Gothic horror is such a dismally overlooked genre, so many fascinating concepts to draw in, many many tales, so when one comes along, such as this, my curiosity and anticipation were high. Definitely positives can be taken, it is beautifully told, Ruth Wilson is a superb actress and story teller. The production values are strong, the story intriguing, but, those strong elements are somehow given a disservice by the execution, the delivery is meant to be slow deliberately, but is done in a way that makes the film boring, annoyingly it never seems to come to life, and the ending is woefully inadequate. Maybe my expectations were too high, this was disappointing. 5/10
343 Reviews
"I Am the Pretty Thing That Lives in the House"- Both the most engaging and enthralling horror film I've seen in some time... and also one of the most tedious.
TedStixonAKAMaximumMadness30 May 2017
On its surface, it would be very easy to outright dismiss writer/director Osgood Perkins' atmospheric Gothic-horror picture "I Am the Pretty Thing That Lives in the House." And for good reason. The film is an exercise in deliberation. But it is an exercise that goes too far too often, and suffers for it. Without doubt, most viewers who choose to indulge in viewing it will find their minds wandering and themselves nodding off within the first act because the film's pacing and structure lend to an overpowering sense of tedium and dullness. This is without doubt the very definition of a "slow burn." It both literally and figuratively crawls from scene to scene, with dialog delivered in drawn out whispers and characters moving as if filmed in slow motion at all times. Even as someone with a great bit of patience for films such as this, I found myself checking my phone more times than I'd like to admit.
And yet... I never felt the urge to stop watching. Because despite this glaring issue, the craftsmanship and storytelling is completely enthralling and endlessly engaging, with a grand old-fashioned vibe that I couldn't help but be pulled into from the very first scene. In many ways, it reminded me of the campfire ghost stories of old, classic Hollywood creep-fests of the 50's and 60's and the ancient photographs of ghosts and spirits you stumble across when you research the supernatural. So much of the film is so lovingly assembled to tell a classic tale of the unknown that I couldn't help but watch it start-to-finish... even when it very nearly put me to sleep more than once.
The film follows the tale of a lonely and easily frightened young woman called Lily (Ruth Wilson), who is hired to serve as a live-in caregiver to retired author Iris Blum (Paula Prentiss) in her final years. But as the film informs us through a wonderfully poetic opening narration, Lily's future is a dark one- she tells us that within the year, she will be dead, and we will be witness to the events that lead up to her passing. And the film follows just what happened, as Lily is haunted by strange sounds and visions and begins to suspect that there is something very wrong in the home of Iris Blum. Something that may be connected to her most popular novella- a tale of horror called "The Lady in the Walls."
The strengths of the film lay in Perkins capable hands as a storyteller. The film is absolutely stunning to behold, with an intriguing premise that keeps you thoroughly invested and some of the most gorgeous cinematography in some time, despite the film taking place almost entirely inside of a single house. The expert sense of composition and movement that Perkins excels at builds and maintains a startling and sometimes overwhelming sense of dread and pure guttural terror, and his keen use of carefully calculated jumps will illicit some serious creeps for open minded horror fans. He also wisely keeps the film both focused but also vague, giving it a bit of a mystery flair that will keep you wondering what will come next. And of course, as mentioned before, the dialog and structure of the film is pure poetry. Very classy work.
But it comes at a cost. That being the frankly bizarre sense of pacing that is a result of the calm, calculated storytelling. I hate to say it, but this is a phenomenal short film that is nearly destroyed because it is slowly (and arguably needlessly) dragged to feature length to the point of hilarity and then frustration. There's no good reason this same film could not have been told in a much shorter span of time. A forty minute short-subject with this exact same script and these exact same shots would have been a revelation of pure terror. But padding it out to near ninety minutes is nearly a kiss of death to the entire project. There's only so long you can see Wilson slowly wandering down the hallways moving at a pace of only one step every ten seconds before you feel a yawn arising... only so many times the camera can linger eerily on the same open doorway while slowly zooming in for effect before it starts to feel empty... only so many times you can hear the same droning creaks of floorboards for minutes on end before it loses effect. The pacing is nearly a disaster.
As it stands, it's almost impossible to recommend "I Am the Pretty thing That Lives in the House" to any potential audience. It's beautiful. Stunning even. And a wonderful ghost story told in an unconventional fashion. But it comes at the cost of pacing. I can see too many people being too bored of it to suggest it to anyone outside of the most forgiving of genre fans. But if you prefer and enjoy deliberate horror. If you relish in the slow-burn of features like "The Witch" and "The Shining." You might get something out of it.
I give it an above average 6 out of 10. A beautiful but troubled work of art.
And yet... I never felt the urge to stop watching. Because despite this glaring issue, the craftsmanship and storytelling is completely enthralling and endlessly engaging, with a grand old-fashioned vibe that I couldn't help but be pulled into from the very first scene. In many ways, it reminded me of the campfire ghost stories of old, classic Hollywood creep-fests of the 50's and 60's and the ancient photographs of ghosts and spirits you stumble across when you research the supernatural. So much of the film is so lovingly assembled to tell a classic tale of the unknown that I couldn't help but watch it start-to-finish... even when it very nearly put me to sleep more than once.
The film follows the tale of a lonely and easily frightened young woman called Lily (Ruth Wilson), who is hired to serve as a live-in caregiver to retired author Iris Blum (Paula Prentiss) in her final years. But as the film informs us through a wonderfully poetic opening narration, Lily's future is a dark one- she tells us that within the year, she will be dead, and we will be witness to the events that lead up to her passing. And the film follows just what happened, as Lily is haunted by strange sounds and visions and begins to suspect that there is something very wrong in the home of Iris Blum. Something that may be connected to her most popular novella- a tale of horror called "The Lady in the Walls."
The strengths of the film lay in Perkins capable hands as a storyteller. The film is absolutely stunning to behold, with an intriguing premise that keeps you thoroughly invested and some of the most gorgeous cinematography in some time, despite the film taking place almost entirely inside of a single house. The expert sense of composition and movement that Perkins excels at builds and maintains a startling and sometimes overwhelming sense of dread and pure guttural terror, and his keen use of carefully calculated jumps will illicit some serious creeps for open minded horror fans. He also wisely keeps the film both focused but also vague, giving it a bit of a mystery flair that will keep you wondering what will come next. And of course, as mentioned before, the dialog and structure of the film is pure poetry. Very classy work.
But it comes at a cost. That being the frankly bizarre sense of pacing that is a result of the calm, calculated storytelling. I hate to say it, but this is a phenomenal short film that is nearly destroyed because it is slowly (and arguably needlessly) dragged to feature length to the point of hilarity and then frustration. There's no good reason this same film could not have been told in a much shorter span of time. A forty minute short-subject with this exact same script and these exact same shots would have been a revelation of pure terror. But padding it out to near ninety minutes is nearly a kiss of death to the entire project. There's only so long you can see Wilson slowly wandering down the hallways moving at a pace of only one step every ten seconds before you feel a yawn arising... only so many times the camera can linger eerily on the same open doorway while slowly zooming in for effect before it starts to feel empty... only so many times you can hear the same droning creaks of floorboards for minutes on end before it loses effect. The pacing is nearly a disaster.
