MovieChat Forums > I Am the Pretty Thing That Lives in the House (2016) Discussion > Really good cinematography. Really borin...

Really good cinematography. Really boring everything else.

posted 8 years ago by joodense
6 replies | jump to latest

Just finished it and really hated it. Lead actress was not likeable at all (which is fine if the rest of the movie is entertaining) and it is painfully slow. The cinematography is simple and beautiful, well done there. But the story is really barebones and the woman's performance needed to carry it, which imo she failed to engage me or the girlfriend. I forget how to do spoiler tags so I'll just say the payoff I waited for 30 minutes in (when we decided we didn't like the movie) was not worth it. Slow burn horror only works for me when you get that payoff otherwise it's just meandering. This would have been 10x more effective as a 20-30 minute short.

[–] tapho2211 8 years ago

I agree. I like good spooky films. I'm not into gore. I want ghostly scares, but this was boring as hell. Pretty to look at, but I was disinterested in every single character and I found the lead irritating as well. You're right in that it would have been better as a short piece.

[–] joodense 8 years ago

Glad other people didn't appreciate the lead, this movie seems to be pretty polarizing, you love it or hate it. It can actually be really entertaining to watch characters you hate, but they have to be somewhat interesting and this character was just really under developed. I feel like maybe the point was that she was living as a ghost already, the way she hid from society and her problems (she had a bad break up and... doesn't really have friends?), but i understood that very early in the film. The way she talks to herself detracts from the performance too, like how she is scared of reading a book, or says hello to the TV - OK girl you are lonely we get it. And the repetition of the narration is unnecessary, what is the point of dragging it out like this? ending spoiler: and seriously, the pay off is she sees the ghost and gets scared to death? weaaaak

[–] robertperner1980 8 years ago

I was scratching my head about the cinematography. It felt like ceiling porn to me. Why so much empty space in so many shots?

[–] joodense 8 years ago

It helped establish the atmosphere, for me anyway. 'ceiling porn' is pretty funny lol. I saw another comment on here 'this film never wasted an opportunity to waste an opportunity' and I think that is the most succinct post I have seen on here.

[–] superherolu 8 years ago

I didn't hate the lead actress, but there was nothing interesting about her or the rest of the movie. She was just there. I don't know why they made a movie at all. It's like filming paint drying. Even if this were 10 min instead, it would still be boring because only one interesting thing happens in the entire movie (polly murdered) but that's never fleshed out. The interesting stuff comes with details, and they never bother. The writer looked like she had an interesting life too, being a woman horror author in the 60s. God, even the friend on the phone was having more interesting *beep* happen to her.

[–] joodense 8 years ago

I agree. Love or hate the performance, there wasn't much for her to bring to life from the script.