House of Last Things

Never wrote a review before and will probably never do it again, unless it's to stop using IMDb as a source of miss-leading people to watch a horrible movie like this one. The whole value of the movie is terrible. I'm what you would call a film fanatic so I watch pretty much everything and yes I have seen worse then this, but if you are an average viewer who wants an average flick just stay away from this one ... if no you can spend the first 15 minutes watching and instantly know why i wrote this .... you have been warned. Hope I help to put the film in the spot where it should be and that's definitely below 5/10. I urge others who have seen these to write what they think about it as well so we can help others avoid this.

Thank you all.

When Sarah (Diane Dalton) returns home in Oregon from a mental institution, her husband Alan (Randy Schulman), who is a critic of classical music, tells that they will travel to watch operas in Italy since he will write articles about them. Sarah does not want to travel but Alan introduces the hot Kelly (Lindsey Haun) to her telling that she will be the caretaker of the house. When they leave the house, the small-time criminal Jesse (Blake Berris), who is Kelly's boyfriend, unexpectedly arrives at the house. Then Kelly's unintelligent brother Tim (RJ Mitte) arrives to stay with his sister in the house. Kelly had a love affair with Alan and feels comfortable in the house. Meanwhile Jesse steals Alan's convertible to sell to a dealer but he sees the boy Adam (Micah Nelson) alone in the supermarket and decides to bring him home to ransom him despite the protest of Kelly that seeks out his parents. Adam feels good in the house and soon they learn that the house is haunted but they surprisingly stay there. Meanwhile in Italy, secrets are disclosed about the past of Alan, Sarah and Adam and why Sarah had a mental breakdown.

"House of Last Things" is a flawed and weird film with a non- chronological screenplay that explains most of the mysteries and is worthwhile watching. The story is intriguing and disclosed like a puzzle but there is lack of explanation for many things, such as who is the bizarre lady that visits Alan and Kelly; or the reference to the Garden of Eden. The cast has great performances and the unknown Lindsey Haun is very sexy. The final transformation of Kelly and Jesse is certainly inspired in David Lynch. In the end, "House of Last Things" is an original film of haunted house. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): Not Available

HOUSE OF LAST THINGS is one of those rare filmmaking triumphs where the audience is engaged via a near-perfect balance of the real and the fantastic. Director/Screenwriter Michael Bartlett certainly knows his references and his blending of those references with his own unique voice have produced a story rich in nuance and atmosphere, yet still sufficiently supernatural to satisfy audiences who are bent in that direction. Special mention must go to the fine performances of principals Lindsey Haun, Blake Berris, and RJ Mitte, but also to Diane Dalton as well, who wears her all-consuming grief like a layer of ash. Rene Berndt's art design is marvelous, and cinematographer Ken Kelsch's gorgeous photography seethes richness, luster and mystery.

This is a wonderful film.

Not sure how i came across this particular film, whether it was recommended by a friend or found on an IMDb list, but I would like to point out that i am NOT a friend or family member of the film maker, and just spent nearly two hours watching a great film, quite by chance.

Then i came here and read all these terrible reviews, probably from people that think that Die Hard is the pinnacle of intelligent film making. Calling it Lynchian would be unfair to the film maker - only David Lynch is allowed to be Lynchian, anyone else getting that description is usually a pile of crap! Having said that there were definite Lynch moments, although more often than not it reminded me very much of Luis Buñuel more than anyone.

The main thing i found interesting about this was the editing and the way it wafted in between characters / scenarios / continents with the help of a little light classical. These tricks have occasionally been done before, but like i said, not so much since the days of surrealism. They were certainly refreshing for a modern flick, and were effective and occasionally disturbing.

To all the people who talked this interesting film down - there is more than one way to tell a story, it doesn't always have to be literal, and i guess that you're perhaps too stupid to appreciate something more impressionistic? Good luck with the next intallment of Harry Potter.

And thanks to the film maker, can't wait for your next one, or the one after - am fairly sure you have at least one masterpiece in you, maybe more.

What makes a good genre film for me is if the director and writer, in this case one and the same, can immerse me believably into a world I haven't walked before, enough in fact for me to turn off my cell phone. This movie is very seductive in that it doesn't play out within the tired cliché of a creepy old house and keeps you guessing throughout, building something like a narrative maze not unlike the famous Kubrick garden maze in The Shining. However, I don't think it's really fair or correct to compare this director with his obvious linage, Hitchcock, Lynch, DePalma, etc. as mentioned by so many other reviewers. This is a director with a mind of his own, quite willing to go his own way inside a genre that has been sabotaged over the years by too many under-schooled directors flooding the screen with blood and gore indiscriminately. This one surprised me. Much better than I expected.