Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

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.

Michael Ledo The end of the film claims"based on true events."John (Andrew Harwood Mills) a photographer and Kate (Lucy Drive) an artist, move into a country side home to start a family. John starts to go off the deep end and does a bad Crispin Glover impersonation. Careen, the nude model, doesn't trust John over something that happened four years ago. They live in the part of Europe where everyone drives a VW. The film doesn't get "scary" until the last 15 minutes and we get the backstory with 5 minutes left. Letting us know what was going on would have made a better film. Guide: F-word, sex, brief nudity

a_baron Photographer John and his fine artist good lady move to a big house in the country. They have a dog, and he has a dark room. Do they still use dark rooms in 2017? The house is atmospheric, creepy, and she sees a ghost. He is behaving strangely. Is it the house, or is it one of them? It's the house; with some reluctance the local clergyman tells her what happened to the previous occupants. By this time she is pregnant. At some point we fast forward seven months. What will happen? Obviously bad things. The ending is probably not what you would have thought, but with such a minimal plot, confusion of dream sequences with reality, and not much else, this film deserves the bad reviews it has received. The acting isn't that bad, but there really is no substance to it.

Sto'bought The acting was fine, the setting really great, and much of the plot both believable and fresh. A photographer and a painter move into an old Spanish Revival house outside of New Orleans. Things seem alright until entities, both demons and ghosts, begin to appear, first seemingly only in dreams. We hope for a climax to match the slow-burn creepy story line and eerie atmosphere created by excellent camera work and superb lighting (though at times a bit too dark, but maybe that was the point.) Then, bam!, like being hit in the face with a hammer we are offered as the whole point of the film, and nothing else, a rehash of Rosemary's Baby. It's then we realize that the male lead has really been no one other than the husband in The Amityville Horror for most of the flick, and we feel duped. Really, really duped. A homage to 1970s horror films was attempted here, much like with The House of the Devil, and since we have all come a long way with film this attempt was far better than many of the originals, but the story itself failed in a miserable way.

dsa-827-486965 Someone there say this film is "schlock", but schlock - films like "The Disappointments Room" (2016)and similar stupid rip-offs with bad script, boring same story and REALLY bad acting. Films like "House of Evil", or "Void" or "Editor", "Francesca" and many others - its a piece of modern art, its HOMAGE for genre and time period in cinematography, if you don't understand this - JUST Don't WATCH IT. Its simple like that. Its not for cheap entertain with screamers and whatever you see in modern B-basters like "Astral" and others. You need to have some cinema-experience to understand this artsplotation films. But, yes, I clearly see that in trailer film targeting wrong auditory, I think its probably because its produced by Uwe Boll. But except that - film is good in what he did: you have great visuals of 70th, good sound, authentic actors work and classical story-line. And yes there was homage to another timeless classic, so there is not direct "Amityville" rip-off.