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

Lidia Draper Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

Jonah Abbott There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

Foreverisacastironmess I like this movie, it grew on me a lot since I first ever saw it. The story is very blunt and straightforward and isn't what you'd call super-complex, but I found it to be a very focused direction and I ultimately found it a very solid and satisfying psychological horror movie and I think it might be one of the more underrated gritty gems from the "Video Nasties" era. I loved the starkness and the whole dingy and dull cinematic quality that it had that gave it a certain consistent feeling of unease throughout without there ever being a single drop of blood in it. It creates a strong sense of dread by letting the audience know early on that the main character is a complete batsh*t schizoid crazy who's fully intent on taking women back to his dead mother's mansion and roasting them alive in a specially made boiler room. The first burning of the beautiful flower shop woman, which is the only one that you really see, is the most horrific part of the movie for sure and is still quite shocking because it's so prolonged and shot in such a stark unflinching fashion that really puts you on edge. The visual effect is frighteningly convincing, it looks like she's really burned alive. The house that he lives in was such a fantastic setting, very grand and decayed, and it looked so striking from the outside, very similar to the domain of Norman Bates! And to say that fire is his method of killing the place looked noticeably freezing, a lot of the time you can see the actor's breath. Dan Grimaldi was very good and effective, his character kind of talked like an overgrown bashful kid and at first he's pitiable, but for me any sympathy towards him goes right out the window after he starts burning innocent women. At that point he's nothing but a heartless murderer who doesn't deserve to live a normal life and does very much deserve to rot in the hell that he's made for himself and to be dragged down into the fire by charred phantoms of his own making... I like the odd interlude where the film takes a pause and tries out a little levity when he goes to get a disco suit with some pointers from a flamboyant tailor! I didn't like all the schlocky disco crap though, not at all, even if it does kind of add to the charm in its way. The obnoxious excuse for a song that plays over the end credits is incredibly inappropriate! Speaking of bad impressions, they really should have stuck with "The Burning" for a title, "Don't Go in the House" is a silly-sounding lame B-movie title.. I wouldn't call it a slasher at all, it's not a roller coaster 'hold me I'm scared' popcorn type of picture, it's meant to be a sad disturbing character study of a man's sad descent, one that has some horrifically effective, especially for a low budget movie, fire effects. It doesn't glorify the violence like the Freddy or Friday the 13th movies do, and it doesn't create a power figure, he can't pick people up or stab them through a door - this person isn't fun to watch in action, he's a very sick twisted individual who has been tormented. Who would want to be this man? I know he's insane but the evil whispering voices made me wonder if there was meant to be some kind of supernatural element to the story, particularly at the end when they speak to another young child with an abusive mother, and potentially starting it all over again. But of course it's more likely just a statement on the nature of abuse and how violence can beget violence, and how monsters are always made by other monsters, and that's a pretty chilling message. Anyway it's not a very nice or uplifting movie but to me it's certainly a good one that has its place in time and deserves to be seen. Not burned but nicely toasted and very well done.

Rich Wright The title here is VERY apt... unless you fancy being tied up before burnt to a crisp. Yes, it's yet another Norman Bates clone, who talks to his mother even though she's a corpse in the corner and is a pyromaniac to boot, too. Not to worry though... she'll soon have some company. You'd think they'd be some kind of care in the community fallback to people like this, but nope... government cutbacks strike again. Mind you though, it IS hard to fathom why no many girls would go home with someone who displays no social skills whatsoever. It's gotta be the shirt.The first murder is exactly what you'd want... shocking and merciless. Savour it... they'll only be two more in the duration, and both are off camera. What a swizz. Instead, we have to put up with such meaningless passages such as our bats**t crazy friend shopping for clothes to wear at a disco, or 'listening' to the evil voices in his head (which are barely audible). The final couple of scenes are a comeback of sorts, but they deserve to belong to a better movie. If a film feels overlong at 80 minutes, then its got a problem. 4/10

Roman James Hoffman 'Don't go in the house' is a gruesome, low-budget, surprisingly effective, and even oddly moving inclusion on the UK Director of Public Prosecutions list of video nasties. The premise is ghoulish: Donny (Dan Grimaldi) is a misogynistic pyromaniac who builds a special room in his house where he incinerates women before keeping their charred corpses in another room. So far, so…well, exploitation film. However, DGITH raises itself far above this macabre premise in daring to present the killer in a sympathetic light and (at least for me) succeeding. This is done through various expository means which reveal Donny's homicidal urges to be the result of an abusive childhood at the hands of his domineering mother. In particular, the seeds of his obsession with the cleansing effects of fire are delineated to the moments when his mother would burn his forearms on a stove to punish transgressions whether real or imagined. Donny then continues to grow up in the family home under his mother's watchful eye until one day he returns from work to find that she has croaked. Initially jubilant, he quickly begins hearing voices and his fragile psyche soon breaks under its own weight and he descends into a bottomless personal Hell.The film obviously has shades of Hitchcock's 'Psycho' (1960) in its mommy-dearest theme, and also Polanski's 'Repulsion' (1965) as we watch him succumb to his inner demons. However, in contrast to the artistic sense these directors imbued their films with, the wholly unaestheticised exploitation-style presentation of the murders communicates the full brutality of the act which makes the subsequent attempt to portray Donny himself as a victim all the more daring.Depending on one's moral standpoint, it could be equally argued that as a serial murderer Donny deserves the harshest of punishments, and on the other hand he could be seen to deserve pity and sympathy. Beast or bird with a broken wing? What's clear is that the movie is boldly treading on dangerous ground, which is why the film ended up on the list of Video Nasties. The aim of the list was to enable prosecution for the sale of movies which were deemed to have the power to morally corrupt…which is ironic for a film with such a strong moral message that violence begets violence and that even the worst of us are, in fact, victims.

gigan-92 This movie is about as good as it can be. The acting is all right, I myself finding the performance of Dan Grimaldi quite well done. There are even some generally frightening moments I enjoyed. The score by Richard Einhorn is also pretty interesting, quite menacing when it gathers full strength. Problem is the film's story borrows somewhat from Hitchcock's "Psycho" that preceded this film by well over two decades. Technically speaking, the lead characters from these two films are quite the same in motive and disposition; difference (the most important thing to keep in mind) is that Anthony Perkins was allowed subtly and mystery to his performance as Norman Bates. This film is so out right with its villain there's not much mystery, just violence.However, I still find this movie a hoot to watch, though by no means a horror classic.