MovieChat Forums > The House of the Devil (2009) Discussion > What am I missing?

What am I missing?

posted 9 years ago by jakeanderson1206
13 replies | jump to latest

Alright, look, please try not to crucify me here. I cannot, for the life of me, stand any of this guy's movies. I hated his segment in V/H/S, I thought House of the Devil had elements of tension but had nothing to be tense over, and the Innkeepers and all his other films seem the same. Tension for the sake of having tension, and calling it 'artsy'. Any time someone tries to criticize this problem is shot down as being either pretentious, or an idiot. I honestly find West to be a pretentious filmmaker.

Look, I appreciate horror, and I have unconventional tastes in films, I know. I love nearly every genre of movie, and horror especially. But every time I say I hate this guy's movies I am accused of being a Michael Bay-loving moron who wouldn't know a good film if it were injected into my bloodstream. I love slower paced films, I love classic horror like Carpenter's 'The Thing' and 'Prince of Darkness' I enjoyed the likes of this year's 'The Babadook' and 'It follows' I love every subgenre of horror.

My question is, why? Why don't I like this guy, and why does every else love him? I just do NOT understand what the deal is. People are calling him the next Hitchcock, and I think thats a GROSS overstatement. Hitchcock had slow pacing and tension, with PURPOSE, in his films, we had established threats and characters that actually HAD character. Tai's movies just have no context for why I should give a damn. Tension mainly works if it has a payoff or a PURPOSE. Nothing creates atmosphere in his movies, its like watching a college film student filming a random nobody walk around a house for 80 minutes.

I'm not trying to piss anyone off here, I really just want a reasonable explanation as to why this guy is getting the praise he does. You don't have to be insulting or demeaning, just tell me why. I see no purpose or accomplishments he does with movies.

[–] ringo380-160-364117 9 years ago

You just summed up my thoughts on this guy perfectly. I was amazed when you listed out the movies he's made, because I've seen each of them, and I felt exactly the same about each - and I had *no* idea that it was the same guy behind them, but it makes complete sense. I feel like he's playing around with filmmaking techniques that he doesn't fully understand, or doesn't establish a context for.

[–] spyingeye 9 years ago

I think we just have to agree to disagree.

I found myself very much drawn to Samantha's "journey" as it felt very relatable, and thought there was purpose to feel for her and have that feel of dread and terror -- especially after that sudden and brutal death of her friend, Megan. After that scene the already foreboding tone of the movie increased in tension for me and I didn't really know what to expect anymore.

What? Why?

[–] SamFulmer 9 years ago

not to mention the room with the kid and his ripped out heart and slaughtered parents 

If you start sitting around the campfire, telling scary stories -- change our names!

[–] bueller55 9 years ago

I understand what your saying, I did not like The Innkeepers and The Sacrament was ok but I really love The house of the devil. I still haven't seen The Roost, v/h/s or Triggerman

[–] T-eschberger 9 years ago

It took him long enough, but The Sacrament is a great film. It's actually a genuine movie instead of a 2 act build up with a laughably weak pay-off. He finally learned his lesson with that film and crafted a script that utilizes the slow burn and pay-off effectively.

[–] jonhopper217 9 years ago

If you've ever read or heard his interviews, you'd sort of understand that he fancies himself sort of the authority on horror. He claims he's never heard anyone not like this, not be terrified of that, etc. He seems to think his experiences have passed on to everyone else and therefor his work is what people want to see. I think a big horror mistake is the dull beginning with the crazy ending, unless you're doing something completely insane (You're Next, which I know he was involved in). Nothing happens for 42 minutes in this film and then nothing happens for another 23. Then it's 25 minutes of borderline horror. Not one jump scare, not one gruesome visual and not one twist. Just plain old homage to 70's and 80's movies that were terrible, with the inevitable "we might have a sequel available" ending. I mean, even classics like Carrie left the door open.

I have to admit, I chat with some horror folks online and this was their majority vote for movie of the decade 00's last year. It's since been dethroned, but I hadn't seen it until tonight. I wouldn't classify it as the worst movie ever, but only because the cast was so wonderful. Imagine that, a stellar cast and he can't even produce. Don't have much hope for The Sacrament, as I've been putting it off, because of West's direction, even before seeing this dud.

I'm shocked you haven't been mauled on here, because he is very popular.

[–] T-eschberger 9 years ago

It's odd, most call The Sacrament his weakest...but I simply CANNOT understand why. It's the most balanced film of his on a written level, the most technically accomplished and the most genuinely terrifying.

[–] jonhopper217 9 years ago

I'll definitely check it out, because I generally seem to like films others hate and hate the ones they love. I just find that he and his buddy (can't remember his name) have one hit and so many misses. It's also difficult when directors tend to work together, especially if one is strong and the other is weak (Tarantino/Roth), because I find the lesser of the two tends to come through more.

[–] jakeanderson1206 9 years ago

I am surprised as well, the board has been genuinely calm and very forthright, I so rarely get that when displaying an unpopular opinion. And I hadn't seen those interviews but thanks for letting me know, I have more of an answer to my question now.

The Sacrament is on my watchlist but I'm honestly gonna get around to it when I'm bored and ready to potentially stay bored.

[–] yusef-ghanima 9 years ago

i agree, he's a good director with amazing attention to details but his writing is crap and worthless which waste every thing to the toilet, it's not enough to grasp someone's attention for 90 minutes, any good amateur writer can do it, when the end is nothing, no outcome. i never knew what it's like to be a cute baby sitter, and i found out by the end of the movie that i know too much about that with nothing new about devil worshiping.

i mostly will not be able to answer your reply, since marissa mayer hacked my email, no notification

[–] KitchenKnives 9 years ago

Some people enjoy tension. That's it.

It's entirely possible to build up tension to such levels that the payoff could never be satisfactory, so why bother? Why do people need a payoff? They got the suspense and the tension they were looking for in a scary movie, the job is done. Everything else is just a bonus, if it works, which it often doesn't.

[–] utahman1971 9 years ago

I just bought this movie as blu-ray at 7 eleven for $4, and I am almost regretting to watch it now, because I watched Innkeepers and hated it for it was so boring that the only thing interesting in the Innkeepers was the last 10 minutes, and it even failed on that ending.

So if this movie is anything like that, then I am going to be pissed even for paying $4. If it is bad, then it isn't even worth $4. What bugs me is the people say a good build up horror is a great movie. Well, I hated even The Conjuring, and that was just like the build up of Innkeepers.

Hate me all you want lovers of The Conjuring, but it sucked.

I am a gore watching freak!!!

If it don't have it, it isn't worth the watch.