As it stands, it's almost impossible to recommend "I Am the Pretty thing That Lives in the House" to any potential audience. It's beautiful. Stunning even. And a wonderful ghost story told in an unconventional fashion. But it comes at the cost of pacing. I can see too many people being too bored of it to suggest it to anyone outside of the most forgiving of genre fans. But if you prefer and enjoy deliberate horror. If you relish in the slow-burn of features like "The Witch" and "The Shining." You might get something out of it.
I give it an above average 6 out of 10. A beautiful but troubled work of art.
Slow, Quiet But Has Its Charm
just_an_oli871 November 2016
The acting was subtle and well done, the story was intriguing (if its potential was never fully met), and the near silent tone of the movie was a strength more than a drawback. There will be unanswered questions, and that annoys a lot of people. If you are like me and prefer to leave with questions, you will appreciate this flick more.
I don't think the criticism calling it boring it fair. A lot is going on in the background if you pay attention. It reminds me of Victorian ghost stories. Not everything has to be extreme to be worth viewing.
All in all it has its problems, but worth watching if you don't mind a slow build.
I don't think the criticism calling it boring it fair. A lot is going on in the background if you pay attention. It reminds me of Victorian ghost stories. Not everything has to be extreme to be worth viewing.
All in all it has its problems, but worth watching if you don't mind a slow build.
Chair stole the show
adcolli10 October 2018
Warning: Spoilers
The movie was terrible, but every time they cut to the kitchen scenes the chair upside down on the wall hung there like a champ. Now in most scary movies that chair would fall and likely add to the story line, but this chair knew what it was doing. It knew it had a job to do and that was to keep everyone anxiously waiting for it to fall and it never did. It is safe to say this upside down chair deserves an oscar for best on screen performance. ****SPOILER****** The chair never falls.
Dull and slow taken to new heights
jrpeel130 October 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Don't let the reviews stating how boring it is mislead you; they understate it severely. Ideal perhaps only for insomniacs, I Am the Pretty Thing That Lives in the House is an arduous test of your attention span. A film completely devoid of plot, its opening dialogue of 2 minutes is essentially the entire story but inexplicably stretched out over the next 90 minutes of sleep- inducing inaction. Please note this review does contain clearly marked spoilers in the third paragraph!
Unfortunately the director has conflated suspense building with slowness. The film is excruciatingly slow throughout. You'll no doubt notice that the main character walks at a jaunty 8 feet per hour and even takes upwards of 3 painful minutes to remove the lid of a box. These film tactics do not add to the suspense; quite the opposite, they tend to remove you from the film as you impatiently wait for her to complete whatever mundane task she's performing. And the reward for your patience? None whatsoever. No surprises, scares, or compelling plot twists.
Of course, with this film, the only plot twist possible would be the sudden addition of an actual plot. There is virtually no story here. **(Note: there are spoilers for the remainder of this paragraph!)** The only part resembling an interesting plot is the ghost Polly but sadly, her story is never explained nor even hinted at. Why was she murdered? Why did she seem to take some kind of pleasure in scaring Lily to death? The answers are most likely contained in the book written by the elderly author but as our lead conveniently scares too easily, she never reads it, something of a cop out. Even if she had, it's repeated that the ending of the book is intentionally left out, presumably leaving the readers to divine for themselves what happened to her, much like we are with this film. An irritating parallel that smacks of lazy writing. **(Note: no more spoilers!)**
But the film not entirely bad. Largely, but not entirely. The setting is well done and takes you back to the 1960s. The house is appropriately creepy as well. But these minor pluses can not distract from the film's glaring missteps. Thanks to the lack of story perfectly complemented by the non-existent pacing, I often found myself more intrigued by the setting than the plot. Too many times throughout the film I caught myself wondering who picks up the groceries and how, or contemplating the obsession people in the 60s had for everything that gaudy yellow color. These pointless thoughts are irrelevant to the film, but when you have no plot to focus on, you'll tend to fixate on whatever you can just to keep yourself awake and mildly interested in something, anything.
I've seen other reviews discuss the film's poetic qualities or latent beauty of sorts. I can't dispute or support their opinions but I do strongly suspect that those who take away some kind of artistic value from this film will be in a very small minority and even those that do can't argue that it's a tenuous leg to stand on alone. If you do appreciate such types of films, there's a minor chance you'll enjoy this one, but it's up to you as to whether or not to gamble 90 minutes of your time on this.
I do not recommend this film for the majority of audiences. It's very clear that the film's goal was not to tell an interesting or even a complete story, so perhaps its goal was indeed more artistic in nature. But no matter how beautiful you may find the film artistically, without some kind of story it's akin to looking at a painting for 90 minutes straight, and in either case you'll struggle to maintain both interest and consciousness.
Unfortunately the director has conflated suspense building with slowness. The film is excruciatingly slow throughout. You'll no doubt notice that the main character walks at a jaunty 8 feet per hour and even takes upwards of 3 painful minutes to remove the lid of a box. These film tactics do not add to the suspense; quite the opposite, they tend to remove you from the film as you impatiently wait for her to complete whatever mundane task she's performing. And the reward for your patience? None whatsoever. No surprises, scares, or compelling plot twists.
Of course, with this film, the only plot twist possible would be the sudden addition of an actual plot. There is virtually no story here. **(Note: there are spoilers for the remainder of this paragraph!)** The only part resembling an interesting plot is the ghost Polly but sadly, her story is never explained nor even hinted at. Why was she murdered? Why did she seem to take some kind of pleasure in scaring Lily to death? The answers are most likely contained in the book written by the elderly author but as our lead conveniently scares too easily, she never reads it, something of a cop out. Even if she had, it's repeated that the ending of the book is intentionally left out, presumably leaving the readers to divine for themselves what happened to her, much like we are with this film. An irritating parallel that smacks of lazy writing. **(Note: no more spoilers!)**
But the film not entirely bad. Largely, but not entirely. The setting is well done and takes you back to the 1960s. The house is appropriately creepy as well. But these minor pluses can not distract from the film's glaring missteps. Thanks to the lack of story perfectly complemented by the non-existent pacing, I often found myself more intrigued by the setting than the plot. Too many times throughout the film I caught myself wondering who picks up the groceries and how, or contemplating the obsession people in the 60s had for everything that gaudy yellow color. These pointless thoughts are irrelevant to the film, but when you have no plot to focus on, you'll tend to fixate on whatever you can just to keep yourself awake and mildly interested in something, anything.
I've seen other reviews discuss the film's poetic qualities or latent beauty of sorts. I can't dispute or support their opinions but I do strongly suspect that those who take away some kind of artistic value from this film will be in a very small minority and even those that do can't argue that it's a tenuous leg to stand on alone. If you do appreciate such types of films, there's a minor chance you'll enjoy this one, but it's up to you as to whether or not to gamble 90 minutes of your time on this.
I do not recommend this film for the majority of audiences. It's very clear that the film's goal was not to tell an interesting or even a complete story, so perhaps its goal was indeed more artistic in nature. But no matter how beautiful you may find the film artistically, without some kind of story it's akin to looking at a painting for 90 minutes straight, and in either case you'll struggle to maintain both interest and consciousness.
