Review: House of the Devil

I really wanted to edit this review of House of the Devil, but between school and all my other interests I know that I'll never get around to revising. Not that it's a bad review, but...you know. Anywho, here are my thoughts on Ti West's House of the Devil.

---------------

HOUSE OF THE DEVIL (2009)

House of the Devil is not a bad film. Far from it, in fact. I can honestly say that I can’t point to one element of the film that isn’t, at the very least, acceptable. Among the excellent elements of the film are the cinematography and overall production design, which together form the strongest element of the film: the look and feel of a cult film from the 1970’s/early 1980’s. Any and all elements of the design giver this film the look reminiscent of the later films of Lucio Fulci and others (but mostly Fulci…and only if Fulci’s flicks weren’t so horribly dubbed into English).

Director Ti West utilizes main elements of horror films from the era. For starters, the film is bookended with the classic still frame credits, splashed across the screen in a ghastly font in an ultra-icky color. The score reminds one of the old Argento zombie flicks. 

An example of the elements of which I'm speaking? Early in the film our protagonist, Samantha, strolls through her college campus. West utilizes one of the more recognizable elements from a film shot in the 70s (and not just horror films): the swift zoom. The scene begins in a wide shot, with Samantha as our focus, at which point we zoom out into a wide shot. Samantha moves out of frame, only to reappear within frame moments later – in focus - to stop at a bulletin board.  We do not know it yet, but from this board Samantha snags the advertisement that seals her fate.  It’s a nice little touch. Most directors would have used that quick zoom to a Wide and made a cut to Samantha at the bulletin board, but West stays with it. But still, it’s just a remnant of cinema past.

Throughout the film West does this: Exterior handheld shots leering through the windows of the house, watching Samantha’s every move. We get extreme close-ups of mouths screaming in terror, and more extreme close-ups of eyes peering back and forth, looking for the source of noises within the dark. Darkened hallways and staircases shot at canted angles. The shots are chosen well, and nicely composed. West’s cuts (aside from writing and directing, he also served as an editor) are proficient. This is a well-made film if we’re working from a textbook.

But in the end that’s all there really is with this picture. Ti West is more than capable as a director. In fact, I can safely say I think he could do a damn fine job with more original material.

And there’s the problem. West’s story just isn’t that original. That being said, originality is not my problem with House of the Devil. I’ve seen a fair share of Satanic cult films from the 70’s and 80’s, and most of them share numerous story and film elements. The problem is that those films…were made in the 1970’s and 1980’s. House of the Devil was produced in 2009; the aforementioned terrific design elements of the film only serve to disguise that fact that this is just another bloody film about a Satanic cult terrorizing a (possibly) virginal female.

The cult flicks from that era carry with them through the years a particular charm, (mostly nostalgia, when you think about it) because the film stock was grainy – but only because a grainy stock was all a production could afford. I’m fairly certain filmmakers in the 70’s didn’t shoot on 16mm because they wanted to give it the look of a film from 1890’s. (need to phrase this better) If House of the Devil was shot digitally (or even on 35mm) and set in 2009, we’d still be talking about a mediocre story executed competently.

To draw a comparison, take Matt Reeves’ Let Me In (2010). The film is set in the Reagan-era 80s (198- to be exact), and the production design reflects this. But the Reagan era is not the main character of the film. Reeves did not choose his shots based on what a film from that year would have, he chose his shots based on the needs of the story. The same goes for the cinematography. The light, the colors…they all reflect the themes of the film, the tone of the story. Likewise, the main characters of Let Me In are Owen, Abby and The Father, not the year 1983. The main character in House of the Devil is 1974, 1983, or any given year between them. Samantha may be our protagonist, but a specific period of time – a style of film relegated to pre-1982 World Champion Baltimore Oriole’s - is the main character of House of the Devil.

And the story! Oh, the story!

Samantha’s fate is meant to shock, but it simply doesn’t. The penultimate scene in the graveyard doesn’t carry the “oh, sh*t!” final moments of The Omen. And the final scene – where we are given one last “twist” – doesn’t have the disconcerting undertones of a film such as The Sentinel. Those films had something at stake in the final moments. In House of the Devil we get nothing more than, oh yeah and this is why we tied you up to a pentagram and had a demon rub blood all over your creamy, sexy belly. Now can you please accept your fate? Sheesh!

House of the Devil is not a bad film. Not by a long shot. It’s just…well, too much of the production is geared toward being something it’s not. This film could have been so much better if it wasn’t attempting to be something it could never be.

You know, until time machines become available. Then Ti West would be right at home, waiting for Tom Noonan to be all creepy and stuff.

I give it a C-.