This write-up will contain spoilers for both The Innkeepers and The House of the Devil and since I don't know that many people who have seen one or both, I might be writing to the ether. Be that as it may, I remain undaunted.
Ti West is going to make a legitimately great movie one of these years. He's got amazing sensibilities. In a world of fast-cuts and hand-held cameras he is steady, deliberate, composed, and competent. The House of the Devil got plaudits for being a throwback to the pacing and aesthetic of horror films from the '70s and '80s and this patience continues with The Innkeepers. It's not just that the films are deliberate, the timing is immaculate. West's sense of rhythm does much of the heavy lifting for the mood and tension. Yet, I can't say that any of his films are any more than good (and I think he'd agree with me regarding Cabin Fever 2).
Bad-ass poster
The House of the Devil spends its run-time building up to a bloody finale and revealing our hero (Samantha) is the victim of a demonic plot (not unlike Rosemary's Baby). However, with the exception of one amazing and shocking moment in the middle of the movie, House of the Devil struggles to stick the landing. So much effort is spent recreating a genre long past that it feels like fortifying the script was lost in the shuffle. I remember being disappointed in the end that Samantha doesn't die after shooting herself in the the head. It seemed like a copout that existed just so she'd live with the knowledge that she is carrying demon spawn, but I can think of any number of ways to have her dead (which only feels right for the movie) AND have the evil threat live on.
The Innkeepers is no different. There is an amazing sense of place and watching in an old theater with its own history heightens the sense of isolation and mystery. One definitely doesn't want to be alone in their after hours after watching The Innkeepers, which is a highly effective horror movie in spite of its shortcomings. Throughout the screening, I kept thinking it would be a fun practical joke to play on the audience to ratchet up all this tension only to reveal in the end that there is no haunting and I almost got that. I firmly believe that much of what we see in the movie is in the head of Claire, one of the two remaining workers at The Yankee Pedlar Inn. True, the inn may be haunted, but what Claire is experiencing is separate from the actual hauntings. One of my viewing buddies brought up a point that I'd have to rewatch the film to confirm, but I believe to be correct, that an early scare is reused during the climax that seriously points to the conclusion I made above. I respect the decision to treat the haunted house subgenre this way as it really gets to the heart of how we scare ourselves irrationally, but it may also be completely justified.
What hurts The Innkeepers almost irreparably is that so much of the action is completely contrived. It doesn't feel like that because the characters are uninteresting (they are totally enjoyable), but because the script again feels half-baked. Someone needs to do something and instead of it being an organic process, the script just makes it happen. Sure, Claire is scared shitless, but she's totally fine being left alone. "You just saw a dead body and wants to leave immediately? Well, sit here in the lobby while I go look for that last customer instead of waiting outside and across the street. Or hey, why don't we go together?" It's enough to drive one mad.
The worst offense, though, is that West kills Claire off in the end! We spend the whole time getting to know and care about her (and she is eminently likable, especially in a moment when she takes a trash bag to the dumpster [even though it presents it like it's the first time she's ever done the job, which makes it feel like an excusable contrivance since it's amusing]) only to kill her off in the end. It just doesn't fit with the rest of the film. I wish I could switch the ending of The Innkeepers with the ending of The House of the Devil. It would work perfectly if not for the demon fetus. It feels like West was writing these movies simultaneously and mixed up the endings.
Even with the shortcomings, I find myself looking back fondly on each of these films (and I've only had a day to think The Innkeepers over. Imagine what three months will do to it). As I said, Ti West is going to make a great movie some day and I hope he sticks with the horror genre. There needs to be more people making scary movies without feeling the need to wink at the audience. West's films are going to hold up and I will continue to look forward to his movies (though his next one is apparently starring Liv Tyler, so I might be speaking too soon).
Five months ago (to the day!), I watched all four Psycho movies and wrote about the experience. I'm not entirely happy with the way it turned out, mostly because it just feels like I was live-Tweeting the whole thing. This time, instead of writing while I watched the House series, I just took notes, so hopefully everything comes out better. Truth be told, I didn't even realize there was a House series (aside from the TV show). I knew there was a sequel (with an awesome subtitle), but that was it. Since I just got the sequel from Netflix, I decided to rewatch the first and just fell into another movie marathon. Once again, I've got to give props to Movie Madness for having House IV on VHS. Movie Madness: For When You Need to See Every Movie.
What's amazing about the above trailer is how it doesn't get the movie's tone at all. House is the story of a horror, Roger Cobb (the Greatest American Hero himself, William Katt), with a tortured past (Vietnam vet, his son died, his TV star wife divorced him) who moves into his Aunt's old house after she dies so he can have some peace while he writes his Vietnam memoirs. We find all of this out in the first fifteen minutes of the film. Yeah... it's jam-packed with information. We see flashbacks of his son's drowning and Vietnam flashbacks as he writes. Flashbacks are one of the few things that all for House films have in common (the others: Sean Cunningham produces, Henry Manfredini does the score, and Kane Hodder does stunts).
