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.

This is what I call a guilty pleasure movie it's not something to be proud to like even if you are a fan. Terry Hawkins who just got out of jail goes to a collage to make student films Terry and his crew work on Extreme movies with no limit. The first half of the movie is the film crew working on and viewing shocking short films filled with sex and violence one movie is of a slaughter house cows getting hung up and cut another one is two girls making out and a dog walks by the scene. There's an S&m movie with a woman in black-face gets whipped a young child is carrying the whip for the man to whip her. One of the members of Terrys group wants to make new versions of stag films it's 50 Min's in that the movie becomes a horror and Terry really goes over the edge. The sounds and voice's echo like there in sound room the lighting is so dark the if someone is in a dark room you can hardly see them it's also on of the seediest grungiest movies i have every seen but it has some good in it and it's just what it wants to be. This movie had some controversy when it came out people thought it might cause some people to commit crimes maybe it would if they were unstable to begin with.

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

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.