Treehouse (2014) User Reviews

what to expect

[nidarach88 · 3/10 · 25 October 2014]

I am not sure if i am adding spoilers, but here is what to expect when you watch this movie( apologies beforehand for people who did not want these spoilers):

1. A tree-house: so you can hide in it in the middle of a forest to avoid harm coming your way and of course no one will think to go up and look for you there

2. Asthmatic dark figures: so they can forewarn their presence by breathing heavily down the doorway while you just slide in the shadow so no one can see you

3. Bunch of kids using radio: because you don't want the killers to hear you yelling at each other from a distance.. yet you do..

4. a psychological breakdown: Right in the middle of an imminent crisis where your repressed childhood memories decide to take you over and you manage to resolve those issues RIGHT THEN, and you rise like a phoenix from the ashes to save the day

5. A pretty girl: so she can call a just met perfect stranger "baby bear" or similar by the end of the day and acts like its perfectly the norm but i guess stranger things have happened...in the movie that is

6. A bunch of killers: who look like they never had a shower in their lives, who have no speech in between them except for grunts and wild gesticulations and it makes you wonder more about their upbringing rather than the plot of the entire movie

so no, the movie is not good enough for people looking for serious horror, although the stupidity of the characters in the movie is pretty horrifying!

A poor script sinks any promise

[MattyGibbs · 5/10 · 29 March 2015]

Treehouse starts well and the opening scene suggests this may be a small budget gem however any hope of this is quickly extinguished.

The premise is decent, young adults and children are being kidnapped and it all seems linked to a strange tree house. Unfortunately a very poor script never even gets close to tapping the films potential. There are plenty of superfluous scenes that add little or nothing to the story.

Treehouse changes direction at the drop of the hat as if the writer didn't quite know what he wanted the film to be, slasher, supernatural or gritty thriller. As a result we just get a jumbled mess of a film that is at times confusing and at times boring.

Although it's a pretty poor film, it's not a total write off as there are at least a couple of decent scenes and some of the filming is quite good.

I can't really recommend this film and am probably being a bit generous giving it a 5 but I have seen far worse films.

Not what it looks like

[shadowofthehorrornight · 3/10 · 21 October 2014]

I watched this movie before release and was anticipating some mystery and maybe even a bit of horror. There were no ratings or reviews so I watched it without knowing what to expect. All I got was a dragged out film that went nowhere... Judging by the poster you would think that this movie involved some seriously creepy and exciting plot.. But it was quite the opposite and frankly a waste of time. With a disappointing ending that didn't boost my thoughts of the movie. If you are looking for horror, certainly don't watch this movie. I suppose at most you could call it a Mystery. Overall highly disappointing and not a movie exciting or good enough to watch with a friend.

Pain!

[hitchcockthelegend · 2/10 · 24 July 2015]

Just how do these awful films keep getting made? It's something that tends to happen a lot in the horror genre, though calling Treehouse a horror movie is a bit of stretch.

It's difficult to grasp just what the makers were going for since the film goes nowhere fast and quickly loses focus to the point that nothing much makes sense. It starts off promising enough, with a nice musical score and some nifty location photography work. Then it piles on the exposition, throws in some poor acting, all building towards a laughable finale that is most certainly not worth waiting for - and again the reveal doesn't make any sense given what had happened earlier in the piece.

Poor and best avoided unless you want to feel angry? 2/10

Not good enough to recommend...

[planktonrules · 3/10 · 28 January 2015]

The best thing about "Treehouse" is the horrifying poster that came out along with the movie. Whoever made the poster did a great job of getting the attention of any potential viewer and it's incredibly creepy. Otherwise, however, it's a movie I just cannot recommend. In so many ways, it looks a lot like a high school student project, but with quite a bit more money and quality behind it.

"Treehouse" has a very simple plot. Two brothers go into the woods and once there they discover a missing teen. She's been holed up inside a treehouse for several days...hiding from someone or something that has been stalking her and her brother. At times the film tries to introduce more plot through some flashbacks, but essentially this is the plot. Ultimately, there is a showdown--some of which I actually liked, as the most unlikely looking action hero of all time (J. Michael Trautmann) rises to the occasion.

