MovieChat Forums > La casa muda (2011) Discussion > I don't know what to make of this movie....

I don't know what to make of this movie. Total spoilers

posted 13 years ago by kamyk2000
14 replies | jump to latest

Consider this from a first viewing, not after knowing about the "twist".

So, you sit down to watch, and at first the movie has this great vibe going for it. It was tense, and creepy.

Then (still not knowing about the "twist"), instead of doing what any normal person (or even a typical slasher movie victim) would do (hide in one spot, and sit still, or run screaming), she starts poking around like she's looking for something, and we have no idea what it might be, but it certainly doesn't seem to be her father, the stalker, a place to hide, or a way out.

It wasn't as effective as it might have been. I couldn't stop wondering why she was looking on bookshelves, in corners, in cupboards. It made no sense at all at that point in the movie, and made it very hard to maintain my suspension of disbelief. I didn't see anything indicating she was looking for keys, till she found one 30 mins later. Were we supposed to assume that was what she was doing?

Then you have the scene of someone looking for her in the one solitary moment she does hide, and the flashes of creepy little girls, and someone coming at her with a knife. Does it set things up for the "twist"? Sure, but to make you assume that she was hallucinating in retrospect is a bit much. Leading you to assume she was hallucinating the whole time seemed like a tacked on excuse, rather than an actual part of the story.

And what's with the story in the first place? Who the hell was the other guy? Did they live in that house, and she was his wife? Was she their sex slave? Was there father-daughter molestation occuring? Was that even really her father? Did he/they make her abort her pregnancy? Did they kill the child?

And in particular relating to all of the above, wtf were they thinking taking her back to that house if any of the sordid stuff that is hinted at actually took place? Did they think she wouldn't remember? Not to mention, while laura may have been the same girl from the photos, to be quite frank she didn't look like her to me. Especially in light of the one guy saying no one had lived there for years. Laura looked like she was late teens early twenties to me, certainly not old enough to have lived in that house, been gone for years and come back to it.

And who made the noises at the beginning that her father went to investigate? Are we supposed to assume the entire movie was a hallucination? If you want to go down that road, perhaps the house was a hallucination, maybe she never killed anyone, maybe the whole movie actually took place inside her head at an insane asylum.

Based on a true story? A story where some guys had a sex slave they kept in a house long enough to get her pregnant, and get rid of the child, then took her back to the house to fix it up to sell? If she was that nuts, surely there were indications of it before they went back to the house. And as someone else said, if this was all one shoot, precisely when was she supposed to do her killing? There isn't a moment we don't see her. And if it was all hallucinations, then it wasn't real time, regardless of how they filmed it.

This movie makes no sense at all, even if you are being lenient and assume she was hallucinating. Personally, I think the "twist" was that the writer's didn't know where to take the story, and tacked it on like a "deus ex machina". Or the "true" story is simply that they went back to the house, she went nuts, killed them both, and disappeared, no creepy omg who is after me, who is in the house with me stuff. If it is a true story, how would they know that anyway, since the guys were both dead, and she disappeared.

Don't get me wrong, it had a fantastic atmosphere, it's worth watching for that alone, but the plot makes no sense, and it expected you to assume way too much.

[–] philsy27 12 years ago

I agree. I am still unsure as to the extent of the relationship between the three characters... I was reading other boards and they said there was some incest and/or rape happening, which I didnt even pick up on. So i'm clueless... i just know shes psychotic....

[–] Ronny_the_effin_bear 12 years ago

I agree as well. For it supposedly being such a big twist/reveal, it's really not clear what exactly was revealed. I can't even infer from what the film gave us whether or not there even were real photos or a past relationship; the majority of the film is basically a giant lie, an illusion, so why the hell should I believe there was any kind of sordid past between these characters at all? What, because Laura thought so and saw some photos? She also thinks and sees and talks to a little girl that we know is imaginary.

[–] NewEnglandAutumn 12 years ago

Yes, I found this movie confusing. One thing (of many!) I'm still trying to figure out is why she made some comments about 'my father lied to me, and you (Nestor) lied too.' Huh? More exposition, please!

Too bad...I think it had some potential.

[–] zharth 11 years ago

Yes, I agree. You know there's something going on, but the film's not clear exactly what it is.

Even the polaroids were ambiguous. If she was [one of] the girl[s] in those photos, she certainly wasn't a child (honestly, when I saw the pregnancy photos, I assumed it was the girl's mom, because she didn't look a day younger in those pictures), and I personally didn't see anything to suggest the relationship was nonconsensual - that they were anything other than documentation of two or more people having sexy fun times. I'm sorry, but when I see polaroid photos of a half-naked woman, I'm supposed to think 'abuse'?

The third guy mentioned something about the memories in that house, but I just assumed it was the kind of bad memories you have of a relationship gone wrong - a girl you loved that you couldn't make things work out with. Or a relationship that resulted in a pregnancy that didn't turn out well...

The only evidence of abuse was the girl's vengeance against the two men - but that doesn't provide justification, it presupposes it - and even that could be the result of the decision they made about the baby, and not how they treated the girl.

