Treehouse (2014)

not as good as all the hype

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

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.

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.

I don't know what it is with Hollywood now or the film industry in general, no creativity, no imagination, or talent - yet there seems to be monetary backing for really bad films/scripts, and continuous casting with horrible actors/actresses.Very bad acting, the expressions are so forced it is comical. And you can clearly see where this director has tried (unsuccessfully) to copy other films that were somewhat more successful - it just doesn't work. The camera angles, the music/sound, even the clothing is predictable and bad.There is no suspense, nothing thrilling, gripping or frightening. It is however painful to watch. So this is a film better left - unwatched - on your list.

How low has our values become when my wife thought this appalling film was OK, I got up and walked out unfortunately I was watching it on Sky at home and ended up in the garden, it was pouring down with rain and freezing but probably preferable to watching the remaining movie. Story, children have gone missing from a village in the past and "it has started again" The start of the film is promising when the young girl comes back to the empty house. It then progresses to two brothers going off in to the woods and then the wheels come off as if the second writer had no inkling of the start of the film, the two brothers discover the young girl who for some bizarre reason calls the younger brother "baby bear". The monsters suddenly turn into the hills have eyes humans and we then have the third writer turn it into Rambo where the younger brother turns into a ninja, the ending is lazy as if they are already eyeing a sequel can I make a suggestion, don't bother, I could list the holes in the plot but I have the rest of my life to live.