It's easy to see why I enjoyed House so much during my adolescent years. The movie is almost indescribably goofy, with a plot that barely registers and gags that disappear right after they're presented. I remember thinking it was funny and clever as a 15 year-old, albeit never scary in the least. And yet, I always filed House under the horror section of my VHS collection, since it contained so many traditional horror elements, like ugly beasties and creaky noises. Stand back and take a firm look at the picture and what you'll find is a straight up comedy, as even the monsters seem to be played for cheap laughs. Revisiting House for the first time in at least ten years, I was struck by the "R" rating. Aside from a couple of f-bombs, there's really no reason why the picture shouldn't have been "PG-13." The only actual human death in the movie happens offscreen, and the one monster death is nothing worse than what was shown in pictures like The Monster Squad. This movie has teen fan base written all over it. In fact, I'd be hard pressed to find someone over the age of seventeen who would really defend it wholeheartedly.
The fact the movie was so tame comes as a surprise given it was directed by Steve Miner and produced by Sean S. Cunningham, both of whom at that point were involved with the Friday the 13th franchise. Maybe they saw it is an opportunity to turn down the volume, which isn't a bad idea, mind you, but instead of finding a story with some real inspiration, they settled on a haunted house movie that is as bare bones as they come. I sensed Miner's lack of substance following the sixth near identical nighttime shot of the house. If continuing to show the exterior at a low angle was supposed to establish an eerie mood, I'd have to say it failed.
The story involves Roger Cobb (a clueless William Katt), a popular novelist who moves to his aunt's ominous house after she commits suicide. According to her, the house is haunted, and was even responsible for making Roger's young son disappear years earlier. Once back, strange things begin to happen to Roger as he attempts to write his new book. The scenes of him brainstorming are set to flashbacks of his experiences in Vietnam, and given how cheesy and phony they look, I couldn't fathom how Miner expected us to take them at face value.
Yep, that's pretty much all there is to it. The movie also provides flashbacks to his son's disappearance, but aside from that, the pattern goes as follows: Roger hears a noise, Roger follows the noise, Roger opens the closet door and finds nothing, Roger tries again and is attacked by something slimy and nasty. You know, it's your classic Man Vs. House story, in which the only way to come out on top is to stare your fears right in the face and tell them off. This would be all well and good had the movie done something creative; alas, it settles for generic looking creatures and a conclusion that rips off A Nightmare on Elm Street.
In a way, it's hard to believe the movie even exists given its flimsy premise and execution. The biggest problem I had with it is that there are no rules. Monsters are allowed to exist without reason, objects come to life for no reason, and other worlds are inhabited within the house for no reason. Yes, there is a small explanation as to what happened to Roger's son, but that hardly provides any rationality for everything I just mentioned. I'm not asking for plausibility; I am just a believer that if a movie is going to live in its own universe, it needs to make it a place the audience can understand.
I did still find some simple pleasures in the movie that I remembered from my many childhood viewings. George Wendt offers some nice laughs early in the movie as Roger's lonely neighbor. And I love the way Roger is randomly ambushed from time to time by his (floating) garden tools. But for every small moment that provokes a smile, there's always another that constitutes a groan. The movie tries to cover up its lack of material by throwing in random supporting characters. The worst of the lot is Tanya (Mary Stavin), a sexy neighbor who tricks Roger into babysitting her annoying moppet.
House was successful enough (it grossed $19 million on a $3 million budget) to spawn three (!) sequels, one of which was unofficial. I have a difficult time grasping that anyone liked this movie enough to ask for that many follow ups, especially two that were unrelated. Despite my childhood admiration for the picture, I'd be more than a bit skeptical recommending it to today's teenagers. Due to CGI and hardcore horror movies like Saw, they'd take one look at House and toss it in the fire. In other words, it's the kind of movie that will only live in the nostalgic hearts of those who grew up with it. I am always a skeptic when I revisit favorites from my early years, but end up doing it anyway because hey, memories can only take you so far. The flipside, of course, is that going back is a good way to help you realize it's time to put those fond memories to rest.
Thank you for visiting Hell and Beyond!
Copyright, Hell and Beyond, 2008
No comments:
Post a Comment