tsheridan94

I find it impossible to give this movie less than a seven, because, even if the ending was absolutely a letdown, the first 80% of the movie was so excellently constructed that its cinematic value cannot be lessened too greatly.

And excellent The House of the Devil is for most of its duration. Director/Writer/Editor Ti West shows a remarkable proficiency for being able to truly scare, through an excellent slow-burn build-up, allowing the atmosphere of the titular house and the anticipation for when it is inevitably released to bring a viewer to nail-biting fear, rather than simply trying to startle with constant Boo! Got'cha! "scares," or excessive gore. In the end, this method is far more effective and lasting, less artificial than the latter methods which seem to, unfortunately, be the bread and butter of modern American horror filmmakers.

However, when the denouement rolls around, this is completely thrown out the window. Sure, the gore may look nice (and indeed it does; not top of the line, but it belies the film's budget), but it completely abandons House's almost regal sense of restraint that worked so effectively for nearly the entire length of the movie. Not to mention, the transition in styles is itself so jarring that I was pulled from the experience for nearly 10 minutes, an unfortunate occurrence when that covers almost the entire duration of the remainder. The release of the built up fear was clumsy and ineffective, and the effect of the movie after the credits rolled was erased. I wasn't left with the feeling that something could be lurking just out of sight over my shoulder that the best horror movies provide; a tension that extends beyond the movie's run-time. This problem I believe to later be solved by Ti West's later film "The Innkeepers," a picture I believe (and seemingly in the minority) to be the superior movie.

However, despite its eventual letdown, the remainder of House of the Devil was truly a horror experience I rarely see from recent American horror films, this difference between House of the Devil and its peers thrown into sharp relief by the clearly nostalgic feel it gives off, even from the opening credits. Even the grainy camera shots add a sense of, for lack of a better word, enjoyable "retro" style, rather than becoming a detriment. And the camera work itself is also exemplary, snaking and twisting its way among the oppressive halls of the house that seems more an antique than something to be lived in.

The House of the Devil is unquestionably a good movie. For most of the film, I was completely drawn in, waiting with a rising anticipation to see what was lurking around the corner; The House of the Devil is truly scary even with its superficial sense of the mundane. Nothing is shown, save for one particularly haunting shot of what lies behind a door that remains (at least temporarily) unopened, and it is all the better for that. But this is before (please excuse the pun) everything goes to Hell at the climax. I'd certainly recommend this film; just don't expect the release to be able to come close to matching the rising action.

As a general rule of thumb, it's best not to try to take a timeless classic novel and try to convert it to the big screen (unless you happen to be named Peter Jackson.) Last time I checked, Andrew Adamson wasn't Peter Jackson. I liked Shrek and all, but the book that, admittedly, really funny movie was based on was by no means a timeless beloved classic. While I do not believe that Narnia books are nearly as brilliant as they commonly made out to be, I still have to give C.S. Lewis credit for making books as a segue into fantasy for the children too young to read the actual classic fantasy series The Lord of the Rings. So while I do feel that Narnia books are very over-rated, I can still see their worth in introducing 4 and 5 year olds to the genre (and seriously, 4-5 is about the age level these books seem to be written for.)

However, the movie adaptation takes the books' unengaging, repetitive nature, and then goes on to disregard all the values that made the books at least worth the paper they're printed on. The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe adaptation attempts to be a poor man's Lord of the Ring. It keeps true to the books for the most part, but Adamson interprets what is not specifically specified in the book and tries to recreate the epic battle sequences found in both the Tolkien and the Jackson "Rings" trilogies. For example, in the novel version of "The Lion, etc." the final battle lasts somewhere around a page and a half. Along came the movie, and WHAM! 25 minute battle scene, anyone?

The fact the book was made into a movie at all was also a bad decision. The book is very slow, and takes it's sweet time in causing anything to happen. With only the two Shrek movies under his belt (and stuff was continuously occurring in those. Shrek is the definition of never a dull moment) Adamson has no real experience making anything with long slow bits of dialog that seems written by George Lucas (and no, that's not a compliment.)

The acting in the film wasn't horrible. It was a darned sight better than in that cinematic piece of crap called Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Now there's a film that makes a Uwe Boll movie look like manna from Heaven. Comparatively, simply because the acting was completely atrocious, this film seems about on par with one of his. I'm not saying the acting was genius or deserves any special awards. On the contrary, it was quite forgettable. But therein lies the key. Bad performances, as well as brilliant ones, can be remembered for long periods of time. I guarantee that whatever you've heard about this movie, good OR bad, the conversation probably did not revolve around William Mosely or Georgie Henley, or any of the other actors. They are not memorable in the slightest.

So on the plus side, this movie didn't have me debating the merits of destroying a movie with nuclear weapons simply so future audiences don't have to sit through it and current audiences are put out of their misery. However, this came about as close as you can get to the point. Actually, Im being unfair. This movie is the perfect sleep aid. If you know any insomniacs, and Lunesta doesn't work, they may have found their perfect sleep aid. I know I did. And then, unfortunately, after the good night's sleep I was granted, I had to watch "This film that involves something to do with a gigantic carnivorous cat, a warlock, and a big closet" again. I did not fall asleep this team, and I was able to come to terms with how much of a cinematic turd this really is. It's just not the worst turd in existence. And that's a back-handed compliment if ever I saw one.