House of Last Things

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

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.

Clearly most of the people who wrote reviews are friends or family of the director. The flowery language alone is an obvious tell. A few people reviewed it very harshly as a response to the over the top praise. I'll do neither.

This movie has several interesting ideas, some lovely visuals, uneven acting, a mildly incoherent plot and low to middling production values. The best shots are in the first 2 minutes and the last several minutes. The use of classical music makes sense for the plot but at times the stature of the music just underscores the generic quality of most of the filming. It doesn't have the lush beauty required to sell this story.

It wants to be the Shining, the Omen, Blue Velvet or Don't Look Now. It's not. At minimum it would need 10 times the budget to look that good. I believe the director could do more if he had more to work with but the reviews comparing the movie to those things as if they are on the same footing are deeply dishonest. It aspires to those heights and can't begin to reach them. That said, for an unknown horror flick it's pretty good. You get the feeling the director could remake it with real money and a tighter script and knock it out of the park.

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!

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.