November 10, 2008

Movie Review: House (2008)

house1_largeThis movie is not to be confused with the 1986 horror film of the same name. Despite the similarities that exist between the earlier film and the current House and the fact that both the source stories for both involve someone named Dekker (Fred and Ted, respectively), this movie is not a remake. In many ways this film strikes me as a supernatural take on the core ideas behind the Saw franchise. However, despite several creepy moments, the end result is a muddled mess. Nothing new is offered to the horror world and in end, House is a rather forgettable effort.

housesmall_323011As the movie begins we meet Jack (Reynaldo Rosales) and Stephanie, a troubled couple arguing about the route Jack has taken. The two are on their way to marriage counseling and Jack has taken a short cut that led them away from the highway. Stephanie is suitably upset about the situation, which is not helped by Jack's reckless driving. This leads directly into a near accident as they come around a bend, nearly flattening a police officer (Michael Madsen) who has stopped to help a couple with their pickup that has run off the road.

After a brief stop they are back on their way, but their troubles are far from over. After hitting some debris in the road, their car is disabled sending them in search of a phone to call for a tow truck (in the pouring rain, no less). Sounds pretty cliched so far, does it not? Just wait, it gets better.

housesmall_323018After walking for awhile, the couple comes across the Wayside Inn. They go inside where they meet up with another similarly stranded couple. As they try to find the proprietor of the inn they meet Betty, Stewart, and their son Pete. They are one supremely creepy family and the best thing about the film. Betty and Stewart are played by Leslie Easterbrook and Bill Moseley who famously portrayed Mother Firefly and Otis in Rob Zombie's The Devil's Rejects. They, along with Lew Temple as Pete, are nothing if not suitably creepy and menacing, but with a flair for hospitality.

Things take a turn for the worst when someone Betty calls the Tin Man shows up. He drops a can down the chimney that lays out the rules. These rules amount to kill one of your own or I will kill all of you.

At this point it would appear that the movie is taking a turn towards the survival horror or slasher sub-genres, but that is when the presence of a darker evil appears in the form of black smoke (a Lost reference? Nah...) bringing in that supernatural feel.

housesmall_323017This is where the film begins to turn inward while continuing to have a little outward flash. The story begins to reveal itself to concern redemption as it forces each person trapped in this house to confront something from their past. Of course, they have to do this while avoiding the oncoming Tin Man, the creepy family, and each other.

You know, I like the ideas here. I just wish that it was presented in a fashion that at least seemed a bit fresher. The Saw films are based on Jigsaw's desire to give his victims a deeper respect for life, in House those inside are forced to confront their pasts in an effort of getting beyond that in the hopes of moving on with their lives.

Unfortunately, House fails to really tie any of its tale together in a cohesive manner. It is a film that begs the audience to put the pieces together but does not give enough of the pieces to fill in the blanks with. When the end finally arrives the light goes on and I got what they were doing, but was left shaking my head and wondering how much greater the impact could have been had the story made a little more sense. Too much is left on the audience to figure out how everything goes with everything else.

Bottomline. Easterbrook and Moseley are excellent in their roles, the same cannot be said for most everyone else. It is fine if you are looking for a movie with a few shocks but it is one that will be quickly forgotten and not likely to inspire sequels as the earlier House did.

Mildly Recommended.


Anonymous said...

Well, its good to see someone has seen the movie. But the only thing I think is missing from your experience, in order to understand the movie, is to read the book! You can never get a real political cartoon without having some idea or what it is refering to. Same in this instance. You can never really understand a movie based on a book without reading the book. One it makes the movie more interesting. And two it drives the deeper meaning of the book into you.

Chris said...

Thanks for stopping by, Anonymous.

I have to say that if you need to read the book to understand the movie, the movie was not made properly. The two should be able to exist on their own without needing the other for support.

The political cartoon comparison does not apply, as the cartoon is commenting on something else, that is not the case with a book/movie combination.

The book may be good, I am not denying that as I have not read it, but to need it to get the movie? No thanks, that is not the way it is supposed to work.

Post a Comment