So why am I cold about this film? Well, it looks and sounds like the movie just isn't ready to be seen by the public. The script could use a lot of work. When it comes to the dialog, much of it just sounded unreal and takes you out of the experience...especially with the missing girl continually and inexplicably calling the hero 'Baby Bear'. The characters also talk and scream A LOT for folks hiding out in a treehouse in order to avoid being killed!! Rule number one of avoiding death is that you should consider being quiet when you are hiding from psycho killers! The film is also overlong and would benefit from omitting the flashbacks, tightening up the first portion of the film and simply concentrating on the action-- and it was a bit better during some of the action sequences. Considering that the filmmakers really haven't a lot of experience, maybe this film is simply a way for them to hone their skills while making a few mistakes along the way. If so, there is a bit of promise and they might be bringing us something more polished and viewer-ready in the future. As for "Treehouse", however, I just can't see spending your hard-earned money to buy or rent the film when there are better films like it already.

Absolute rubbish!

[Nickyrossy · 1/10 · 1 November 2014]

1. The title is misleading.

2. The marketing of the DVD is good but doesn't prepare you for the rubbish to come.

3. The ending is unbelievable in a bad way.

4. Poor acting and sound quality.

5. Weak storyline.

6. Monsters suddenly turn into men.

7. What Treehouse; why is it called Treehouse.....please!! 8. Complete waste of money.

9. On a par with open water; not a compliment! 10. I have just put the DVD in th bin, I am that angry.

No Spoilers Needed No plot to spoil

[soccerprodigy · 1/10 · 27 October 2014]

I don't even know where to begin with how crap this movie is. I jump at Rom Coms and it doesn't take much to please me with a scary movie... this is mind bogglingly bad. I created this account to do nothing other than make sure people know how much of a waste of time this is.

The acting is god awful. The dialogue is stupid. Love interest?

I waited months for this to come out and this is the crap I'm supposed to watch?

Next time I need something this painful to take an hour and a half I'll hire the homeless guy to wax my testicles slowly.

Literally the only positive thing about this movie is that... nope. Nothing. Literally no redeeming factors to be gleamed from watching this film. Please find something better to do with your precious time.

Makes no sense

[kaitlynbernal · 1/10 · 26 October 2014]

Okay so they are in the Treehouse and this creature looking thing climbs up and they're all scared, then it goes away and then the creatures start like yodeling like an entire army of those "creatures" yodeling and then suddenly... those creatures turn into humans...humans with guns...

what happened to the creatures

this movie would be so much better if the people stuck to the creepy creatures killing people in the woods plot...

like what even happened to the creatures that were supposed to be the killers..

do the humans like turn into creatures at night?

i don't understand

this movie enrages me

i gave it a 3/10 for the forehead wrinkles and the retarded boy in the woods that sucks at life and should kill himself

Imperfect but enjoyable

[C_Jags · 7/10 · 23 April 2019]

I can't agree with all the negative reviews on here. Yes, this film has problems, mainly in its somewhat slipshod final act. But at the heart of this film are two very likeable characters, well-portrayed and relatable. The slow-burning tension builds well. You root for the characters.

Again, not perfect. The last act, when our protagonists finally turned the tables on their tormentors, was frankly a bit of a mess and I have to dock points for it. Still, until that point, I found it an earnest and enjoyable film.

Incomplete Movie

[seanmurrayi · 2/10 · 12 March 2015]

This shouldn't be considered an ending spoiler simply because THERE IS NO ENDING TO SPEAK OF.

'Treehouse' only tells 2/3rds of a story, and when the movie reaches what should be the beginning of a concluding 3rd Act, the filmmakers simply do not provide one.

After suggesting a final confrontation with an anonymous, flabby, mute teenager with no personality to speak of--a conflict which could be resolved in less than ten minutes of screen time after the protagonists spontaneously arm themselves with assault rifles--the movie just STOPS. No confrontation, no climax, no resolution or denouement, NOTHING.

What's suggested is that the filmmakers were either too lazy to finish their story (then why begin one in the first place?) or completely delusional in believing the remaining possible 10 minutes of the story could be stretched into ANOTHER 96-minute feature (as if they've gotten anyone to care after the FIRST 96 minutes).

