La casa del diablo

Ti West seems destined to be one of those horror film directors who forever will polarise opinions. For those of us who love the slow burn approach and admire his evident adoration of retro horror, then he hits the mark. Reference The House of the Devil and latterly The Innkeepers. If those two things don't strike a chord with you then it's very likely that The House of the Devil will drive you nuts - but not in a good way.

Plot is simple, Jocelin Donahue plays student Samantha Hughes, who has found the ideal apartment to live in, but needs funds to pay the deposit. Sooooo, answering a flyer advertising for a babysitter, she winds up at some spooky house out in the sticks, where the job isn't exactly what was as expected, and, well the night isn't as expected either...

It's her own fault really, if you ring the bell at a spooky isolated house and Tom Noonan answers the door, well then you should know better than not to run away! But I digress. West's film taps into the satanic panic that gripped certain parts of the states in the 70s and 80s, set in the early 80s the film is a vibrant homage to that era, with a real sense of time and place pulsing away as Samantha is set up for a night of god knows what.

The house is a splendid old creaker and within it Samantha always looks to be one cat's whisker away from being in peril. West doesn't go for continuous boo-jump scares, he lets us and Samantha use our imaginations to unnerve all parties. The screw is slowly turned until hell comes to the party, moving things swiftly to a frenetic finale that closes with a final denouement that old nick himself would approve of.

Dee Wallace Stone does a cameo to add more to the retro flavours, while Noonan and Donahue are superb. It's a film that is patient and asks you for your patience, so those of that ilk, and retro horror hounds too, will love it. Others, not so! 7/10

I don't understand that scene where she finds an apartment to rent - yes, it shows she needs money (as does the interminable amount of scenes showing her current living situation is ... ahem ... "untenable"), but none of this is necessary to the plot (they basically wrote a short B- grade student film and needed 70 minutes of "filler"). Why doesn't Tom Noonan initially keep their appointment, why does a knife slash from the level of someone lying down hit a large standing guy in the throat, why does it upset me that so much of a horror movie is utterly nonsensical and the heroes' actions are that of a blithering moron who has never seen a horror movie or been scared for a second in her life (well, that one's easy to answer - it's because it is incredibly lazy writing), why does it annoy me that so many horror fans think that this is something they need to settle for ?? No doubt the film-maker would say this is a pastiche of 1980's horror movies, and as such was MEANT to be bad, but the cynical part of me wants to say that until I've seen better from this film-maker, pastiches of bad 1980's horrors is where he should stay.

the best thing about this movie is that it is based upon the 80s style horror & thrillers.The film makers really deserve an appreciation for this one.The acting was good,the scenes were well crafted and so all this makes it worth watching,at least for me it did,also because it is based upon a true story(unexplained events)which makes a movie quite interesting (rather than boring).Its not spine chilling or anything like that but still makes an impression on the viewer.I give this one 6.5/10,its pretty decent for a thriller like this one but yes there will be some who would say that it does not contain enough material or terror but as i said its worth watching and you would not regret this one...enjoy!!!

In the 1980s, college student Samantha Hughes (Jocelin Donahue) takes a strange babysitting job that coincides with a full lunar eclipse. She slowly realizes her clients harbor a terrifying secret.

I absolutely love that director Ti West did everything he could to make this come off as a 1980s movie -- the style, the 16mm camera, releasing the film in a clam shell box (I am surprised they actually allowed this last one). Opinions vary, but I think it is safe to say the (modern) golden age for horror was the 1980s. And here we are, adding another 80s film to the list (sort of).

West also managed to hire genre actors Tom Noonan, Dee Wallace and Mary Woronov for the picture, which I think fans appreciate. Larry Fessenden served as a producer, and this may be the best project Fessenden was ever attached to.

What I find as strange is how this film is very highly rated by people. Not that it is a bad film. I enjoyed it. But I think it is interesting that the film gets a lot of credit for working in the 1980s style. Had this identical film come out in the 1980s, it may have hardly registered among its peers. This film rides the wave of nostalgia... and it rides it well.

I find it impossible to give this movie less than a seven, because, even if the ending was absolutely a letdown, the first 80% of the movie was so excellently constructed that its cinematic value cannot be lessened too greatly.

And excellent The House of the Devil is for most of its duration. Director/Writer/Editor Ti West shows a remarkable proficiency for being able to truly scare, through an excellent slow-burn build-up, allowing the atmosphere of the titular house and the anticipation for when it is inevitably released to bring a viewer to nail-biting fear, rather than simply trying to startle with constant Boo! Got'cha! "scares," or excessive gore. In the end, this method is far more effective and lasting, less artificial than the latter methods which seem to, unfortunately, be the bread and butter of modern American horror filmmakers.

However, when the denouement rolls around, this is completely thrown out the window. Sure, the gore may look nice (and indeed it does; not top of the line, but it belies the film's budget), but it completely abandons House's almost regal sense of restraint that worked so effectively for nearly the entire length of the movie. Not to mention, the transition in styles is itself so jarring that I was pulled from the experience for nearly 10 minutes, an unfortunate occurrence when that covers almost the entire duration of the remainder. The release of the built up fear was clumsy and ineffective, and the effect of the movie after the credits rolled was erased. I wasn't left with the feeling that something could be lurking just out of sight over my shoulder that the best horror movies provide; a tension that extends beyond the movie's run-time. This problem I believe to later be solved by Ti West's later film "The Innkeepers," a picture I believe (and seemingly in the minority) to be the superior movie.

However, despite its eventual letdown, the remainder of House of the Devil was truly a horror experience I rarely see from recent American horror films, this difference between House of the Devil and its peers thrown into sharp relief by the clearly nostalgic feel it gives off, even from the opening credits. Even the grainy camera shots add a sense of, for lack of a better word, enjoyable "retro" style, rather than becoming a detriment. And the camera work itself is also exemplary, snaking and twisting its way among the oppressive halls of the house that seems more an antique than something to be lived in.

The House of the Devil is unquestionably a good movie. For most of the film, I was completely drawn in, waiting with a rising anticipation to see what was lurking around the corner; The House of the Devil is truly scary even with its superficial sense of the mundane. Nothing is shown, save for one particularly haunting shot of what lies behind a door that remains (at least temporarily) unopened, and it is all the better for that. But this is before (please excuse the pun) everything goes to Hell at the climax. I'd certainly recommend this film; just don't expect the release to be able to come close to matching the rising action.