The People Under the Stairs (1991)

Is there a scene where the girl has a doll made out of human hair, and another one where the mom gives her a bath in boiling hot water? If so, I'm preeeeetty sure I saw this movie when I was 7 or 8 and it scared the crap out of me! I've been trying to figure out what movie that was and this one seems close.

The People Under the Stairs (1991) *** (out of 4) Stuck in the ghetto and about to be evicted while his mother is needing surgery for a cancer, a young kid known as Fool (Brandon Adams) agrees to help a man break into the landlord's house because there's rumors that it is full of gold. The two make it inside the house but they run into a bizarre couple (Everett McGill, Wendy Robie) as well as many other things living in the basement.By the time 1991 rolled around the horror genre was pretty much dead but there were a few interesting movies that managed to get released, although the box office numbers still weren't very good. Wes Craven's THE PEOPLE UNDER THE STAIRS is a film with many, many flaws but at the same time it's certainly an original film that tries to do something more than just shock the viewer with gore effects. The film manages to mix in a political statement with the horror and there's even some humor thrown in as well.I think the best thing going for the movie is the lead character and the actor. The situation is quite simple as a poor kid must resort to a crime so that his family might have a better future. We already want to see the kid succeed at getting the money but once we see how derange the two living inside the house are we just want to see him win even more. Adams gives an extremely good performance for someone his age and it's certainly a lot better than you typically see in a film like this. A.J. Langer is also extremely good in her role as a girl trapped inside the house. McGill has always been fun to watch and he and Robie have a great chemistry together. Even Ving Rhames is good in his part.Craven certainly knows how to milk a scene for drama and he perfectly knows how to set up various scenes that are aimed to build tension. The atmosphere he creates is certainly another major plus as is the terrific cinematography and the music score. However, there are some flaws including the fact that the movie runs at least ten minutes too long. Some of the scenes go on a bit too long and I think it was a mistake leaving the house for a brief period of time towards the end.Still, THE PEOPLE UNDER THE STAIRS is a rather original movie and while it didn't have the same impact as something like A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET, it's still an interesting movie that's worth watching.

A young boy nicknamed Fool (Brandon Adams) attempts to rob the house of two creepy landlords (Everett McGill, Wendy Robie). The robbery goes wrong and Fool is trapped in the frightening house. While there he discovers the landlords' disturbing secrets. Underrated Wes Craven horror film with doses of comedy and social commentary. Very interesting and unique movie. I'm not sure why it has such a bad reputation. Craven seems to attract venomous backlash at anything he puts out that isn't a surefire classic. Like I said, I'm not sure why. But he has made a lot of good movies that get crapped on because they aren't Elm Street or Scream or, God forbid, the criminally overrated Last House on the Left. Anyway, this is a good one with some quality performances from McGill and Robie as the creepy bad guys. Also some solid work from the younger cast (Brandon Adams, A.J. Langer). Ving Rhames is fun as Leroy. Good cast, nice direction by Craven, interesting story. Check it out.

Out of thousands of movies I've seen in the theatre, I've walked out of the theatre in disgust prior to the climax only three times. (Actually, one movie I actually walked out on TWICE, because after I initially walked out on the movie, Cadillac Man, my friends dragged me back to that movie at a later date. 20-minutes in, they agreed with me, and we all walked out.) The People Under the Stairs was one of the other two I walked out on and get this, it was literally 10-minutes before the end of the movie!I remember this movie vividly. Picture it: Phoenix, Arizona, 1991. I've always loved horror and since I loved Freddy so much, Wes Craven was high on my list. For a new and "original" film, this was a must see. Unfortunately, half way through, I thoroughly disliked this movie and by the time the movie got to almost the ending, I couldn't care any less on how it ended and I bolted. This has never happened to me before or since and of those three movies I exited early, I never made it this far and left early.Nowadays, I write a ton of film reviews, but I would never on a movie I didn't complete. It's unfair to the movie by not allowing it to fully explain itself. Rarely will a movie redeem itself in the last ten minutes, but it has happened, I recall.Fast forward, 22 years, and during October/Horroween time, I decided to *finally* give this movie another shot. I mean, why not? It's not like it's another 3-vested-hours of goofiness I have to endure; it's only 102 minutes and 10 of which I hadn't seen before.To be honest, I didn't hate on the movie that much this time. Sure, it's still bad, and though Craven was trying hard to be original, though failing some, it was so convoluted with way too much going on to enjoy. The basics of this movie was a creepy house and a trapped-inside boy trying to escape and eventually does, but *has* to go back for a captive girl living there.Literally, that's the core of this movie. There's roughly 23 other plots going on – and yeah, I know, I'm exaggerating, but not too far off, but breaking it down, the movie's somewhat focus is on the boy, a dog and the escape plan.One of the things I had a problem back in 1991 was Plot #17, the sadomasochism (S&M) "father" in leather. In my defense, I was in High School, living in a pre-internet age and was brought up in a very sheltered, Christian household, so I had no clue what S&M was or why this man decided it would be a good idea to disguise himself in full leather in his own home to continue to chase the boy.Today, knowing exactly what it is, and why…it still makes zero sense for him to do this. Previously, it's stated that "every generation more insane than the one before it" in this household. But, being crazy does not equate the desire to participate – in this case, unexplainably – in S&M.Now, here's the million dollar question, but mostly for myself: Should I have stayed for the final 10-minutes in 1991? And the answer is: No. I would've hated it all the more. The finale, and sorry – spoiler for the 22-year-old movie, involves blowing up a room full of cash and despite the grand explosion, the cash survives and intact and is distributed to the poor.The movie gets a little too out of whack, too many times. Reminded me a lot of The Evil Dead original, but for no solid reasons for it to mimic that movie. Also, the "message" felt like a Lethal Weapon unneeded addition to the already overloaded script. Totally: Not recommended to meet the people under the stairs.* * * Final thoughts: I was right. Back up, I was right to walk out on the movie, but I would've been more right not to see it in the first place.