I am the bored thing who watches this movie
Ynskje3 November 2016
Warning: Spoilers
As a lover of both horror and drama, this movie *should* be right up my alley. Unfortunately, it's one of the most boring films I've ever had the misery of sitting through. I paused it after what felt like 2hours, only to realize I was barely halfway through the movie...
*SPOILERS*
Lily Saylor is a timid, somewhat neurotic, woman, who for some inexplicable reason lives in a "batty" old woman's house for over a year, and quite literally has no life outside this. Her backstory about her broken engagement is awkwardly delivered, and is in service of nothing.
As for the plot, there really isn't one. Three women have a vague connection to an old house, and none of it goes anywhere. A woman in the 1800's,Polly, who never has any dialogue or story, gets murdered.
We never learn why. She played hide and seek with her...husband? In an empty house, and he kills her with a hammer.
The old woman, tended to by Lily, spouts out random so-called poetic statements about Polly. It never goes anywhere or does any service to the story.
Our "heroine", Lily, walks through the house, looking confused, for 90% of the movie, until she is literally scared to death by the sight of Polly's ghost. It's not a scary or intense moment, Polly just appears, dressed smartly and just staring into space. Much like the audience for this movie.
The bet way to summarize the viewing experience of this movie, is to imagine that you're watching a pornographic video that lasts for 1h27m. During that time, the camera pans through the room where the action is supposed to happen, and rather than focusing on the actors, you get a blurry vision of someone who *might* be doing what you want to see, and a very nice zoomed in image of a chair. There's no action, of any kind, and in the end, neither the movie nor its audience, gets anywhere near a climax.
Avoid like the plague, unless you have severe insomnia and you're in need of something even more boring than the political scenes from the Star Wars prequels...
*SPOILERS*
Lily Saylor is a timid, somewhat neurotic, woman, who for some inexplicable reason lives in a "batty" old woman's house for over a year, and quite literally has no life outside this. Her backstory about her broken engagement is awkwardly delivered, and is in service of nothing.
As for the plot, there really isn't one. Three women have a vague connection to an old house, and none of it goes anywhere. A woman in the 1800's,Polly, who never has any dialogue or story, gets murdered.
We never learn why. She played hide and seek with her...husband? In an empty house, and he kills her with a hammer.
The old woman, tended to by Lily, spouts out random so-called poetic statements about Polly. It never goes anywhere or does any service to the story.
Our "heroine", Lily, walks through the house, looking confused, for 90% of the movie, until she is literally scared to death by the sight of Polly's ghost. It's not a scary or intense moment, Polly just appears, dressed smartly and just staring into space. Much like the audience for this movie.
The bet way to summarize the viewing experience of this movie, is to imagine that you're watching a pornographic video that lasts for 1h27m. During that time, the camera pans through the room where the action is supposed to happen, and rather than focusing on the actors, you get a blurry vision of someone who *might* be doing what you want to see, and a very nice zoomed in image of a chair. There's no action, of any kind, and in the end, neither the movie nor its audience, gets anywhere near a climax.
Avoid like the plague, unless you have severe insomnia and you're in need of something even more boring than the political scenes from the Star Wars prequels...
God doesn't give with both hands.
horrorinpureform12 September 2016
Wow, is this movie ever pretty. Aptly named.
I was captured by the very first scene of the girl in the dress. Like a painting from the futurism style, it blends movement and motion into a final still, out of focus, and it looks stunning on the mostly black big screen. All of this is overlayed with narration that is simply perfectly spoken (which is consistent for the film, a beautiful read), but more importantly beautifully written. The narration, which comprises most of the spoken lines of the film, is more a poem than a movie script, and I appreciated it for it. The image was a painting, the words were literature, as a whole the film was successful as an art piece.
It revolves around a live-in nurse moving into a house to care for an old author who used to write horror books. The nurse starts experiencing subtle signs of a haunting, and finds a strange connection between what is happening to her and one of the author's most famous books.
As an idea, it was the kind of quiet horror I love, channeling fear through the uncanny, like old written weird fiction (my mind took me back to reading the Yellow Wallpaper by Gilman). Fear is not even the right word, as nothing about the film is scary, really. More like a feeling of wrongness with the world, an existential dread of sorts.
Not to detract from the beauty of the art on display, which was anything but shallow, but the plot itself unfortunately was. Pretty, but surface. Only unfinished hints of a story, that relies a bit too heavily on the viewer to fill in the gaps. I am always a fan of ambiguity, and it is almost necessary for me in a horror film (definites tend to disappoint), but there is still a balance to be struck with some concrete details. Osgood Perkins' last film, February, struck the perfect balance between ambiguity and detail, and for that was my favourite horror of 2015. Here, unfortunately, the scale has moved too much in one direction, to the point of feeling unfinished and not entirely satisfying. I also did not love the ending, which is much too close to that of another stunningly subtle recent horror, by one of the most famous current horror directors. Actually, I loved the ending (as a part of the story on display), it fit very well, I just didn't love that I had already seen it so recently. A sad problem of timing.
All in all, I can't possibly not recommend The Pretty Thing That Lives in the House, because it is a soul-satisfying kind of pretty, from sound to visuals to acting. But if what you're after is horror (or even a particularly engaging drama), it won't quench that kind of thirst. Only one for beauty.
I was captured by the very first scene of the girl in the dress. Like a painting from the futurism style, it blends movement and motion into a final still, out of focus, and it looks stunning on the mostly black big screen. All of this is overlayed with narration that is simply perfectly spoken (which is consistent for the film, a beautiful read), but more importantly beautifully written. The narration, which comprises most of the spoken lines of the film, is more a poem than a movie script, and I appreciated it for it. The image was a painting, the words were literature, as a whole the film was successful as an art piece.
It revolves around a live-in nurse moving into a house to care for an old author who used to write horror books. The nurse starts experiencing subtle signs of a haunting, and finds a strange connection between what is happening to her and one of the author's most famous books.
As an idea, it was the kind of quiet horror I love, channeling fear through the uncanny, like old written weird fiction (my mind took me back to reading the Yellow Wallpaper by Gilman). Fear is not even the right word, as nothing about the film is scary, really. More like a feeling of wrongness with the world, an existential dread of sorts.
Not to detract from the beauty of the art on display, which was anything but shallow, but the plot itself unfortunately was. Pretty, but surface. Only unfinished hints of a story, that relies a bit too heavily on the viewer to fill in the gaps. I am always a fan of ambiguity, and it is almost necessary for me in a horror film (definites tend to disappoint), but there is still a balance to be struck with some concrete details. Osgood Perkins' last film, February, struck the perfect balance between ambiguity and detail, and for that was my favourite horror of 2015. Here, unfortunately, the scale has moved too much in one direction, to the point of feeling unfinished and not entirely satisfying. I also did not love the ending, which is much too close to that of another stunningly subtle recent horror, by one of the most famous current horror directors. Actually, I loved the ending (as a part of the story on display), it fit very well, I just didn't love that I had already seen it so recently. A sad problem of timing.
All in all, I can't possibly not recommend The Pretty Thing That Lives in the House, because it is a soul-satisfying kind of pretty, from sound to visuals to acting. But if what you're after is horror (or even a particularly engaging drama), it won't quench that kind of thirst. Only one for beauty.