If there's anyone reading this who is actually emotionally invested in a potential sequel, just to see an anonymous, flabby, mute teenager with no personality who isn't even introduced until well over an hour into 'Treehouse' get his comeuppance, please understand that your sons and daughters are making terrible movies.

Neutral, casual viewers out there just don't give a damn.

There's much more wrong with 'Treehouse' than just this, but when there's already a problem as bad as THIS "ending"... Why even bother going into more detail? Just stay away from 'Treehouse'. You'll find a better outcome watching grass grow or watching anything else.

Better Than Other Reviews Made It Out To Be

[Necroambulant · 8/10 · 16 May 2015]

Prior to watching Treehouse I ended up reading what were seemingly universal negative reviews of this movie. Now that the movie is over I would find myself wondering if these people were watching an entirely different movie if it hadn't been for specific plot points that they referenced. Sure, there have been better suspense/horror movies made, but there wasn't anything particularly wrong with this one. The story takes place in the Ozark mountain region and when the movie starts off, children and young adults have apparently been going missing for a little while. It begins with a fairly tense and interesting segment regarding one of these instances of people going missing before the title sequence comes up. There will be a bit of a spoiler here, though not much of one. There seems to be some misapprehension with people who had reviewed this before because they seem to be under the impression that there was some sort of inhuman creature (or creatures) out in the woods where the titular treehouse is located, when it was more than obvious to me that these were nothing more than people, even having a totally human shape when all we are exposed to are silhouettes and shadows initially. Like movies along the lines of Wrong Turn and The Hills Have Eyes, the monsters in this movie are human beings, depraved as they might be. One of the other major complaints I read about was the rapid connection developed between two of the characters, to the point that the girl begins referring to the boy with a bit of a pet name after they had spent the night in hiding. Clearly, these individuals had never been made aware of the fact that high stress, frightening, and life threatening situations have a tendency to cause people to develop an intense emotional bond with others who are in the same position. There was nothing bizarre or ludicrous about that use of a pet name in the least. Finally, the other big complaint was about the ending, leaving a final little piece of the story open-ended, not for a potential sequel, but simply because there was no reason to film it. That is a common thing, in movies and in literature, to complete the climax and then have a final scene in which our heroes head off to finish the last little bit of what needs to be done, without following them on that last stretch of the journey, allowing us to fill it in for ourselves and enjoy a tiny little shred of mystery regarding what happens. I can only assume that the people who watched this movie before me (and complained about these aspects of it in the clearly oblivious manner they exhibited) are either stupid or not altogether familiar with movies in general. The score was good and helped to enhance the atmosphere of the story, and the same could be said for the camera work and overall direction. The acting was better than par for a relatively unknown, low budget horror flick. The story was good, though not perfect, and it was more than coherent enough to keep my interest.

Had no expectations

[jamesrpatton-42222 · 6/10 · 3 August 2020]

I had no idea what this film was about but my daughter liked the title. I rarely write reviews but I always read them before and after a movie. I feel like this movie doesn't deserve all of the negative reviews. It was fun to watch and had I gone by the reviews, I would have missed 101 minutes of entertainment. It wasn't complicated and there were flaws but you can overlook them if you're not expecting an Oscar contender.

Mixed feelings

[violetbluegreenred · 30 April 2016]

Not as bad as I expected it to be based on the comments people have been leaving. Main boy was more annoying to me than the main girl, but I did end up liking both of their characters, or at least the progression of their characters. Overall, I found that the movie had both good and bad. Pros: excellent soundtrack, some chilling moments (and those were really great), unique ending. Cons: not really scary except for those few chilling moments, ridiculous antagonists (although I don't actually care about that much in regard to this film specifically, because I see the villains more as a device to show how the main boy changes as a character, not as actual frightening entities), several inaccuracies/plot holes. So it's really up to you to weigh this out and decide if it's worth it or not. I believe it's entertaining for one watch, but beyond that, I'm not so sure.

Ho-Hum

[gavin6942 · 5/10 · 12 May 2015]

A teenage boy discovers the perpetrators of several brutal kidnappings in his home town.

This film was co-produced by Ed Sanchez (Blair Witch Project), which is just about the only name recognition it has. And even that is a bit of a stretch outside of serious horror fans.

