The House of the Devil

Cash-strapped student Samantha (Jocelin Donahue) accepts a 'babysitting' job at the home of elderly couple The Ulmans (Tom Noonan & Mary Woronov), despite plenty of warning signs that something is not right with the gig: she's being offered far too much money for the job; Mr. Ulman and his missus are waaaay too creepy; and there isn't even a child to look after!

Masquerading as a movie from the golden age of the slasher (late 70s to early 80s), The House of the Devil has been designed to appeal to old-school horror fans who like their films to take the time to develop atmosphere and build tension. Utilising convincing lo-fi visuals, a cool synth score, a retro title sequence, and neat period details (Farrah Fawcett flick hairstyles, a huge Walkman personal stereo, a rotary telephone with a cord), director Ti West painstakingly recreates the look and feel of the era. Unfortunately, he pays a lot less attention to the pacing and, after an hour of extremely slow build-up during which we get a few well crafted moments of tension but an awful lot of uneventful padding, the film erupts in a clumsy, rushed and chaotic last act that feels like it was grafted on from an entirely different movie.

With a tad more time spent rounding out his antagonists, a bit more detail about their nefarious plans, and a little less pizza-eating, West might have had something really special on his hands: a truly effective homage to grind-house horror. Instead, The House of the Devil proves to be a rather frustrating exercise in style over content.

Well then, what do we have here? A modern horror film placed in the 70/80s era. I already like Ti West thinking. With most Horror films today being god damn awful, it refreshing to see one which pays homage to the classics while trying to be unique. From start to finish, the film is littered with classic horror references. The opening titles design, the babysitter, Satanism. Even some parts of the music score is identical to the famous Halloween score.

Now then, this film is very slow. It takes it time to build up, in fact, it takes the main character 30 minutes to reach the house. Thank god then that Samatha was likable. Now, it doesn't matter how slow a film starts, i mean the shining is regarded as slow but there one big contrast between the film's build up. One goes somewhere the other doesn't . Once we finally get to the house, we do nothing more than watch Samatha stroll around for the rest of the film.

West atmosphere is perfect, his camera work was great, the suspension was brilliant but nothing ever came from these very few moments. The suspense just keeps building , West keeps on adding more fuel onto the fire until finally he runs out and the credits starts rolling . Very little happens and when we do reach the final act, it ends up being boring and forgettable.

This film looks great but sadly , the script is poor leaving a potential film into a easily forgettable one. If you particularly enjoy watching people do nothing for a hour and 10 minutes, then this is highly recommended

This is more Horror Drama, then straight Horror movie. And the build up time takes ... well it's time! There is more build up time here, then actually payoff time. In other words, if you are a gore hound, you should look for other movies to get your blood pumping (or whatever else it is you want it to do).

This movie though is based on an actual fear that was spreading around in the 80s in America. People were very afraid of certain things (depicted in here) and Ti West captures that mood in every detail. You could be excused, if you thought this movie was actually shot in the 80s! But it isn't and even if some hoped for more scares in the movie, I think this movie is balanced very neatly! You just have to be patient enough to wait until the end ... and the payoff is there for everyone to see!

I don't understand that scene where she finds an apartment to rent - yes, it shows she needs money (as does the interminable amount of scenes showing her current living situation is ... ahem ... "untenable"), but none of this is necessary to the plot (they basically wrote a short B- grade student film and needed 70 minutes of "filler"). Why doesn't Tom Noonan initially keep their appointment, why does a knife slash from the level of someone lying down hit a large standing guy in the throat, why does it upset me that so much of a horror movie is utterly nonsensical and the heroes' actions are that of a blithering moron who has never seen a horror movie or been scared for a second in her life (well, that one's easy to answer - it's because it is incredibly lazy writing), why does it annoy me that so many horror fans think that this is something they need to settle for ?? No doubt the film-maker would say this is a pastiche of 1980's horror movies, and as such was MEANT to be bad, but the cynical part of me wants to say that until I've seen better from this film-maker, pastiches of bad 1980's horrors is where he should stay.

In the 1980s, college student Samantha Hughes (Jocelin Donahue) takes a strange babysitting job that coincides with a full lunar eclipse. She slowly realizes her clients harbor a terrifying secret.

I absolutely love that director Ti West did everything he could to make this come off as a 1980s movie -- the style, the 16mm camera, releasing the film in a clam shell box (I am surprised they actually allowed this last one). Opinions vary, but I think it is safe to say the (modern) golden age for horror was the 1980s. And here we are, adding another 80s film to the list (sort of).

West also managed to hire genre actors Tom Noonan, Dee Wallace and Mary Woronov for the picture, which I think fans appreciate. Larry Fessenden served as a producer, and this may be the best project Fessenden was ever attached to.

What I find as strange is how this film is very highly rated by people. Not that it is a bad film. I enjoyed it. But I think it is interesting that the film gets a lot of credit for working in the 1980s style. Had this identical film come out in the 1980s, it may have hardly registered among its peers. This film rides the wave of nostalgia... and it rides it well.