I am the bad movie that drags down your evening
S_Soma28 October 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Although you might not often think about it, your moment-to-moment sense of "normalcy" is surprisingly easy to disrupt. Somebody speaks to you with slightly too-open, unblinking, staring eyes and a fixed gaze, or stands too close to you in the elevator when there's only the two of you, thereby wordlessly invading your personal space, and all of a sudden you're uncomfortable. It's quite surprising how easy it is to unbalance your sense of personal, situational well-being. It's a peculiar, instinctive thing.
Unfortunately, SOME writer/directors, Osgood Perkins for example, tend to confuse chaining together a long string of glacially slow- moving, discomfort-creating camera shots as an expression of artful horror. And that is all "I Am the Pretty Thing That Lives in the House" is; a long collection of discomfort-creating set shots, strung together one after the other, attempting to pass itself off as good horror. And it's just not. It is excruciatingly slow in literally every scene, has a threadbare story, and virtually starts, goes, and ends nowhere.
Even the scene with Bob Balaban who plays Mr. Waxcap, representing Iris Blum in her legal affairs, is simply the presentation of an uncomfortable conversation. It's just our heroin, Lily, repeatedly trying to be friendly and reasonable and us watching every attempt and overture thudding against Mr. Waxcap and sliding to the floor like a wet dishcloth thrown against a wall. There's no logical reason for such a painfully distorted conversation to take place and for Mr. Waxcap to be so stonily disagreeable; it's just there to add to our sense of discomfort. It has absolutely no logical integration or justification relative to the overall plot.
In point of fact, there are really only two genuinely (somewhat) frightening scenes in the entire picture. One is a telephone cord that is being lifted by something we cannot see and one is Lily's reaction when she sees an apparition, which is actually a pretty good little piece of acting. (Although, from a directorial standpoint, it would've been better if we only saw our heroin's reaction because when we actually see the apparition we're quite disappointed as viewers.) And why does our heroin die at that particular moment? Just scared to death, or something? An incredibly weak plot line at best.
Both of these scenes actually feel distinctively out of place because they're so out of keeping with the endless nothingness of the entire balance of the picture. And, by the way, who or what was pulling on the phone cord and why did it do it? That's poltergeist- like activity and nothing else like that happens in the picture ?
This movie is a repeat offense by writer/director Osgood Perkins. Another one of his movies, "February", has the very same tedious, thudding metronome beat and metre to it as did this piece of junk. Perkins thinks he can turn his personal-discomfort crank and people will mistake what they're seeing as insightful, creative horror. It's procedural garbage. As far as I can tell, Perkins has no creative insight as to what makes a decent horror picture at all.
Unfortunately, SOME writer/directors, Osgood Perkins for example, tend to confuse chaining together a long string of glacially slow- moving, discomfort-creating camera shots as an expression of artful horror. And that is all "I Am the Pretty Thing That Lives in the House" is; a long collection of discomfort-creating set shots, strung together one after the other, attempting to pass itself off as good horror. And it's just not. It is excruciatingly slow in literally every scene, has a threadbare story, and virtually starts, goes, and ends nowhere.
Even the scene with Bob Balaban who plays Mr. Waxcap, representing Iris Blum in her legal affairs, is simply the presentation of an uncomfortable conversation. It's just our heroin, Lily, repeatedly trying to be friendly and reasonable and us watching every attempt and overture thudding against Mr. Waxcap and sliding to the floor like a wet dishcloth thrown against a wall. There's no logical reason for such a painfully distorted conversation to take place and for Mr. Waxcap to be so stonily disagreeable; it's just there to add to our sense of discomfort. It has absolutely no logical integration or justification relative to the overall plot.
In point of fact, there are really only two genuinely (somewhat) frightening scenes in the entire picture. One is a telephone cord that is being lifted by something we cannot see and one is Lily's reaction when she sees an apparition, which is actually a pretty good little piece of acting. (Although, from a directorial standpoint, it would've been better if we only saw our heroin's reaction because when we actually see the apparition we're quite disappointed as viewers.) And why does our heroin die at that particular moment? Just scared to death, or something? An incredibly weak plot line at best.
Both of these scenes actually feel distinctively out of place because they're so out of keeping with the endless nothingness of the entire balance of the picture. And, by the way, who or what was pulling on the phone cord and why did it do it? That's poltergeist- like activity and nothing else like that happens in the picture ?
This movie is a repeat offense by writer/director Osgood Perkins. Another one of his movies, "February", has the very same tedious, thudding metronome beat and metre to it as did this piece of junk. Perkins thinks he can turn his personal-discomfort crank and people will mistake what they're seeing as insightful, creative horror. It's procedural garbage. As far as I can tell, Perkins has no creative insight as to what makes a decent horror picture at all.
Beautiful
jmbwithcats28 October 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I have to recommend the ghost story film on Netflix entitled, "I Am The Pretty Thing That Lives In The House"
A lot of poor reviews on Netflix and IMDb, a lot of 1's poor poor bored people... 5.something on IMDb.
It was pure poetry... some might hate it the way I hate the Paranormal Activity sequels... when I say nothing happens... that's what they'd say about this movie... but unlike those, I loved this. The big difference is that this was full of poetry and ambiance and atmosphere, and Paranormal Activity was really lacking in aesthetic... there's an art to this movie, it's everywhere... in the dialog, in the scenery, in the wallpaper, in the pacing, and in the story. It's pure story.
I think it's possibly explained in the narration at the end:
"I have heard myself say, that a house with a death in it can never again be bought or sold by the living, it can only be borrowed from its ghosts. And so it is. The house that stands at the end of Teacup Road, near the town of Braintree, Massachusetts. You may borrow it from me. Because the memory of a death is a thing that stays, pressed deeply in place like type on paper. Even after it has been covered up with nothing left to see. And still I think I'll stay for one more look at her. This is how I let myself rot. The pretty thing you are looking at is me."
To me it means all things of history are the forgotten lives of those who have died... within the ground, the walls, are their memories, once so meaningful to them, so pretty so hopeful... and when we look at them, we bring them back to life to get another look at the world through us.
I found the movie quite beautiful.
10/10
A lot of poor reviews on Netflix and IMDb, a lot of 1's poor poor bored people... 5.something on IMDb.
It was pure poetry... some might hate it the way I hate the Paranormal Activity sequels... when I say nothing happens... that's what they'd say about this movie... but unlike those, I loved this. The big difference is that this was full of poetry and ambiance and atmosphere, and Paranormal Activity was really lacking in aesthetic... there's an art to this movie, it's everywhere... in the dialog, in the scenery, in the wallpaper, in the pacing, and in the story. It's pure story.
I think it's possibly explained in the narration at the end:
"I have heard myself say, that a house with a death in it can never again be bought or sold by the living, it can only be borrowed from its ghosts. And so it is. The house that stands at the end of Teacup Road, near the town of Braintree, Massachusetts. You may borrow it from me. Because the memory of a death is a thing that stays, pressed deeply in place like type on paper. Even after it has been covered up with nothing left to see. And still I think I'll stay for one more look at her. This is how I let myself rot. The pretty thing you are looking at is me."
To me it means all things of history are the forgotten lives of those who have died... within the ground, the walls, are their memories, once so meaningful to them, so pretty so hopeful... and when we look at them, we bring them back to life to get another look at the world through us.