Dave Alexander says the film has "some realistic, likable characters to root for, genuinely frightening and savage antagonists, some brutally effective kills and constant tension". Despite this glowing praise, Alexander goes on to call the movie "stupid" due in part to how it resolves its problems.

Without addressing the second part, one must concur with the first part. After twenty minutes or so of rather boring, pointless exposition, we get to the heart of the film. Very tense, very well shot, and a haunting score. This is not a great film, though it has so many great elements that it will be interesting to see what those involved do next -- and it is almost worth championing this film for that reason.

Starts Out Fine - But That Finale Sucked

[Rainey-Dawn · 3/10 · 13 September 2017]

The film starts out pretty good, very interesting... was fine with the shadow creatures lurking about, kids lost in the woods in a treehouse that the shadow creatures dared not to enter... I started thinking this might be a fairly decent horror-thriller! NOT!!! That ending with Mr. and Miss Rambo was just dumb.

Honestly, just over half way through the film it seems the filmmakers lost their focus and didn't know which way to go with it and by the end, well they didn't know how to end it and made up something on the spot.

That girl starts out all scared and timid, next thing I know she's pretending to be Miss Tough Gal, then back to timid - they didn't know how to develop her character at all!! UGH!! She became irritating and all that "baby bear" crap made me want to puke - over a guy she barely knew... just stupid.

They should have stuck with the original way the film was going with the shadow creature OR left them out just had the 3 crazy kidnapping murdering guys show up instead. One has to make up their mind and be consistent to create a good film... OH and leave out the 1980s action crap - that ending sucked!

3/10

A bit dull

[leavymusic-2 · 4/10 · 14 March 2020]

Nicely filmed and fair acting doesn't take away from the fact that the film is very slow, it's some 119 mins in before some action starts and then it's still quite slow. A missed opportunity to make a good scary movie.

Bad, just really really bad

[smooooth · 22 March 2015]

Bad script, cinematography, bad sound, terrible acting. I can't get 96 minutes back on my life, but wish I could. This was bad, just so horribly bad. We rented this from Redbox so my life is 96 minutes shorter and I'm $1.20 more broke. Can I just pay double and gain my 96 minutes back? Right from the beginning leaves you confused. The girl gets home and read a note from her father. First of all if there is a small child, why did the father just leave him sleeping and leave a note for his daughter? I mean seriously? Who does that? Then the girl (daughter) begins to look for her younger brother "Little Bob". I'm thinking they could have come up with a better name or made it less irritating than hear a girl call out "Little Bob? Are you there Little Bob?" So this whole scene leaves you wonder who is Little Bob, not really knowing the entire time that he is what you might have had a glimpse though of, which is a little boy.

At some point searching the house with a gun she takes off her shoes. I mean who does this? So later she is running out the back door yelling Little Bob (no not very surprise huh?). Then actually show a spot where you can see the girl step and blood squirts. You later find out its glass, but OK, what does this have to do with anything. I thought maybe it would play out later. I guess if you notice she can't walk at one point it did, but more less served no purpose.

So then it shows the main kid getting picked on my a bully. Later the older brother beats the bully up right when the mom is pulling up to pick the kids up. What was the point of this? It is not really part of any of the rest of the story. If you are trying to build up something of history with the 2 brothers it could have been effectively done much better.

Then the boys going riding on a motocross bike. Then walk thru the forest and try to reach friends on a 2 way radio. There was a part where they really point out a bear trap. Then bear trap was barely used later.

When the reach the tree house it is very high up..so they climb. Find the girl who was looking for her little bob brother and the big brother attempts to go get help and is never seen from again...except close to the end you see a body hanging on a wooden cross that is assumed to be him when his little brother picks up a necklace.