Once all of the setup is out of the way, House is pretty damn fun. It's based on a story by Fred Dekker (Monster Squad!) annd it's a lot funnier than I remembered. If it had someone with the style of Sam Raimi or Peter Jackson at the helm instead of Steve Miner, it could be in the pantheon of great horror comedies if not great horror movies. William Katt isn't the best lead, but he does enough. Most of the credit can be distributed in three places: George Wendt, Richard Moll, and the monsters.
Wendt first. The man is a comedic powerhouse. After a scene in which Katt runs from the house in army gear and slides across the walkway to his house arms in the air, Wendt (who, for some reason, walked his dog into his neighbor's yard to have it go to the bathroom) comments to his dog, "Writing looks like fun, huh?" Another great line is, "Solitude's always better with someone else around." And When Wendt gets mislead into helping Katt catch a monster, his reaction is gold. Clearly, casting for House II recognized this as they cast John Ratzenberger for a small role to capture some more of that Cheers magic.
Richard Moll, better known as Bull on Night Court, plays the main villain (or the "boss" of the movie). Not only is he the ghost responsible for tormenting Katt, but Katt was in Vietnam with the man and wouldn't put him out of his misery, leaving Moll (Big Ben in the film) to be captured, tortured, and killed. He's psychotic as a man in the rinky-dink Vietnam flashbacks (clearly they had no money for those sets) and he's terrifying and sinister as the ghost.
Which brings me to the monsters. I love practical effects and even though everything is very clearly rubber, that doesn't make it any less fun or scary and, in fact, fits the tone of House very well. And the first monster we see really sucks the viewer into the world, waiting to see what's next.
The house is malicious and even though the result of the haunting really doesn't make any sense, the house does some awesome trippy things. My favorite is the lawn tools that stalk Katt. The film also gets a bit of mileage out of mirrors, but I won't say how. I'll just say I appreciated the effort.
I don't think it's spoiling anything to say that it's a happy ending with the family back together again. I wouldn't say anything at all, but come House IV, it's going to be an issue.
House is a near-classic, must-see horror comedy. I appreciated it much more upon second viewing. There's so much good in it that its easy to forgive the fact that the story really doesn't make too much sense. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for the remaining films.
Still brought to us by New World Pictures (Roger Corman rules!), but this House II is nothing like House. The trailer does a better job of capturing the tone of the film (and misses the fact that Bill Maher is in it), but it doesn't feel like a sequel. I think they had a script that featured a house, came up with the epic subtitle (The Second Story) and through it together. I'm actually all for films where it's a different movie under the same umbrella (like what John Carpenter wanted to do with Halloween), but House isn't broad enough subject to do it. House II has more in common with the Waxwork series than the first House (which has an awesome tag line in and of itself: Ding Dong. You're Dead). And yes, Waxwork was released after House II. And yes, the Waxwork series also veers off in an unrelated direction with its sequel.
The score for House II is an improvement from the first, which wasn't bad, it just wasn't that memorable. As mentioned, Bill Maher makes an appearance with Amy Yasbeck (Wings) and John Ratzenberger (who is featured far more prominently in the trailer than the film... and they use his best line). Ratzenberger is easily the highlight of the film and I can't believe it took Pixar to keep casting him in stuff. The man knows how to deliver a line (even he couldn't save Motel Hell, though).
There's a lot of convoluted mumbo jumbo about how a crystal skull can give someone eternal life and there's a bunch of historical time periods that pop up in rooms of the house to try to get the skull back. Gramps is wacky and fun-loving and the type of old person The Simpsons make fun of. There's really nothing in common with House except that they both take place in a house. House II isn't scary and I don't really think it's meant to be. It's an adventure movie, which is fine, except the subtitle "The Second Story" not only implies it's going to be the same house, but a continuation of the first story. You may enjoy it more knowing that it's nothing like the original, but realizing that killed House II for me.
That's right. This one isn't really called House III. It's The Horror Show, and a more unoriginal, unappealing name couldn't be found. At least, unlike House II, this one isn't a sequel or even a part of the series, but because it features a house that gets haunted (kind of), it was billed as a sequel in foreign markets. Gone are the Cheers cast members and the humor. Instead we have Lance Henriksen, normally awesome but not here, as a cop who is tortured by a man he caught and was eventually electrocuted (in a pretty cool scene). Once again, a man with a traumatic past is haunted by something in it, but this haunting isn't confined to a House. This film actually owes a lot to the Nightmare on Elm Street Series, especially through the finale. There's lots of "is this real" stuff and a lot of bad guy quipping. It's humorous that it feels like one Wes Craven creation since the story of an electrocuted man come back to kill is exactly the same as Craven's Shocker released the same year (and, oh yes, that is A.D. Skinner himself, Mitch Pileggi).
I don't get movies like this where the bad guy seems to have control as to whether he comes back as a ghost or not. Isn't there punishment in the afterlife? Plus, the explanation for how to kill him is completely absurd. Electricity turned him into a ghost, so it will bring him back? At the very least, The Horror Show has some tension, which is more than I can say about House II. There's a little homage to Videodrome which I didn't understand until I learned that the director views David Cronenberg as a mentor. The film is a mess with little making sense in the end. Not scary enough for a horror film. Not bad enough to laugh at.
