Review of The House of the Devil (2009) by Chriss M — 05 May 2012

I sort of religiously buy Little White Lies (they've got a website, you really should check it out), a UK kinda-indie film publication. Anyway, in this month's edition one of it's cover movies was 'The Innkeepers', Ti West's upcoming release. In the article about it, the writer mentions some of West's other works, one of which being this movie. So based on that, I figured I may as well check it out- it was a 'Watch Instant' movie on LoveFilm, so I figured why not.

The House of The Devil is Ti West's 5th feature film. And it shows. Other movies in his repertoire include, embarrassingly, 'Cabin Fever 2: Spring Fever', but he's aware of the awful nature of this cash-in, evidenced by his plea to have his name removed as director of the movie. So I didn't discount him on that basis, he showed a self-awareness and a willingness to admit when things haven't gone right. He learned from his mistakes.

The House of the Devil tells the well-told tale of a teenage babysitter caught up in daemonic shenanigans. Sam, desperate for cash, finds a poster requesting a babysitter, and applies for the job. At first it seems she's been stood up, when Mr. Ulman, the poster of the advert, doesn't show up. But after her friend mischievously gets rid of the other adverts, she gets a call back asking if she could babysit that night. That's us about 45 minutes in to the 90-odd minute runtime. So yes, a slow burner. From this point we feel a growing sense of unease as we learn that things are not quite as they seemed. Sam is being asked not to babysit a child, but instead look after Mr. Ulman's mother, although he assures her there'll be no trouble as she's quite independent and really Sam's presence is just a precaution. So, after some trepidation, she agrees, her friend who gave her a ride leaves, and the Ulmans depart. Now the action starts, as the friend is disposed off in typical exploitation style. Wait, no. Just kidding. More suspense to be added. Getting a little worried, we're about an hour into the 90 minute run-time, and nothing appears to have happened. The pay off better be worth it.

At about exactly 1 hour 15 minutes, you get your pay off. Which lasts for a good ten minutes, and then denouement. It's bloody, and gruesome, and whacky, as you'll want from The House of the Devil, but you'll feel cheated. Because ti drags on for so long, you really want the roof to be blown off, but it never is. I'd say the climax is really just a gas mark 4 simmer, if anything.

You see, The Hosue of the Devil is Ti West's, well, experiment at remaking a 70s horror movie. Rosemary's Baby, Halloween, etc, are all evoked here, and never is there an attempt to hide their influence. There's even the spectre of Dario Argento to be found. It is an attempt to create a 1970s midnight movie in 2009; from the casting, Jocelin Donahue does a very good job of imitating 70s starlets, to the directing, with the close-ups and hysterical reactions, and anti climactical noises from another room, to the cinematography which makes everything look horribly, well, 70s. In a way, this experiment is too successful. So successful it becomes very banal and slightly derivative. West isn't interested in meta-fiction or any self-references, he just wants to make a straight-out 70s horror and that's that. So that's what you get. It is his ability to so authentically replicate a film from this genre that is truly commendable here, and it is where his skill has been shown. I mean even the script is perfect in this sense.

Unfortunately, in the end, it is to the detriment of the viewer West's ability to rigidly recreate the 70s. The film is boring, not particularly scary, and there is no real hint at camp melodrama- which should have been in there! Finally thought- Tom Noonan was an inspired casting decision!