Lancoor A very feeble attempt at affirmatie action

Ketrivie It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Zandra The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Woodyanders Angry young punk Terry Hawkins (fiercely played with seething rage and intensity by writer/director Roger Watkins) gets released from prison after serving a sentence for selling drugs. Bitter and vindictive at the world that has shunned him, Terry decides to strike back by making his own snuff movies.With its unsparingly seedy'n'sadistic tone, grainy washed-out cinematography, suffocating atmosphere of total moral decay and raw undiluted evil, droning synthesizer score complete with a prominent pulsating heartbeat on the soundtrack, grungy locations, uniformly hateful, revolting, and sympathetic characters (Terry in particular is a super resentful piece of foul misanthropic work), and jolting outbursts of harsh and graphic violence (gruesome highlights include a drill bit to the head and a woman who's been tied to a table having her legs sawed off prior to being eviscerated), this resolutely grim'n'grimy scuzzfest possesses a potent nihilistic edge that delivers quite a vicious kick right to the teeth. Extremely ugly and unpleasant stuff for sure, but undeniably powerful and unsettling just the same.

Mr_Ectoplasma In 1972, Roger Watkins filmed this macabre picture about a disgruntled ex-con named Terry Hawkins who decides to kidnap four people and, with the help of his "crew" of movie makers, film their murders inside an abandoned building-turned makeshift studio. Originally running at almost three hours long, the film was re-titled numerous times and the original cut became a lost film, leaving us with the 78 minute "Last House on Dead End Street" as we know it today.Quite frankly, this is maybe the most nihilistic film I have ever seen. It parallels works like Wes Craven's "Last House on the Left" in both title and grisliness, but it's about ten shades darker because, unlike in that movie, there is no subtle humor here to provide even the slightest relief; there is no safety in this film. Like many have said, the entire film plays out like a bad dream, and even worse than that, it's a bad dream that looks like a Manson family home movie. The narrative is basic, almost skeletal, but that's not really the point of the film— what we have here ultimately is a stylish exercise in unease and demoralization. The film was made, literally, on less than a thousand dollars (Watkins admitted he used a great deal of the film's budget to buy drugs), and amazingly is not brought down by its budgetary shortcomings.The photography in the film is apt and sometimes borders on surreal, with the camera following Hawkins and his group of hippie auxiliaries; armed with hand-held cameras, they don sinister translucent doll faces and oversized Zardoz masks as they gallivant through the abandoned building, torturing and killing their abductees. The self-reflexive murder scenes are indisputably the hallmark of the picture, and they are grotesque; drills, amateur surgeries, and branding sticks— need I say more? It is horrendous and shockingly realistic even today, so it's no wonder that it was rumored to be real thirty years ago.If the trippy visuals and macabre murder sequences aren't enough to perturb, the nightmarish sound design is. According to the director, the soundtrack and sound design was comprised of stock music and soundbites which were purchased for less than a hundred bucks from a New York sound company. Had I not been made aware of this, I would have never had a clue, because the sonic makeup of the film is actually quite sophisticated. Granted, the dubbing is not great (yes, the film was dubbed), but the haunting choral score and orchestral musical accompaniment add a whole other layer to the film. The expansive, ethereal ambiance that is evoked from the score is in sharp contrast with the claustrophobic world of grit, grime, and grisliness on screen, and the film packs even more of a wallop because of it; the eerie score is punctuated by borderline-Socratic voice overs from Hawkins as he audaciously affirms his convictions.Given the resources used to make this film, it truly is an incredible achievement. In spite of the dirt around the edges, it is well-made and almost spiritually disturbing, but above all else, it is an unusually insightful film that has more substance than one would expect or demand from an exploitation flick. "The Last House on Dead End Street" is perhaps the most unnerving and haunting film I have ever seen, bar none. It is a living, breathing nightmare; a meditation on death and power, and an exposition of depravity. 10/10.

Sandcooler "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.

The_Void 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.