I found the movie quite beautiful.
10/10
Totally boring
chuckxx13 August 2020
The Monologe of lily goes on and on, as is the movie.
Nothing scary about it.
Cheap low budget movie made movie. Netflix, that says all.
Boring as hell.
I don't understand how people could even to consider to give it so many stars.
The very essence of Gothic literature in cinematic form
Perception_de_Ambiguity29 October 2016
I would describe 'I Am the Pretty Thing That Lives in the House' as a Gothic short story (or maybe even a Gothic poem) brought to the screen. But forget about all the tropes and visuals that are associated with this genre, it is instead focused on what for me is the essential element of Gothic literature: The dead are alive. This doesn't seem like much to build a narrative on, and the driving force of "Pretty" indeed is not plot, nor characters, nor the solving of a mystery. And while all three things are embedded into its narrative it is first and foremost a tone poem. An important thing about the the-dead-are-alive notion, especially in this film, is that it goes both ways. The living can sense the presence of the dead (AKA ghosts), but the dead actually live on after their death, probably mostly concerned with reliving their past, but they might also be able to sense the living. So who is haunting who?
Consequently "Pretty" presents a ghost story within a ghost story, to put it in simplified terms. In more concrete terms the plot concerns Lily, a nurse who stays in the house of elderly horror fiction writer Iris Blum, to take care of her until her death, which shouldn't be too far into the future now. But it also wouldn't be too wrong to say that the main character is the house that had a few occupants over the course of its lifetime. I don't mean this in the tired old this-and-that-place-is-like-another-character-in-the-film way, the personality of the house certainly is made up of all the people who lived in it. But writer-director Oz Perkins takes the expression "If these walls could talk" and makes it a reality. It is about the people who lived in the house (or more correctly the people who died in it), but for all intents and purposes the main character is the house itself.
"Pretty" starts with nurse Lily's first day at the house and her opening narration tells us that she just turned 28 years old, but that she will never be 29. She talks about death, memory and says "From where I am now, I can be sure of only a very few things." One of those things is her name. So right from the beginning we know that Lily (at least Lily as a narrator) is already dead. Logic dictates that what we see on screen are her hazy memories of her short time in the house. Can we trust her words and can we trust what we see?
In any case, old Iris Blum doesn't talk much. But she keeps calling Lily by the name of Polly. And Lily seems to sense some ghostly presence in the house. Polly, as we soon learn, is the main character of Blum's most famous novel "The Lady in the Walls", a novel of which Blum said it lacks an ending because of "an obligation to be true to the subject" for Polly didn't tell Blum about her ending, but Blum tells us that she is convinced that "as endings go, Polly's was not an especially pretty one." Incidentally there also slowly emerges an ugly, moldy stain on one of the walls in the house that Lily grows concerned about. Is there some connection?
Perkins leaves the viewer in the dark for most of the film's running time about the concrete connections between all the characters, as slow and eventless as the whole thing is it is difficult to keep track of all the points of view. For example Lily isn't the only one whose voice-over we hear, we also hear and see young Blum as she writes the novel, and we hear and see Polly. Those voices also aren't particularly easy to distinguish, and it gets even more complicated when scaredy cat Lily finally dares to pick up "The Lady in the Walls" to read at least parts of it, the content of which is told from both Blum's and Polly's point of view. Through the viewer's natural desire to know the answers the film evokes ideas on the way as we contemplate all the possible answers. Did Polly really exist? Is she buried behind the wall? Are Lily and Polly somehow the same person? Is Lily a fictional character altogether? Or is Lily only imagining things?
Like a poem or a song it evokes first and foremost a tone, a mood, and sparks ideas of what it might be about. It takes further readings/listens to find that in between all the lines it actually tells a story, a simple story perhaps, but nevertheless a story. And this is actually how 'I Am the Pretty Thing That Lives in the House' worked for me. The tone and the ideas immediately took hold of me, but it took me two viewings to really make sense of the narrative. This isn't without its drawbacks, because frankly it isn't so much difficult to follow because it floods you with information that you need to sort out, on the contrary, it basically is so eventless that it poses a challenge to stay attentive for the whole time. This was, however, clearly a conscious choice by Perkins, and his approach is nothing if not consequential. But it makes criticisms of the film being "boring" particularly understandable in this case, "Pretty" indeed is very one-note, and unless it is a note you relish or that you learn to relish, it won't be enough for you to satisfyingly get you through a whole feature film.
As it turned out after two viewings, the solution to the mystery is quite concrete and surprisingly not at all convoluted. Nevertheless the ending for me is as chilling as it is simple, and it beautifully circles back onto itself, like a chorus that keeps coming back, just what you would expect a story told by a ghost to be.
Consequently "Pretty" presents a ghost story within a ghost story, to put it in simplified terms. In more concrete terms the plot concerns Lily, a nurse who stays in the house of elderly horror fiction writer Iris Blum, to take care of her until her death, which shouldn't be too far into the future now. But it also wouldn't be too wrong to say that the main character is the house that had a few occupants over the course of its lifetime. I don't mean this in the tired old this-and-that-place-is-like-another-character-in-the-film way, the personality of the house certainly is made up of all the people who lived in it. But writer-director Oz Perkins takes the expression "If these walls could talk" and makes it a reality. It is about the people who lived in the house (or more correctly the people who died in it), but for all intents and purposes the main character is the house itself.
"Pretty" starts with nurse Lily's first day at the house and her opening narration tells us that she just turned 28 years old, but that she will never be 29. She talks about death, memory and says "From where I am now, I can be sure of only a very few things." One of those things is her name. So right from the beginning we know that Lily (at least Lily as a narrator) is already dead. Logic dictates that what we see on screen are her hazy memories of her short time in the house. Can we trust her words and can we trust what we see?
In any case, old Iris Blum doesn't talk much. But she keeps calling Lily by the name of Polly. And Lily seems to sense some ghostly presence in the house. Polly, as we soon learn, is the main character of Blum's most famous novel "The Lady in the Walls", a novel of which Blum said it lacks an ending because of "an obligation to be true to the subject" for Polly didn't tell Blum about her ending, but Blum tells us that she is convinced that "as endings go, Polly's was not an especially pretty one." Incidentally there also slowly emerges an ugly, moldy stain on one of the walls in the house that Lily grows concerned about. Is there some connection?
Perkins leaves the viewer in the dark for most of the film's running time about the concrete connections between all the characters, as slow and eventless as the whole thing is it is difficult to keep track of all the points of view. For example Lily isn't the only one whose voice-over we hear, we also hear and see young Blum as she writes the novel, and we hear and see Polly. Those voices also aren't particularly easy to distinguish, and it gets even more complicated when scaredy cat Lily finally dares to pick up "The Lady in the Walls" to read at least parts of it, the content of which is told from both Blum's and Polly's point of view. Through the viewer's natural desire to know the answers the film evokes ideas on the way as we contemplate all the possible answers. Did Polly really exist? Is she buried behind the wall? Are Lily and Polly somehow the same person? Is Lily a fictional character altogether? Or is Lily only imagining things?
