up to the hype, and while you're there, try to imagine how someone in his right mind could pad this out to three hours! Any way you look at it, if you are at all interested in gore films, this one is a must-see.

7th time is a charm

[realityinmind · 1/10 · 15 May 2023]

I'm sorry, but this movie sucks. Straight up. If it is going to be rated/reviewed in a reasonable manner that holds the movie up against other films that were released during that time and had similar budgets, then.... it sucks. It is poor quality all around. Technically speaking it is abhorrent. The lighting, the cinematography, the sound recording... its all horrible. The script (is there even a script?), the dialogue, the acting, the actors... all garbage.

The movie is so boring. I tried to watch it for real.... you know, pay attention and allow myself to become engrossed in the film, suspend my disbelief and really take it all in... And its just gross. In all honesty it basically equates with boring pornography from 1973. THAT is what this movie should be compared to. Because this is not a regular, straightforward film. It is just a horrible, horrible soft-core pornography film from 1973. And even in that regard it is super poor quality.

Pop your popcorn and sit on the couch and transport yourself into the boring, lame, unbelievable (not shocking unbelievable but "I just don't believe you" unbelievable) world of whoever this wannabe gangster is, And fall asleep. Need to ween yourself off of sleeping medication? THIS should be your medication of choice! Abhorrent.