Days go by...I mean seriously, you just gonna sit there and die? There is also the assumption there was some kind of creatures when the 2 were in the tree house, but those so called creatures I guess magically turn into boys....boys who never talk throughout the entire movie. I mean who writes this crap? The ending was my favorite part (totally sarcastic). The move was barely OK up until this part, then the script and acting goes horribly south and really screws up the entire horrible movie making it much worse than it was ever intended. Oh it was awesome, they ran in the road some sheriff almost hits them. But instead swerves and hits the mountain. Blood slatterns and you know he is dead. Cmon writers, this is bad, just bad. Who dies like that. It didn't even look like he hit that hard. No airbag? Seriously? This is a cop vehicle. They are designed to withstand a little impact. OK enough about that...they go up grab the offers handgun and shoot one of the kids.

oh yes, I did forget the girl gets knocked out by the biggest kid, and the hero stabs him with the kids knife...oh oh oh....and he stabs the really big kid and the really big kid pulls the knife out and laughs. Now back to the ending...so then magically the Tonto cover on the truck pops up...the hero makes like its a dead body or something then says you need to take a look a this to the girl. Girl comes over, they see a couple of assault rifles with evidence bags. They grab the rifles, awkward sudden kiss, look back toward the forest and says I'm going to wait for you, hell yes baby bear. Oh my...can't believe I got through writing that without breaking out in tears from laughter. I mean really....who seriously writes crap this bad? Avoid this movie at all costs.

So the

The Treehouse of No Horror

[joeywilderjustiss · 3/10 · 18 March 2015]

I had good expectations for the film during the first few scenes. The supernatural element kept me curious. Once that was dashed the whole movie seemed weak and the character development frail. I could not get back on board after it was disclosed that they were contending with sociopathic boys! What was the point of the Treehouse? Why was it in the middle of the forest? A hunter's lair and why? A converted play place? Did it matter? Not really. Why was there a body in the tree that everyone missed? Why was the acting so bad? Why did everyone automatically consider it was ALL supernatural in the first place? The woman dead in her bed wasn't missed by her church, family, friends? If the cops were REALLY looking for missing children why didn't they come across the house in the middle of nowhere (loaded with evidence and a corpse)? Can someone just immediately bounce back from a diabetic seizure? How did those bodies get hung in the tree with no sound? If you watch it the questions are there and they don't make you think, "Wow, a great film!" They make you wonder why didn't they think of this? Think through a story before you ask me to suspend my belief for you!! This one is a big, "NO!" Not for me baby bear (bad line from movie)!

One of the Most terrible cheap movies ever !!!!

[maxblue1977 · 1/10 · 8 November 2014]

simply at the beginning and after you see the trailer you feel like your are going to see a hell of a horror movie that contains a lot of paranormal entities and stuff but simply you discover that there is nothing the effects and the makeup is very very cheap there is no story the story is rubbish and out of sequence there nothing right in that movie at all it's just a very low budget movie to make you waste 2 hours of your life watching crap i can't believe that there are 3 grownup men wrote that movie actually didn't they see it before launching it so that they can discover that it's out of sense

SIMPLY IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE !!!!

ADVISE ....... Don't WASTE YOUR TIME WATCHING THIS MOVIE

I AIN'T ASKING YOU BABY BEAR

[nogodnomasters · 5/10 · 23 April 2018]

The town of White River, Missouri(?) is being annoyed again by missing children. Elizabeth (Dana Melanie) and Little Bob (Jake Gregory) go missing in the first scene. Crawford (Daniel Fredrick) and Killian (J. Michael Trautmann) live with their aunt (Shannon Knopke) and decide to go party in the woods after curfew because the festival has been cancelled.

The two events come together as our boys find Elizabeth in the DVD cover and must formulate a plan against whatever it is that is out there. Killian is bothered by pain, anxiety, and flashbacks. Not to show my age, but Killian reminded me of "Tommy" in the 1979 Kenny Rogers tune, COWARD OF THE COUNTY.

The film built nicely and then slowed up in the Treehouse, which didn't last long. When we finally figure out what is gong on, it was anti-climatic.

Guide: F-bomb. No sex or nudity. Dana Melanie did a heck of a job for a "B" role. Kudos.

PLOT SPOILER: The ending has a negative religious theme which may be cause for some of the bad reviews.