Like a poem or a song it evokes first and foremost a tone, a mood, and sparks ideas of what it might be about. It takes further readings/listens to find that in between all the lines it actually tells a story, a simple story perhaps, but nevertheless a story. And this is actually how 'I Am the Pretty Thing That Lives in the House' worked for me. The tone and the ideas immediately took hold of me, but it took me two viewings to really make sense of the narrative. This isn't without its drawbacks, because frankly it isn't so much difficult to follow because it floods you with information that you need to sort out, on the contrary, it basically is so eventless that it poses a challenge to stay attentive for the whole time. This was, however, clearly a conscious choice by Perkins, and his approach is nothing if not consequential. But it makes criticisms of the film being "boring" particularly understandable in this case, "Pretty" indeed is very one-note, and unless it is a note you relish or that you learn to relish, it won't be enough for you to satisfyingly get you through a whole feature film.
As it turned out after two viewings, the solution to the mystery is quite concrete and surprisingly not at all convoluted. Nevertheless the ending for me is as chilling as it is simple, and it beautifully circles back onto itself, like a chorus that keeps coming back, just what you would expect a story told by a ghost to be.
It successfully kept me in suspense the entire way through
helvin317 March 2018
I thought I'd write a review to contrast all the bad ones on here haha. I hate horror films that resort to obvious ghosts, cheap scares and gore - that ruins it for me and makes it not scary. So I'm always on the hunt for a horror that actually scares me. This film absolutely does not resort to those tricks I hate, and it kept me in a paranoid suspense the entire way through. It's a subtle and clever horror, although I will admit it wasn't perfect. Something was slightly off about the storyline I guess. But how it was filmed - and the pace - was brilliant. It will genuinely haunt me I think :-)
Don't waste your time
apathasy28 October 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I HAD to write a review, because this was the dullest, most boring movie I have ever seen. I am usually quite impressed with Netflix, but in this case, I beg the screenplay writer to never write anything again. Please. I just couldn't wait for the main character to die so I could be put out of my misery (and yet the movie still was not over). Netflix, take this crap down, and please don't do anything like this ever again. Awful, awful, awful. Fair warning, if you choose to suffer through this movie, you will never get back the time you spent watching it, and that is the true horror of this movie. I would actually recommend Paranormal Activity over this movie, which was previously the worst, most boring movie I had ever seen. Sadly, this one wins in that category.
Don't. Just don't.
jonboy27416 October 2020
Nothing pretty, nothing good. Very disappointing.
nitzanhavoc19 June 2018
I am actually speechless. I can't recall the last time a film tagged "Horror" succeeded in being so utterly unsatisfying and plain boring. Reading some other reviews I've realized that perhaps "I Am The Pretty Thing That Lives In The House" has a certain Gothic charm to it, sort of a Classical short-story come to life, but I personally wanted to watch a scary film, not complete a literature assignment.
The acting is good I guess, for the shallow deliberately criptic characters (who do little to salvage this film from having confusion its sole effect, and not a confusion resulting from clever sophistication, but bred from a total mess and lack of ligic). The narration is quite impressive, sort of like a Poe tribute combined with early 20th century ghost stories, in which the assumed very existence of ghosts and their presence in a home was the epitome of fear. This is the 21st century and I personally require more than that.
Seeing as how I've just spent 90 minutes watching this film waiting for something, anything, preferably an answer (even an implied one) to one of the many questions posed by the long, overbearing build-up. Did I say build-up? My mistake, as the term implies a conclusion, something at least mildly exciting to conclude the events and tie the hidden hints together. Here? No conclusion, no events, no logic, barely any story and nothing to make me personally feel like I've chosen the right film to watch.
If you're an academic looking for an interesting analysis - look no further. But if like me you're simply a Horror enthusiast looking for a scary film - look elsewhere. Anywhere. I have work tomorrow, I need to go get some sleep and I can't put into words the utter disappointment I feel having wasted my time on this film.
The acting is good I guess, for the shallow deliberately criptic characters (who do little to salvage this film from having confusion its sole effect, and not a confusion resulting from clever sophistication, but bred from a total mess and lack of ligic). The narration is quite impressive, sort of like a Poe tribute combined with early 20th century ghost stories, in which the assumed very existence of ghosts and their presence in a home was the epitome of fear. This is the 21st century and I personally require more than that.
Seeing as how I've just spent 90 minutes watching this film waiting for something, anything, preferably an answer (even an implied one) to one of the many questions posed by the long, overbearing build-up. Did I say build-up? My mistake, as the term implies a conclusion, something at least mildly exciting to conclude the events and tie the hidden hints together. Here? No conclusion, no events, no logic, barely any story and nothing to make me personally feel like I've chosen the right film to watch.
If you're an academic looking for an interesting analysis - look no further. But if like me you're simply a Horror enthusiast looking for a scary film - look elsewhere. Anywhere. I have work tomorrow, I need to go get some sleep and I can't put into words the utter disappointment I feel having wasted my time on this film.
People Hate a Slow Burn
gavin694212 January 2017
A young nurse takes care of elderly author who lives in a haunted house.
This film seems to be getting negative responses from people, at least if I take IMDb as any sort of serious guide. At this time (January 2017) it sits at 4.8, which isn't awful but is certainly far from great. Having now seen the film, I find the low rating surprising. The acting is great, and there is nothing wrong with the film as far as technical matters go.
My guess is that people have the wrong mindset. The film was promoted by Rue Morgue, among others, and maybe people got caught up in some hype of Oz Perkins or misunderstood. Much like the recent Guillermo del Toro ghost story, people need to see this type of horror (the "gothic romance") as different from what they expect. It might be slower and there will be less blood. But it is about creating a mood, which I think this film does rather well.
This film seems to be getting negative responses from people, at least if I take IMDb as any sort of serious guide. At this time (January 2017) it sits at 4.8, which isn't awful but is certainly far from great. Having now seen the film, I find the low rating surprising. The acting is great, and there is nothing wrong with the film as far as technical matters go.
My guess is that people have the wrong mindset. The film was promoted by Rue Morgue, among others, and maybe people got caught up in some hype of Oz Perkins or misunderstood. Much like the recent Guillermo del Toro ghost story, people need to see this type of horror (the "gothic romance") as different from what they expect. It might be slower and there will be less blood. But it is about creating a mood, which I think this film does rather well.
takes a long time to go nowhere
phenomynouss9 December 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I am the sort of person in no way put off by the mood and tone of a movie like this, with lots of drawn out silence, lingering shots, and atmosphere to creep one out. The problem with this movie is it's apparently looking to make full use of that style of filmmaking, while not having much of a story to tell.
it starts with a monologue from the main character that seems like it's going somewhere, but then starts to ramble, and you notice that it seems to be going on far longer than it should be. Once you think it's finished, it continues on, although at least we now see the main character, while she seems to struggle to set up the scenario in the same sort of lyricy prose of the rambling introductory monologue.
After that, while still attempting to retain its existential aura, it plays like a typical haunted house movie, only with a small handful of jump scares.
As an aside that irritated me far more than it likely should, the introductory paragraph of the in-universe novel "The Lady in the Walls" introducing Polly Parsons led me to believe that Polly had died only moments after being born, and yet throughout the rest of the movie she is described and depicted as having grown into adulthood and apparently been murdered by someone.
