IMDb RATING
4.8/10
3.6K
YOUR RATING
A mind-bending thriller set in Portland, Oregon about an unspoken tragedy and its effects on a house, its temporary caretakers and the owners, a classical music critic and his wife on a recu... Read allA mind-bending thriller set in Portland, Oregon about an unspoken tragedy and its effects on a house, its temporary caretakers and the owners, a classical music critic and his wife on a recuperative trip to Italy.A mind-bending thriller set in Portland, Oregon about an unspoken tragedy and its effects on a house, its temporary caretakers and the owners, a classical music critic and his wife on a recuperative trip to Italy.
- Awards
- 4 wins total
Randy Sean Schulman
- Alan
- (as Randy Schulman)
Amoré Littrell-Fellini
- Realtor
- (as Moreen Littrell)
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
This flick will take you places you have never been before AND sometimes it's even crazy hilarious, the dialog I mean, especially some of the stuff coming out of the mouth of that trailer trash guy, Jerry! The intention here doesn't seem to be "let's just scare the crap out the audience and cash in", but let's make them think a little, sometimes a lot, and take them for a cool twisted ride in the process. And by the way, the photography is damn impressive for a little indie movie. Same cameraman who shot the Bad Lieutenant and the TV series The Medium. I agree with some of the other reviewers here though. Not a lot of blood if that's what you're after. Saw it at the Portland Film Festival and I'm glad I did!
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
Did you know
- TriviaBest know for his role as Walter White Jr. in 'Breaking Bad', 'House of Last Things' marks RJ Mitte's first role in a feature film. He drove from Los Angeles to the location in Portland, Oregon with his family and four pet dogs.
- Goofs(at around 1h 29 mins) You can see the thread across the phone that they used to make the golf ball roll off the dresser.
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official site
- Language
- Also known as
- The Last House
- Filming locations
- Hotel deLuxe, 729 SW 15th Ave, Portland, Oregon, USA(as hotel and restaurant in Italy)
- Production company
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
- Runtime1 hour 50 minutes
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 1.78 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content