Stometer Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Nessieldwi Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

Kidskycom It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

Taraparain Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

jrd_73 Perhaps it takes a certain kind of film viewer to appreciate the charms of A Name for Evil. As has been bemoaned by other reviewers, A Name for Evil has a disjointed story, a hippie orgy, and a full frontal sex scene with past his prime Robert Culp. Yet, for some viewers these eccentricities can be strengths. I have seen A Name for Evil twice now. I was not bored either time. The film kept me watching because, on the first viewing, I did not know what to expect next, and on the second viewing, I admired the film's mixtures of styles as a Gothic horror film is given early swinging seventies treatment, from Penthouse Films no less. According to IMDb, A Name for Evil had a troubled production. It appears to this viewer that certain scenes were not shot, either because of time or because the filmmakers thought certain points were clearer than they were. However, the lack of a linear narrative does lend the film a certain disquieting mood, as the viewer is left almost as confused as Robert Culp's character. There is a certain type of viewer who occasionally tires of professionally told plots and seeks out films not afraid to go off the rails, a viewer who loves when artiness is wedded to exploitation. All my years of watching Euro-horror, where plots did not matter as long as a scene was moody, surprising, or odd, has turned me into such a viewer. A Name for Evil surprises the viewer. From the opening credits over surreal paintings of twisted figures to the abrupt finale, A Name for Evil keeps the viewer off balance. I also think parts of it are well filmed. For instance, unlike one other reviewer, I find the underwater sex scene moody and hypnotic, having some of the off-kilter quality of Let's Scare Jessica to Death (another film I champion). Obviously, I cannot recommend A Name for Evil to most people, yet I will probably watch the film for a third time.

lucky_dice_mgt This happened to come on last week late at night and I seriously thought I may have found a unheard of gem..especially by the beginning as it was quite atmospheric and had eerie music/credits rolling..and then the movie started..wow..what a turd.This is 1 stinker and it actually bored me and irritated me at the same time {something only a few movies have managed to do..Salo being one of them}. What on earth was the director smoking to do such a pretentious/erratic/unscary horror flick such as this.These types of film can give the 70s horror generation a bad name all on their own.If you see this on late night T.V...run don't walk away.

Francisco Torres (ftorresgamez) This is one of those moments when you try to warn people about losing, perhaps, a good deal of their lives to this slopfest. I watched this "movie" last night in AMC, having nothing better to do. Alas, doing nothing would have been actually better, but I was NOT warned.A Name For Evil starts promising enough, about a bores-out-of-his-skull architect (or something like that) that inherits this wreck of a house, supposedly built during the civil war era. This is supposed to be a haunted house movie, but it suddenly degenerates into somebody's acid trip, when Robert Culp goes out for a walk and jumps into this white horse, goes to a hippie party, gets a blonde chick laid, goes back home, confronts his wife (who believes the guy never left), goes OUT again but this time in his car, goes back to pick up the blond chick, frolic in a pond... then the guy gets back home and kills the wife in a pseudosurrealistic scene, and in comes the credits... uh, forget about the shadows the guy saw at his home, or the tunnel in the basement from where air with enough pneumatic pressure knocks his lantern off his hand...I know some movie makers in the early 70s experimented a lot, but horror movies are pretty much straightforward affairs, so why in the world did the producers of this stinker see the need to change a well known and tried formula? I mean, gosh, the seventies WAS the decade of The Exorcist and The Omen... I do not know, but I guess the producers needed a good platform for the folksy singer that plays the guitar, accompanied by a full orchestra that happens to be invisible... well, lets say I do not think Mr. Culp remembers this stinker with much nostalgia.

reikigirl06 This movie is pure early 70's kitsch and the best for Robert Culp (I Spy) and Samantha Eggar fans. All of those wonderful clothes that are more like costumes; "in" clothing and decor that collectors would love to find in the second-hand shops now; "mod" architecture; Culp and Eggar in their prime. It is the sort of slow-moving tale of a haunt that is more in line with the black and white films of the 40s and 50s where all of the terror came from shadows and angles and fear of the "unseen". Think of "The Uninvited" or "Cat People", the original "Haunting of Hill House", "The turn of the Screw" etc. Just perfect for a lazy late-night or early a.m. with nothing else to do! I enjoyed it. Not for those looking for fast-breaking terror, though.