I Am the Pretty Thing That Lives in the House

First reviewed on broth of blogs.This movie about a nurse Lily (Ruth Wilson) who comes to take care of an old author, Iris Blum, living alone in a remote house. Iris is almost senile and speaks to Lily only referring to her as Polly. Lily finds out that Polly was Iris's most famous character and she attempts reading one of the books that Iris has written. And something happens.

The story is simple enough but is still cryptic. I didn't get a few parts but I don't think I care. It is about the forgotten lives in the house. The movie is poetic (literally) and I quite enjoyed it.

Characterization and Acting (C&A)

Characterization was done well, I would have probably liked some exposition but I think this movie is supposed to be puzzling. Ruth Wilson plays the part to perfection - scared, vulnerable and alone. She really looks like she is going to have a heart attack anytime. Its totally her show as she probably has 80 minutes screen time of 90 minutes of the movie.

Sounds and Effects (S&E)

The background of this movie is just mind blowing. It is the scariest I have heard till date. Has this weird ability to spook you as well even if nothing scary is happening. Full points here. There weren't any jump scares and it is all left to your imagination at the end.

Cinematography and Visuals (C&V)

Like I said the movie is poetic. It is slow, there isn't much of a story but it moves you and creeps you out. They didn't overdo the actual horror which works in the movie's favor. The lighting was great and the setting itself eerie. Great stuff.

Direction and Overall (D &O)

Overall, the movie looked and sounded great. The acting was really good I thought. Only complaint I have is that maybe it could have had a little more exposition to actually understand some stuff which wasn't clear.

So here are my scores:

Plot and Script (P&S)- 1

Characterization and Acting (C&A) – 1

Sounds and Effects (S&E) – 2.0

Cinematography and Visuals (C&V) – 1.5

Direction and Overall (D &O) – 1

Overall Score – 6.5 out of 10

Good watch for Halloween 2016! Just be patient, the movie is not as long as its title!!

The acting was subtle and well done, the story was intriguing (if its potential was never fully met), and the near silent tone of the movie was a strength more than a drawback. There will be unanswered questions, and that annoys a lot of people. If you are like me and prefer to leave with questions, you will appreciate this flick more.

I don't think the criticism calling it boring it fair. A lot is going on in the background if you pay attention. It reminds me of Victorian ghost stories. Not everything has to be extreme to be worth viewing.

All in all it has its problems, but worth watching if you don't mind a slow build.

A young nurse takes care of elderly author who lives in a haunted house.

This film seems to be getting negative responses from people, at least if I take IMDb as any sort of serious guide. At this time (January 2017) it sits at 4.8, which isn't awful but is certainly far from great. Having now seen the film, I find the low rating surprising. The acting is great, and there is nothing wrong with the film as far as technical matters go.

My guess is that people have the wrong mindset. The film was promoted by Rue Morgue, among others, and maybe people got caught up in some hype of Oz Perkins or misunderstood. Much like the recent Guillermo del Toro ghost story, people need to see this type of horror (the "gothic romance") as different from what they expect. It might be slower and there will be less blood. But it is about creating a mood, which I think this film does rather well.

The curiously titled I Am the Pretty Thing That Lives in the House opened with interesting visuals and fantastic narration, true be told I was gripped from the outset.

It tells the story of a nurse who moves in with an old lady who was once a successful author. To say anything more would spoil it, to say anything more would also be difficult as it's rather hard to explain.

So as mentioned the visuals were great and the narration solid, sadly the visuals don't last and the narration isn't enough to save the film. Not even remotely.

The film is certainly unique but I'm not quite sure who it'll appeal to, certainly not someone seeking a horror. It's an unusual little slow burning tale that had me interested but all the while I waited for it to get going.

Alas the movie though charming fails to deliver on any front, at least for me.

The Good:

Really unique style

Great narration

Bob Balaban

The Bad:

Really dull

Goes nowhere

Things I Learnt From This Movie:

Ghosts are made by looking for them but pretending not to see

28yrs old? Hahahahahahahahahahahaha NO!

Wow, is this movie ever pretty. Aptly named.

I was captured by the very first scene of the girl in the dress. Like a painting from the futurism style, it blends movement and motion into a final still, out of focus, and it looks stunning on the mostly black big screen. All of this is overlayed with narration that is simply perfectly spoken (which is consistent for the film, a beautiful read), but more importantly beautifully written. The narration, which comprises most of the spoken lines of the film, is more a poem than a movie script, and I appreciated it for it. The image was a painting, the words were literature, as a whole the film was successful as an art piece.

It revolves around a live-in nurse moving into a house to care for an old author who used to write horror books. The nurse starts experiencing subtle signs of a haunting, and finds a strange connection between what is happening to her and one of the author's most famous books.

As an idea, it was the kind of quiet horror I love, channeling fear through the uncanny, like old written weird fiction (my mind took me back to reading the Yellow Wallpaper by Gilman). Fear is not even the right word, as nothing about the film is scary, really. More like a feeling of wrongness with the world, an existential dread of sorts.

Not to detract from the beauty of the art on display, which was anything but shallow, but the plot itself unfortunately was. Pretty, but surface. Only unfinished hints of a story, that relies a bit too heavily on the viewer to fill in the gaps. I am always a fan of ambiguity, and it is almost necessary for me in a horror film (definites tend to disappoint), but there is still a balance to be struck with some concrete details. Osgood Perkins' last film, February, struck the perfect balance between ambiguity and detail, and for that was my favourite horror of 2015. Here, unfortunately, the scale has moved too much in one direction, to the point of feeling unfinished and not entirely satisfying. I also did not love the ending, which is much too close to that of another stunningly subtle recent horror, by one of the most famous current horror directors. Actually, I loved the ending (as a part of the story on display), it fit very well, I just didn't love that I had already seen it so recently. A sad problem of timing.

All in all, I can't possibly not recommend The Pretty Thing That Lives in the House, because it is a soul-satisfying kind of pretty, from sound to visuals to acting. But if what you're after is horror (or even a particularly engaging drama), it won't quench that kind of thirst. Only one for beauty.