From there, we are treated to seemingly loosely connected scenes just happening one after the other, culminating in a long, drawn out final sequence in which the main character directly spots the ghost of Polly... and apparently dies of fright, or of a heart attack. The ghost does nothing but walks around and stares at her.
After that we get a drawn out epilogue that ties in to the opening monologue regarding people moving in to houses where people died in them, and the implication that the main character may be a ghost there now.
it starts with a monologue from the main character that seems like it's going somewhere, but then starts to ramble, and you notice that it seems to be going on far longer than it should be. Once you think it's finished, it continues on, although at least we now see the main character, while she seems to struggle to set up the scenario in the same sort of lyricy prose of the rambling introductory monologue.
After that, while still attempting to retain its existential aura, it plays like a typical haunted house movie, only with a small handful of jump scares.
As an aside that irritated me far more than it likely should, the introductory paragraph of the in-universe novel "The Lady in the Walls" introducing Polly Parsons led me to believe that Polly had died only moments after being born, and yet throughout the rest of the movie she is described and depicted as having grown into adulthood and apparently been murdered by someone.
From there, we are treated to seemingly loosely connected scenes just happening one after the other, culminating in a long, drawn out final sequence in which the main character directly spots the ghost of Polly... and apparently dies of fright, or of a heart attack. The ghost does nothing but walks around and stares at her.
After that we get a drawn out epilogue that ties in to the opening monologue regarding people moving in to houses where people died in them, and the implication that the main character may be a ghost there now.
A little wonky but a good watch
sukanya-samy31 October 2016
First reviewed on broth of blogs.This movie about a nurse Lily (Ruth Wilson) who comes to take care of an old author, Iris Blum, living alone in a remote house. Iris is almost senile and speaks to Lily only referring to her as Polly. Lily finds out that Polly was Iris's most famous character and she attempts reading one of the books that Iris has written. And something happens.
The story is simple enough but is still cryptic. I didn't get a few parts but I don't think I care. It is about the forgotten lives in the house. The movie is poetic (literally) and I quite enjoyed it.
Characterization and Acting (C&A)
Characterization was done well, I would have probably liked some exposition but I think this movie is supposed to be puzzling. Ruth Wilson plays the part to perfection - scared, vulnerable and alone. She really looks like she is going to have a heart attack anytime. Its totally her show as she probably has 80 minutes screen time of 90 minutes of the movie.
Sounds and Effects (S&E)
The background of this movie is just mind blowing. It is the scariest I have heard till date. Has this weird ability to spook you as well even if nothing scary is happening. Full points here. There weren't any jump scares and it is all left to your imagination at the end.
Cinematography and Visuals (C&V)
Like I said the movie is poetic. It is slow, there isn't much of a story but it moves you and creeps you out. They didn't overdo the actual horror which works in the movie's favor. The lighting was great and the setting itself eerie. Great stuff.
Direction and Overall (D &O)
Overall, the movie looked and sounded great. The acting was really good I thought. Only complaint I have is that maybe it could have had a little more exposition to actually understand some stuff which wasn't clear.
So here are my scores:
Plot and Script (P&S)- 1
Characterization and Acting (C&A) – 1
Sounds and Effects (S&E) – 2.0
Cinematography and Visuals (C&V) – 1.5
Direction and Overall (D &O) – 1
Overall Score – 6.5 out of 10
Good watch for Halloween 2016! Just be patient, the movie is not as long as its title!!
The story is simple enough but is still cryptic. I didn't get a few parts but I don't think I care. It is about the forgotten lives in the house. The movie is poetic (literally) and I quite enjoyed it.
Characterization and Acting (C&A)
Characterization was done well, I would have probably liked some exposition but I think this movie is supposed to be puzzling. Ruth Wilson plays the part to perfection - scared, vulnerable and alone. She really looks like she is going to have a heart attack anytime. Its totally her show as she probably has 80 minutes screen time of 90 minutes of the movie.
Sounds and Effects (S&E)
The background of this movie is just mind blowing. It is the scariest I have heard till date. Has this weird ability to spook you as well even if nothing scary is happening. Full points here. There weren't any jump scares and it is all left to your imagination at the end.
Cinematography and Visuals (C&V)
Like I said the movie is poetic. It is slow, there isn't much of a story but it moves you and creeps you out. They didn't overdo the actual horror which works in the movie's favor. The lighting was great and the setting itself eerie. Great stuff.
Direction and Overall (D &O)
Overall, the movie looked and sounded great. The acting was really good I thought. Only complaint I have is that maybe it could have had a little more exposition to actually understand some stuff which wasn't clear.
So here are my scores:
Plot and Script (P&S)- 1
Characterization and Acting (C&A) – 1
Sounds and Effects (S&E) – 2.0
Cinematography and Visuals (C&V) – 1.5
Direction and Overall (D &O) – 1
Overall Score – 6.5 out of 10
Good watch for Halloween 2016! Just be patient, the movie is not as long as its title!!
The only thrills here were how slow paced and lacking events this movie was...
paul_haakonsen2 May 2017
Warning: Spoilers
When I found this movie, I was lured in by the movie's cover/poster and also the somewhat alluring synopsis. So I was preparing myself to sit down for a creepy thriller movie. However, that was not to be.
I wanted so much to give this movie every possible chance, especially since the story had so much potential to be great. But it just never happened.
I managed to sit through 55 minutes of mind numbing and excruciating boredom. Nothing happened, and I do literally mean nothing. Well, something did happen, as someone was pulling on the phone cord while the nurse was talking on the phone, yanking the phone out of her hand. And that was the only thing that was anywhere near interesting in all of those 55 minutes.
The story really had every chance to be a good and fulfilling horror movie, but it just failed to do so in transition from script to actual on-screen performance. The storyline was so incredibly slow paced that it was a struggle to keep focusing on the movie. But not only was the storyline slow paced, it was also incredibly uneventful (as I mentioned earlier).
As far as the acting went, well the performers seemed to be droning about in a blank stupor, performingly equally slow to match the slow pace of the storyline. I am sure that they were doing good enough jobs and doing what they were directed to do. But the lack of motivation from a proper script was permeating their performances. But wow, the slow paced performances were almost enough to lull me to sleep.
Let me just state once again that nothing, absolutely nothing happens in this movie - or at least the 55 minutes I managed to suffer through.
All in all, "I Am the Pretty Thing That Lives in the House" is without a doubt the most boring and uneventful of thrillers to have seen the light of day in 2016. But more impressively, then it is actually in the top three of all time boring movies that I have had the unfortunate pleasure of getting acquainted with. There is no chance of me ever returning to watch the rest of the movie. The 55 minutes that I endured was enough to last a life time and then some.
I wanted so much to give this movie every possible chance, especially since the story had so much potential to be great. But it just never happened.
I managed to sit through 55 minutes of mind numbing and excruciating boredom. Nothing happened, and I do literally mean nothing. Well, something did happen, as someone was pulling on the phone cord while the nurse was talking on the phone, yanking the phone out of her hand. And that was the only thing that was anywhere near interesting in all of those 55 minutes.
The story really had every chance to be a good and fulfilling horror movie, but it just failed to do so in transition from script to actual on-screen performance. The storyline was so incredibly slow paced that it was a struggle to keep focusing on the movie. But not only was the storyline slow paced, it was also incredibly uneventful (as I mentioned earlier).