Four Houses, four houses. Roger Cobb is back, which is silly because the House series has no connecting tissue and because if we're bringing Cobb back, why not send him to the original house instead of one we've never encountered before (though we get a glimpse of what is supposed to be the original swimming pool). Even worse, he has a daughter instead of a son and a new wife. So, maybe he didn't get back together with his wife at the end of the first. And maybe she has the son. We're not even going to mention that there is a past? Then why include him at all? Nothing in the story needs Roger Cobb to return except to make the film seem related to the original. It's horseshit.
Once again, the house is... kind of haunted? There's some Native American mysticism that I can't figure out because for some reason the house attacks Cobb's wife even though it should be happy because she's keeping the house. There's an evil step-brother who wants to develop the property (what a hackneyed and cliched plot point). There's a really weird midget in a wheelchair who hacks up a lot of phlegm and is out of a different movie completely (I almost want to say David Lynch's Dune). For some reason, the FBI are involved in this house. There are no monsters. Still no humor. I don't know why you bring William Katt back at all if there's going to be no relation in theme or story to the original aside from trying to hook viewers. Honestly, there are only two good aspect about this movie and they is the bug and snake costumes. The rest is horseshit.
So, there you go. Four movies, unrelated, yet part of the same series. It's a lesson in brand management, I guess, except I don't know how high the House stock ever got. Check out the first, leave the rest.
I feel like all I've been doing this past week is Halloween recommendations and really, I have (you can see for yourself here). This will be my last horror recommendation in this space for a while just to give you all a break. Fortunately, I saw Hausu before the end of October so I can squeeze it in before the self-imposed moratorium.
Without question, this is the most insane, off-the-wall, bonkers, nusto film I've ever seen and I took a whole semester on avant garde filmmaking (ok... so most of that stuff is just boring). It's a hallucinatory haunted house movie with an identity crisis. It's almost too wacky to be scary and too crazy to be funny. The effects are ridiculous but do their job completely.
The plot sends a group of girls (all named for their dominant feature or personality trait) to a friend's aunt's house which happens to be haunted. There's some ghostly back story about her aunt and an old love the doesn't really make too much sense, but nothing here really does. Eventually, the girls go missing through increasingly bizarre circumstances. My favorite has to be Kung Fu, who fights off an attacking horde of flaming logs, among other things, with her awesome kung fu skills. Also, there's an evil cat (aren't they all?).
Words can't do this film justice. You simply need to look at the DVD cover art to find out all you need to know. I'm kicking myself for not checking it out when a local theater showed a 35mm print. This will become a regular in the scary film rotation. And if you don't watch it on your own, I will eventually make you watch it. Thank you Criterion for bring this movie into my life!
I apologize for that absence of posts the past week or so (though not about the lack of recommendations because the Romero stuff should've kept you more than a little busy). Things got crazy what with a special guest for a week where awesome times were more important than awesome blogging, then getting back into the swing of things (plus, my garbage disposal broke while we simultaneously had a clock in the drain that spilled water all over. That set my day back a bit).
Anyway, none of that matters because I've only got two more weeks of recommending solely horror films (as opposed to doing it every other week). Most people seem to regard The Haunting as the eminent haunted house movie, at least in terms of classic films. For my money, that honor has to go to The Innocents. Released two years before The Haunting, The Innocents offers up more scares and suspense than almost any other film of the era (and I'd argue ever, even with the changing aesthetics of horror films). Don't get me wrong. I love The Haunting (and watched it last Halloween alone before I knew anyone here in Portland), but it's time for The Innocents to get some recognition.
Perhaps most striking about the film is the cinematography. Black and white rarely looks this good and apparently, jokes flew about the set and Shepperton Studios the D.P. Freddie Francis was trying to burn the place down with all of his lights (another anecdote states that star, Deborah Kerr had to where sunglasses between takes). Francis directed several Hammer Horror films, which could use their own Film Rec feature, but I'll lay off those for now. Interestingly, Francis would later shoot The Elephant Man for David Lynch. I can't help but think this film had an enormous influence on that decision.
Director, Jack Clayton, wanted to distance the film from the Hammer films that were being shot concurrently in England and did so with great success. The Innocents avoids some of the more exploitative tendencies of the Hammer Films and creates an incredible sense of foreboding. The audience really gets into the head of the governess, Miss Giddens (Kerr, who had quite an impressive career). Her dread and paranoia becomes ours.
The film is based on the story "The Turn of the Screw" by Henry James (something I remember being told not to read unless I wanted to be terrified by some high school English teacher. I'll show her! I just bought it from Goodwill for two bucks!) and was co-written by Truman Capote, who becomes more fascinating the more I encounter him. Definitely check this movie out for Halloween. Hell, a The Innocents and The Haunting double feature would be just about perfect.
