The House on Pine Street

If it's gonna be dumb at least make it fun. That's surely the unwritten rule of horror. But this bland and generic haunted house indie makes the fatal error of trying to keep a straight face throughout, however predictable the events and however skin-crawling the dialogue. It's restrained in its deployment of violence – but also, sadly, in terms of enjoyment.

Jennifer (Emily Goss) and Luke (Taylor Bottles) move into a big crumbling house in a sleepy Kansas suburb. She's seven months pregnant and reluctant. He urges her to give the place a go. They're soon visited by Jennifer's overbearing mother, Meredith (Cathy Barnett), whose presence seems to trigger memories in Jennifer of a previous breakdown. So when the house starts taunting 'n' haunting, the assumption is that Jennifer is simply on the turn again. Most of the horror (and accompanying tedium) emerges from the fear of not being believed, and the threat to mother and child.

It's a familiar setup: giving a chance to an instantly creepy house; one partner who's nervous and one who's patient; the forbidden room; the secret past; the strange staring neighbours. I was surprised when no one finds a box of old video tapes and newspaper cuttings. The 'Better Movie Checklist' looms large: The Omen (creepy child); Poltergeist (tossed furniture and a visiting psychic); The Shining (ambiguous twins); The Haunting (a chilling case of mistaken identity).

But more than anything there's the presence of Rosemary's Baby: motherhood anxiety seeps into the very fabric of the film; particularly its best scenes, between Jennifer and her scheming, possessive mother. There's a moment when Jennifer goes to her mum's house for solace, and they seem to slip back into roles that have existed since Jennifer's childhood. There's enough eerie tension here to suggest the story may be turning towards an intriguing third act. But that junction is promptly passed by.

The overarching problem is, the cinematic influences are great but where's the USP? The drama is rote, the plot is plodding, and the scares are imaginative only on a micro level: mouse traps triggered by an unknown force, or boxes inexplicably moving of their own accord. Like many a horror movie without an identity, it starts well enough, with some intriguing, subtle spookings. But alas, it becomes quickly clear, through formulaic plot beats and zombified dialogue ("There's no such thing as ghosts"), that this is a movie lacking a unique personality.

Speaking of which, Goss and Bottles put in a pair of performances which are adequate at best. Having far more fun are Barnett as the mother and Jim Korinke as the possibly-psychic Walter. The latter gets the best piece of bad dialogue: a WTF climactic speech about the forces of energy (or something) which is presumably meant to tie everything up, but which is so rambling and bizarre that you have to wonder if the actor himself knew what he was on about.

The photography has a pallid appearance, all autumn hues and naturalistic lighting, which only serves to highlight the unconvincing characters and jars with the laughable events. When Jennifer is being tossed around by the poltergeist, a different score would have made it comedy gold. But instead we get by-the-numbers ambient doom music connoting something much more horrifying than what we're actually seeing.

Remarkably, at the end I was left unsure as to whether a key character was meant to have died. The reactions of the other characters just seemed incongruent. I'm not sure if this was unforgivably poor writing and editing or whether I'd simply stopped caring by then. Either way it does nothing to endorse this very uninteresting and uninspired film.

So I can view this film differently than last night when watching it. The film is scary and I had to put the light on. Now I'm puzzled. The film has so many unanswered questions. Besides this, the characters were unrealistic and painful to watch. The pregnant main character was experiencing strange things going on. By the way everyone at the party was simply staring at her, if felt as though something darker was going on. Her constant outbursts was grating, especially when she was yelling at a toddler. Her aggression towards her guest was over the top. The way she yelled at the girls next door made her less sympathetic. And her uncaring husband was extremely dull and annoying. He also experienced weird things going on in the house but chose to say nothing. It seems to be a trend in American films lately to have so many plot holes and with unlikeable main characters.

While I'm no movie expert, I am a horror fan and not easily scared. Sadly, there's so long between a horror movie which really delivers, but this one did rather well I thought. What makes it all the more joyful, is the lack of reliance on special effects. It's well paced and uses the art of suggestion rather than cheep jump-scares, a style I appreciate. Furthermore, I found myself sympathizing greatly with the female protagonist, another key element in a good horror movie. This movie keeps the viewer speculating and guessing until the end, which I find is the turning point of a scary movie. Nothing is more scary that the unknown, as we well know. This brings me to the only regret I have about this movie, -the ending. I won't reveal anything, but as most suspense movies, the ending leaves the viewer a bit disappointed. I for my part can forgive the movie for this, since it relates to the point above. It's the unknown which is most scary, the sum of possible explanations. As soon as the movie settles on one specific explanation, most of the suspense is diffused. Don't let this keep you from viewing the movie though. I promise, it postpones the inevitable solution as long as possible. All in all; no masterpiece, but delivers as a horror movie.

The House on Pine street should be shown to any horror movie director as an example on how to make a good movie.

It's also an example of how a good story and good direction can take a movie with a low budget and make it excellent. You don't need a lot of special effects if the story is done right.

The scares are very subtle and don't even tip you off with scary music. I love movies like that, you actually have to pay attention. The acting was well done and the story left a lot for the viewer to interpret.

If you are a person that doesn't enjoy a movie where you may have to draw your own conclusions, this movie may not be for you. If you enjoy a movie that keeps you on your toes and makes you think about it, give this one a chance.

An unsettled couple with a baby on the way move back from the city to the wife's hometown, but she dreads their new home while everyone else thinks she's crazy.

Dialogue heavy psychological ghost story with problems in script, direction, editing and pace. The stand out feature is the photography and framing of shots, where a lot of care and intelligence is on show from the start. The dialogue is often too much or just trite, and many scenes start too early or end too late, and some of the cut aways or inserts in the editing are pointless. There is a good house warming scene, lively and well observed, but that's about it.

The biggest problem is that the ghost story doesn't measure up to the psychological drama, with no drive to it - comparable to The Babadook - and the director's overuse of jump scares is feeble. And 111 mins? 20 too many.

The parts are well played, with the lead actress giving good close up and the mother and psychic showing their experience, but sometimes the actors struggled with the dialogue and the lack of motivation within the story.

The music is good but nothing outstanding.

Overall - frustrating to see so much quality serving a weak story.