As far as the acting went, well the performers seemed to be droning about in a blank stupor, performingly equally slow to match the slow pace of the storyline. I am sure that they were doing good enough jobs and doing what they were directed to do. But the lack of motivation from a proper script was permeating their performances. But wow, the slow paced performances were almost enough to lull me to sleep.
Let me just state once again that nothing, absolutely nothing happens in this movie - or at least the 55 minutes I managed to suffer through.
All in all, "I Am the Pretty Thing That Lives in the House" is without a doubt the most boring and uneventful of thrillers to have seen the light of day in 2016. But more impressively, then it is actually in the top three of all time boring movies that I have had the unfortunate pleasure of getting acquainted with. There is no chance of me ever returning to watch the rest of the movie. The 55 minutes that I endured was enough to last a life time and then some.
I Am The Only One, Who Was Not Bored By This Movie.
lainesux10 February 2018
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is not for those who are used to fast paced, break neck horror. This is more for those who are familiar with and enjoy Gothic literature. If you don't enjoy penny dreadfuls or the dark romantics, you will not enjoy this movie. (Not to say there's anything wrong with that, everyone has their own tastes. I'm just saying this movie won't be for you.) If you aren't watching closely enough, you may miss important details.
I understand why this movie is getting negative reviews, because people came in wanting one thing and left with another. But, the movie itself is beautiful.
It's color palette and cinematography are to die for, and the writing in the movie is superb. The acting is just on the right side of subtle, and the quiet atmosphere really drew me into a false sense of security, only to push me out of my comfort zone.
The story, at it's core., is about Polly Parsons, a young bride who is murdered and 'buried' behind the walls of the home her husband built for her. She begins to tell her tale to writer Iris Blum, who turns it into a national best seller. Iris tries to communicate with the ghost again, only for Polly to go silent and literally turn her back on her. "You turned your back so often, you're feet were facing the wrong way round."
Over the years, Iris deteriorates. She wants to die in her home, with Polly. Lily (yes, I did do the thing where I screamed "oml dats my name.") comes in as her hospice nurse. Lily begins to uncover these stories, only to die of fright as soon as she sees Polly. She stays in the house, effectively becoming Polly.
The symbolism in this movie is strong. No details are just put in there by accident.
Iris and Lily, wilting like flowers. The mold that is Polly destroys them. *.*
Like I said, if you enjoy the 'My House is Haunted By Demons' genre, but in the vein of 'The Amityville Horror' or 'Oujia' then maybe skip this one? (Of course, this isn't the only genre you're allowed to enjoy. You can enjoy this movie and those as well.) Otherwise, put your looking googles on. This gon' good.
I understand why this movie is getting negative reviews, because people came in wanting one thing and left with another. But, the movie itself is beautiful.
It's color palette and cinematography are to die for, and the writing in the movie is superb. The acting is just on the right side of subtle, and the quiet atmosphere really drew me into a false sense of security, only to push me out of my comfort zone.
The story, at it's core., is about Polly Parsons, a young bride who is murdered and 'buried' behind the walls of the home her husband built for her. She begins to tell her tale to writer Iris Blum, who turns it into a national best seller. Iris tries to communicate with the ghost again, only for Polly to go silent and literally turn her back on her. "You turned your back so often, you're feet were facing the wrong way round."
Over the years, Iris deteriorates. She wants to die in her home, with Polly. Lily (yes, I did do the thing where I screamed "oml dats my name.") comes in as her hospice nurse. Lily begins to uncover these stories, only to die of fright as soon as she sees Polly. She stays in the house, effectively becoming Polly.
The symbolism in this movie is strong. No details are just put in there by accident.
Iris and Lily, wilting like flowers. The mold that is Polly destroys them. *.*
Like I said, if you enjoy the 'My House is Haunted By Demons' genre, but in the vein of 'The Amityville Horror' or 'Oujia' then maybe skip this one? (Of course, this isn't the only genre you're allowed to enjoy. You can enjoy this movie and those as well.) Otherwise, put your looking googles on. This gon' good.
244. I Am the Pretty Thing That Lives in the House
tfminfl8 June 2018
A cool creepy story about, well its more about a house than anything else, or more like the creepy things that go on in it. It starts with the arrival of a home care nurse named Lily, and she's there to care for Iris Blum, a horror novelist nearing the end... And seeing that Lily is the ultimate scaredy-cat, moving into an big, very old house, occupied by a horror writer, well seems weird. But Lily goes for it, and as she cares for Iris, Iris starts calling her Polly... a character from one of her novels, The Lady in the Walls, her best known work. Once Lily checks it out, the creepiness begins. I thought it was a good piece of story telling, it splinters off, and tells the tale of Polly, and also the tale of young Iris writing the book... How all three stories intersect was pretty sweet, and a uber creepy narration helped on the creepiness factor of creepy. Filmbufftim on FB.
I Am The Unfortunate Thing To Have Watched This In My House
thdudeabides15 September 2020
When you are told the main character's fate at the beginning of a film, you are naturally left thinking there must be more to the film. Unfortunately this isn't the case here.
There are some eerie early scenes where the build up tension is actually good. The director is clearly good at setting such scenes. These are let down however, by the final scare not being scary at all. For instance, a character screaming at the camera with the viewer not being shown what is so terrifying until the moment is gone, feels like a complete waste of a tense build up to it.
The frequent narration throughout the film makes this feel more like a timid ghost story or Gothic poem more than a horror. This may have been intended, along with the ambiguity of much of the film. But there are too many events open to interpretation to satisfy any viewer. To me this was a waste of time. I would avoid this.
Could'a Would'a Should'a
raquelzepeda31 October 2016
This story had all the makings of a great spooky mystery. Unfortunately, it did not deliver. It starts with very mysterious theories and possibilities. Then, nothing. It's like going to a steak house and eating a salad with tofu.
That's it, it's anemic. It never really tells you why the ghost is there, nor does the ghost appear much.
It needs more interaction between the supernatural and the living. It needs a solution and a reckoning with what happened to the couple that disappeared. In other words, it lacks the very basics of any story: who, why, what when, etc.
I was really looking forward to this movie because I am so sick of all the stupid slasher flicks. Oh well.
Good try.
That's it, it's anemic. It never really tells you why the ghost is there, nor does the ghost appear much.
It needs more interaction between the supernatural and the living. It needs a solution and a reckoning with what happened to the couple that disappeared. In other words, it lacks the very basics of any story: who, why, what when, etc.
I was really looking forward to this movie because I am so sick of all the stupid slasher flicks. Oh well.
Good try.
2
Edvis-199713 February 2021
Sorry, but this was not just bad but hideous. I get that creators/directors tried to show how original,quirky and bohemian this movie is but it was just a cheap kitsch. If you're trying to create "smart" movie you've to put more details,have strong characters and follow plot line. In this case, we're having bad beginning with weak leading role and no detailed movie at all. As a consumer I want to get information fast and understand what this movie is talking about in this film I was lost almost full 90minutes. I didn't like anything of this movie, it didn't have anything unique. I can just applause for creators that managed to make useless movie for under 10k$ budget. I would never recommend to watch this film, just don't waste your time and life.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