My Review Of "Treehouse"

[ASouthernHorrorFan · 6/10 · 28 January 2015]

Bartlett's story is well written, with great cinematography, and breadth of character control as the very dark tale builds to a disturbing and visceral end- until the actual ending. First though "Treehouse" is a solid film where the drama and character development are concerned. The cast give mature, well acted scenes of heavy substance, and depth. The horror aspects are mostly off camera with very little moments of chilling terror taking place through the first 75 minutes of the film which is a bit of a let down. However the film does have some intense, chilling action that climaxes this nightmare scenario, lasting right up until the abrupt and irritating end. Yeah I know- total spoiler moment.

The special effects, settings and sounds in "Treehouse" all work for the horror elements in the film. Everything that happens gives more of an adult horror vibe, instead of the teen driven story that is actually presented. Think "Under The Bed" in heavy seriousness but without the actual horror for most of the film. I know I keep bringing that issue up but it is a big irritant for me, personally. Still the film has been getting some great reviews mixed in with some disappointing ones. The effects are great when displayed, real quality work. The last act is terrifying when the true horror of the situation is revealed. Disturbing to say the least. The soundtrack does an ample job to really drive home the heavy atmosphere and emotional desperation of the characters story.

Overall, "Treehouse" gives good story, but mostly on the side of – say if- Lifetime has an R- rated channel where the films had darker material and stronger gory violence. When the horror is there it brings it! Unfortunately the first 75 minutes is mostly drama with suspense and no release for die-hard horror fans. It is a noticeable loss even with a story this well written and delivered. Plus that "WTF" ending is just so rude and disappointing that you sort of fill po'ed. But I guess just as in real life, not all stories end neatly wrapped-up. I don't know. See the film, because the story is a really good one that needs to be watched, just don't think you are gonna get a lot of horror in "Treehouse" and you won't be too disappointed.

Treehouse....??

[manu-riga · 4/10 · 23 April 2017]

When the movie started I still had hope. But that dissappered with the minute. I will not say this is the worst movie i saw but it will be in my top 20 worst movies . The young actors aren't terrible and the camera work , sound design etc is not even that bad. The script is the thing to blame and the director. Few reasons why 1) nobody calls his kid little bob 2) evening clock ...? 3) tree house? The kids were in it for 10 minutes in the movie 4) monster are said not being able to climb , but they hang up bodies .. High in the trees

************spoilers***************

5) monsters suddenly are humans? So they could have taken the kids in that treehouse 6) the end is even too bad to write about.

My biggest question is "where the hell did they spent a budget of 3 million on? ". I doubt that this movie costed 25K to make.

#TreeHouse Movie = Good stuff!

[clouzader · 8/10 · 21 October 2014]

Treehouse ... this movie is GOOD stuff! A teenage boy discovers the perpetrators of several brutal kidnappings in his home town is just the tip of the iceberg to start explaining this movie. My FAVE part of Treehouse is that this film is smart and not a thriller stuffed full of stalk and slash blood! Just good old fashioned intrigue and anticipation! Kudos to Michael Bartlett for this direction! The cast is GREAT. I'd like to point out Dana Melanie ... she is completely effortless. The sets/scenery are stellar. I love the backdrop of "The Ozarks." The make-up is just the perfect amount of creepy to me. The poster of the movie itself is SUPERB! The only reason I'm giving an 8 out of a 10 is because I wanted a tad more closure at the end of this flick :-). #TreeHouse Movie

Not even close to being as bad as people say.

[DeeEll1 · 7/10 · 5 September 2017]

Like another reviewer mentioned, I feel like I must've watched a different movie than most of the other reviewers.

People had criticisms about the following elements, most of which aren't flaws in the movie at all:

1. The use of the pet name "Baby Bear." I'm not sure if you've ever been to the South, but it's pretty damn common for people there--particularly those in the service industry--to call you by a pet name without knowing you. "Okay, honey, what can I getcha?" I've been called a million things by strangers in the South: honey, sweetie, babe, dear. It seemed completely natural to me when she called him Baby Bear, as she was super Southern.

2. The suggestion that the treehouse is only featured in the movie for ~10 minutes. Super not true. Because of people's reviews I actually TIMED the entire treehouse scene. It lasted from approximately 2:24am to 2:59am. And so WHAT if it wasn't the only setting? Maybe they named the movie after it because that's where the main characters MET.

