DeeEll1 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.

Submarine Guest House To all these stupid actors and stupid directors, stop doing stupid movies please. Why? Because I don't believe any one will like to watch it. Unless if they are super stupid weird people with weird stupid psychology. A waste of your precious time to watch such a stupid movie. It's a shame that this called movie. I might say it's not a movie it's a begging act. As you will feel it like: please give us some jobs we don't have money Guys why don't you try to be PERFCT? What's wrong with that? If you have no budget for a movie then please don't even try to make one stupid wasted movie. In my opinion you cannot afford every piece of criticism around you. I have no idea why you guys allow yourselves to act such stupid acting, very stupid and out of date , give me a break you shameful fools

Saiph90 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.

MattyGibbs 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.