House of Last Things ReviewFrom the first bite of an apple, clues aplenty set up a world of wonderment. A happenstance crime wraps itself around a duplicitous music critic, his grieving wife, their house sitter and her brother and boyfriend. The crime involves an eight-year-old who evolves preternaturally after his victimization. The writer/director, having reverse-engineered plot events into clues, guides his talented cast through a labyrinth of horror. For example, a garden-hose/snake suggests something is awry in Eden. Yellow balloons watch and warn like a tragic Greek chorus. Strangers become Sybils.Deciphering some of the twists is like tap dancing on quicksand. However, therein lies the entertainment of untangling lies.Much of the fun of this film derives from skilled editing. Some say that film is a director's medium, although editors have stepped front and center. How fortunate to have both in one, e.g., Welles, Hitchcock, Kurosawa, Cameron. (Spoiler Alert unnecessary.) Director/editor Bartlett exploits the roundness of apples, balloons, drains, golf balls, door knobs, breasts, buttocks, mouths, drains, eyes, soup bowls, tree holes, droplets of blood. And for those so inclined, there are yuck moments. As Pseudolus sings, "Something appealing, / Something appalling, / Something for everyone . . . ."The House of Last Things calls you.

Not sure how i came across this particular film, whether it was recommended by a friend or found on an IMDb list, but I would like to point out that i am NOT a friend or family member of the film maker, and just spent nearly two hours watching a great film, quite by chance.Then i came here and read all these terrible reviews, probably from people that think that Die Hard is the pinnacle of intelligent film making. Calling it Lynchian would be unfair to the film maker - only David Lynch is allowed to be Lynchian, anyone else getting that description is usually a pile of crap! Having said that there were definite Lynch moments, although more often than not it reminded me very much of Luis Buñuel more than anyone.The main thing i found interesting about this was the editing and the way it wafted in between characters / scenarios / continents with the help of a little light classical. These tricks have occasionally been done before, but like i said, not so much since the days of surrealism. They were certainly refreshing for a modern flick, and were effective and occasionally disturbing.To all the people who talked this interesting film down - there is more than one way to tell a story, it doesn't always have to be literal, and i guess that you're perhaps too stupid to appreciate something more impressionistic? Good luck with the next intallment of Harry Potter.And thanks to the film maker, can't wait for your next one, or the one after - am fairly sure you have at least one masterpiece in you, maybe more.

Never wrote a review before and will probably never do it again, unless it's to stop using IMDb as a source of miss-leading people to watch a horrible movie like this one. The whole value of the movie is terrible. I'm what you would call a film fanatic so I watch pretty much everything and yes I have seen worse then this, but if you are an average viewer who wants an average flick just stay away from this one ... if no you can spend the first 15 minutes watching and instantly know why i wrote this .... you have been warned. Hope I help to put the film in the spot where it should be and that's definitely below 5/10. I urge others who have seen these to write what they think about it as well so we can help others avoid this.Thank you all.

Clearly most of the people who wrote reviews are friends or family of the director. The flowery language alone is an obvious tell. A few people reviewed it very harshly as a response to the over the top praise. I'll do neither.This movie has several interesting ideas, some lovely visuals, uneven acting, a mildly incoherent plot and low to middling production values. The best shots are in the first 2 minutes and the last several minutes. The use of classical music makes sense for the plot but at times the stature of the music just underscores the generic quality of most of the filming. It doesn't have the lush beauty required to sell this story. It wants to be the Shining, the Omen, Blue Velvet or Don't Look Now. It's not. At minimum it would need 10 times the budget to look that good. I believe the director could do more if he had more to work with but the reviews comparing the movie to those things as if they are on the same footing are deeply dishonest. It aspires to those heights and can't begin to reach them. That said, for an unknown horror flick it's pretty good. You get the feeling the director could remake it with real money and a tighter script and knock it out of the park.