House of Last Things

I saw "House of Last Things" at the Gerardmer French Film Festival for its last screening. It was a sincere, surreal and quite uncommon experience as if "The Shining" met "Twin Peaks". A deep voyage into the ways how a house (or other locations) can change the psyche of a human being. The cast (the main character really reminds me of Laura Palmer) succeeds in conveying a notion of change and exchange within/between characters little by little as the plot unveils itself through a mirror construction. Open your eyes and ears and let the music of both the director (with his flow of stunning images) and the composers take you through this voyage.

I decided to watch this film, on Netflix, with no prior knowledge about it. That probably about as unbiased as one can get.

Honestly, I do not understand how this film got a 6+ rating. I'm sure there's some kind of plot to this, but I didn't understand the film at all. I watched 40 minutes - didn't understand it, but I decided to give it a chance and finish the last hour, and it still made no sense to me.

Overall, it seems like a haunted house possession sort of thing. The writer/director just doesn't seem to have much grip on telling a good story, and I've seen better films with lower budgets. I'm not sure I want to see any more of this guy's work.

The only points I'll give are for some decent acting and creative imagery. 2/10

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.

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.

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.