Who, incidentally, thought the photos were proof that these two men killed her baby, though I don't see how. Nestor is lying on the floor asking "what do you mean" when Laura mentions the pictures. He may just be playing dumb, but I think it's a legitimate question: what do the pictures prove?

[–] shuttlebug 12 years ago

ahh, you put this SO incredibly well. i agree -- i was thinking all of the same exact things after the movie was over. i just didn't know what to do with it, or how to even feel entertained by it afterwards because it was all so pointless. i think the writers of the film should read this, haha. i just can't freaking believe they are remaking this movie in the United States with Elizabeth Olsen. i hope they rewrite a script that is actually coherent

[–] super16g 12 years ago

I agree. It makes no sense. I felt like I was watching someone else playing a third person survival horror video game like resident evil or silent hill. The main protagonist can't get out because all the doors and windows are sealed and won't open no matter what and some objects won't move and you have to crawl around and search every room for clues and the monster will leave you alone for the most part while you do it until you trigger an event by walking into a new area.

Any way, yeah it makes no sense. The photos were of mostly different women right? Also when could Laura have made any of the noises or hurt or tied up any of the men? Did the ghost kid do it? This whole story would have had to have been made up. I can't see how just finding two dead guys in a cabin in the 40s could lead to this sort of conclusion of events. No poloroid back then.

[–] ammam2 12 years ago

OMG. If I remember right, there were COLORED polaroid pictures... that kind of machine was only invented in 1963! They could have payed some attention on this... HUGE mistake! I cannot see any sense in the movie right now... :D

[–] tkip19 12 years ago

I think the movie takes place entirely within her head. The whole thing was surreal and hard to figure out. Guess that's the point. Different interpretations...

[–] georgegates 12 years ago

So in a Lynch movie such ambiguity/mystery is totally fine and cool, except here?

Personally I found the story-telling through the pictures at the very end novel and great, - only to show her wandering around with her daughter at the very end.

The viewer can decide what happened - and if the photos are even real.

-==-
Life's too short for mediocrity
Best shows:http://www.imdb.com/list/n9h_caKA-ZU/

[–] vencyber 12 years ago

The photos are real. And the two corpses, too.

[–] soo_z_g 12 years ago

My take on it was that a few years prior, Laura would visit the country house with her father. Her uncle Nestor lives out in the country near that house. He would come over and the two sexually molested Laura. Possibly they did the same to other girls since it DID seem like there were other girls in the photos in the bedroom. As victims sometimes do, especially when molested young, Laura fell in love with one of her molesters - her uncle. She got pregnant, and it seemed clear that her father and uncle thought she couldn't handle a child and either had her abort it or killed it after it was born. Laura was maybe 15 or so? Then, she and her father went back to their city home and tried to forget the whole tragedy. As victims sometimes do, she blocked out the painful memories. In a scene with Uncle Nestor, he says he called Laura's father to bring her out there because he missed her, which is why she and her father returned. By this time, she is probably about 20. Being there again, Laura's blocked memories start returning and she is frightened. I think she imagines the noises upstairs. We see the movie as one shot -- the way she sees it, but her father going upstairs and her hearing harm come to him was the way she perceived it, which is what we see. In actuality, by the end of the film, I think you are supposed to believe she actually killed her father but couldn't admit it to herself. After all, by this time she's a pro at blocking bad memories. Then when she finds her father dead, she's terrified because she believes there's a killer in the house. She tries to get out but the doors are locked. She searches in her father's pockets for the keys and begins to search the house. I thought it was clear she was looking for keys. Probably she herself locked all the doors when she started getting scared and then blocked that out too. Because we see the movie as what she perceives, we don't see it. When she finally gets out and gets in her uncle's car, he knows there's no intruder and guesses that she caused harm to her father, so he takes her back to the house to find Laura's father. That's why he keeps asking her where her father is - because he knows that she knows. She keeps denying it because she's pushed the memory into her subconscious, so she actually believes she doesn't know where he is. When she sees the photos in the bedroom, again all the memories flood back and that's when she kills her uncle. She leaves the house believing her daughter is alive. I think the whole "based on a true story" is a gimmick. Wouldn't be the first time a movie said that when it wasn't true. I think you are correct that if it is actually a true story, she killed them both, disappeared and that's the end of the "true" part. What we see in the movie is the fictionalized details of what the filmmakers think may have happened from her point of view.

[–] Tyler-A-Arse 12 years ago

I think this is the most confusing movie I've ever seen. What the hell were the writers thinking. They thought they were making a clever "twisty" movie, and all they managed to do was outthink themselves and screw it up.

Unless someone has a better synopsis, I think I'll go with soo z g's post. It works for me.

[–] autumnboyq 12 years ago

Couldn't agree more. We also couldn't figure out why, when they first got to the house, they were going to sleep. It wasn't even nighttime. And why go to the house to go to sleep? Why not just come back in the morning when you plan to start working on it? Why were they locked in so that she needed a key? Why was she making so much noise when she thought someone else was there? WAY too many questions like that to make this even remotely believable, even when giving some leeway because "it's only a movie."

Wonder if the American one is better?

[–] zharth 11 years ago

You and I are of a like mind on this film. Worth watching for the atmosphere alone, but really falls down with regards to the plot.