3. The acting. It really wasn't bad at all. I didn't expect it to be some kind of Meryl Streep or Morgan Freeman performance, but it was entirely believable. If you think this is bad acting, then this must be the very first b-movie you've ever seen.

4. The suggestion that the "creatures" aren't able to climb trees (because Elizabeth point-blank says that she doesn't think the bigger ones can climb but that the little one can). This is all pretty much explained away when Killian says "It's like they're toying with us." Right, that IS what they were doing. Obviously they could climb trees; they have a bunch of dead bodies hanging in the trees. We find out later that these crazies were taking pictures of both Elizabeth and of their "kills"; they're obvious psychopaths, so it stands to reason that they would enjoy torturing their victims rather than just killing them straight out. Instead of immediately jumping to "this is a plot hole!" try to actually imagine the characters' motivations based on what you know of their personalities.

5. The ending. Why in god's name does anyone have a problem with this? I can't even begin to list how many movies I've seen in which the absolute "end" isn't filmed because IT'S CLEAR WHAT WILL HAPPEN. They both had huge guns; they're either gonna get the guy or he'll shoot them before they realize he's there. Whatever. Killian SAID pretty explicitly that whatever happens, happens--but Mr. Psycho needs to be punished if they can manage to do so. Seriously, if you haven't seen a movie that "leaves off" the ending, you must've only seen, like, three movies in your entire life. This is par for the course, people.

6. Elizabeth taking off her shoes. Look, she CLEARLY did that because she thought there was someone in the house, and she was trying not to make any noise. (Notice, too, that she grabbed a giant gun and walked around stealthily, given that she saw footprints and her brother was missing. If she didn't think that there was anyone in the house, I assume she would've made as much noise as she pleased.) I agree that it seemed pretty damn convenient that she'd taken off her shoes and was then injured, but her motivation for taking off the shoes is clear and totally normal. *I* take off my shoes in the house when I'm trying not to wake a sleeping family member, so given that she was concerned about being KILLED, it makes plenty of sense.

7. That the treehouse is just "there." Uhhh, it's not just there in the middle of nowhere for no reason, people. It clearly BELONGS to the crazy family living in the house. I had a treehouse in the woods behind my dad's house, and it was indeed FAR BACK in the woods. Pretty damn normal.

With that being said, there were a few minor problems, but they weren't serious enough to cause me emotional distance from the movie, which I enjoyed.

1. I don't care that the creatures weren't actually supernatural, as that's just a standard The Hills Have Eyes or Texas Chainsaw Massacre kind of thing. It's stupid to think that these "backwater" types are always growing up to be some family of depraved psychopaths, but whatever. Movies have done that for a while, so the writers just did more of the same. Nevertheless, I didn't like that all they did was grunt; I've seen plenty of videos of Dahmer and Bundy giving interviews, and they were able to speak quite eloquently in spite of their sociopathy, so I'm not entirely sure what the motivation was to have them just grunt their way through the movie.

Furthermore, I'm not sure why they made the big guy take off his shirt when he got on top of Elizabeth, unless it was to suggest that he was planning to rape her (definitely a possibility) before he decided to just punch the hell out of her.

It's at least a little weird that no one seemed to be aware of their lifestyle in all this time. Did they grunt around the guys who came to fix the telephone wires that you can see in front of their house? Did they grunt at their mom? Obviously we don't know, but that seems a bit implausible.

2. No idea why the trunk of the police car just suddenly opened for no reason. Pretty convenient.

Anyway, this really isn't a bad movie.

Worst....movie.....ever!

[JackUK1973 · 1/10 · 18 April 2015]

Dreadful, dreadful, awful, sinful movie. For the duration of this film you will wish that you were actually one of the victims in it, rather than sat watching it as at least their suffering came to an end sooner than the 96 minutes of the film.

It wasn't so much that the acting was SO bad (although it was), or that the characters were so one dimensional (one dimension feels like a luxury), but that the plot made absolutely no sense whatsoever. Most of the holes have been covered off in other reviews so no need to repeat them.

While on the subject of reviews, I noted that the first three reviewers of this film all felt that *this* film, above all others, was so noteworthy and inspirational to review it positively and haven't reviewed any films before or since. Although I'm sure none are involved with the film, the production company, or the distributor.....