I was expecting a low-budget horror flick, sometimes smaller films can be interesting discoveries, if only "so bad they are good," but this movie is just mediocre. Poorly shot with pitiful effects and an atrocious score, the movie lacks inspiration, either of the scary or humorous kind. Possibly the tone is intentionally subdued to match a "true crime" report, but a reenactment should be more fun! The framing story of the survivor is tedious, and victims pass in and out of the story too quickly to engage the viewer's interest. The most interesting parts are the clips of the real Leonard Lake explaining himself, but they last only a couple of minutes. That said, it could be worse, and some scenes are almost good; other than the soundtrack it's not too obnoxious if you are compelled to complete your snuff collection.
11 Reviews
if there was an option to give it zero stars i would have!
georgio-264901 July 2020
Literally the worst movie i have ever seen , if a kid at school gave this in as a project in a drama class they would get an 'f'
leonard lake and charles ng left behind them a story that would have made the movie of all movies as far as serial killers go, then this pack of jokers create this total dross.
actors (if you could call them that) are so bad its actually funny, the filming looks like its been shot on a cheap cell phone.
please do not take my word for this, watch a trailer and see for yourself.
please do not take my word for this, watch a trailer and see for yourself.
clickbait trash
heirman_steven4 January 2019
What a load of crap!
petersnowdon4 July 2015
Why does everyone with a camera and a group of friends think they can make a movie? There are some truly great "based on a true story" flicks out there with good production actors and some adherence to the true story. This is made up fluff with nothing to really draw the viewer or hold attention. Don't waste your time on something which doesn't offer any real insight into the events which happened and the horror the real people endured. The actors portraying the victim seem to be no more bothered than someone whose flight is delayed, not truly desperate. Feel bad for the lead female who is really giving her best but is trapped in a bad movie. Would have been more engrossing to document this young actresses horror at being signed on to make a terrible movie than the horror they attempt to portray. Don't waste your time!
More a Documentary then a Movie
denniskramer-848969 January 2022
As a movie it sucks. Why? The plot is not meant to be a movie.
But regarding the fact that it is based on a true happening and you can actually see the real person on tape, it makes it creepy and uncomforting.
I don't reget watching it, but i would call it an reanactment, or rather documentary, which is not too bad, but for that it could have been reduced to half of the time. This way it's just too long and repetitive.
But regarding the fact that it is based on a true happening and you can actually see the real person on tape, it makes it creepy and uncomforting.
I don't reget watching it, but i would call it an reanactment, or rather documentary, which is not too bad, but for that it could have been reduced to half of the time. This way it's just too long and repetitive.
Disturbing, but Low end
r-shasta26 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Now for something rather different in the slasher-sex killer-serial murderer genre, and not without some merits. The film makers pushed hard on sexual violence in the grim recounting of how two scowling unemotional pair of murderers were compelled to kill for pleasure, also taking out their rape fantasies on a succession of drugged out women who occasionally fight back ineffectively. Documentary footage of one of the real killers talking blandly about his sick fantasy is a highlight. The camera-work gets a little wobbly but the acting is good enough. The violence, humiliations, beatings and knifings are disturbing but rather matter of fact in the presentation. The movie imparts a suitably sick attitude. The focus is on the victims more than the killers, and because of the underplaying the scares are infrequent. It's all very up close and personal, showing the doomed victims struggling or trying in vain to survive. Give it a C for succeeding in being just a bit different enough.
Well-directed Horror Flick Suffers From Low Production Values
slardea-121 February 2015
Warning: Spoilers
The case of serial killer Leonard Lake is one of the most notorious in California history. Along with his equally psychotic partner, Charles Ng, Lake was an ex-Marine and survivalist responsible for kidnapping, human exploitation and murder during the 1980s. They took their victims to a secluded mountain hideaway for ransom, torture, sexual assault and finally murder. Lake also videotaped activity with his victims, and taped himself describing for the camera why he wanted to commit these atrocities. This latter video came into the possession of director Jeffrey Frentzen, who constructed this middling "terror" film around frankly astounding testimonial footage.
The loosely constructed plot tells the tale of the two killers in flashback form, as a fictional survivor Sonia (Naidra Dawn Thomson) recalls to a private detective (Kevin McCloskey) the horrors of being one of Lake's captives years prior. The detective is seeking the whereabouts of another Lake victim who disappeared around the time Sonia managed to escape from the house on the hill. The flashbacks show Lake and Ng as somewhat unskilled kidnappers who tried to build a money making enterprise around their murderous exploits. They would enslave the female victims, keeping them in grungy prison cells, and were not above kidnapping relatives and people they just didn't like.
Frentzen, here a first-time director who also co-wrote and edited, had helped produce several low budget direct to video genre flicks with German expatriate filmmaker Ulli Lommel between 2005 and 2008 (with title such as KILLER NURSE, DIARY OF A CANNIBAL and GREEN RIVER KILLER). Superficially, HOUSE ON THE HILL is reminiscent of these earlier productions by virtue of also having been shot on HD cam under what could charitably be called tough, small crew conditions in claustrophobic rooms. Unlike most found footage disasters, this movie's low-end video look actually complements the grainy testimonial footage of Leonard Lake. The reportedly extreme sexual violence was toned down for U.K. and U.S. release..
HOUSE ON THE HILL is fairly well directed by Frentzen, who constructs gruesome set pieces, such as the drawn out killing of Crystal Nelson, Laura Leigh's death by baseball bat, and the murder of an entire family. Although the movie occasionally drifts into the same territory as John McNaughton's HENRY PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER, the disjointed flashback format sadly keeps characterization to a minimum. As soon as we start to know the victims they are dispatched. The concept of showing the two murderers as incompetents that try but cannot seem to make a profit from their killing spree is a different approach for a serial killer flick.
Though ultimately done in by low production values, a grating music score but offset by decent acting from a small cast of unknowns, HOUSE ON THE HILL shows off a solid directorial debut and proves once and for all that serial killers should choose their victims carefully if they expect to make any money from their exploits.
The loosely constructed plot tells the tale of the two killers in flashback form, as a fictional survivor Sonia (Naidra Dawn Thomson) recalls to a private detective (Kevin McCloskey) the horrors of being one of Lake's captives years prior. The detective is seeking the whereabouts of another Lake victim who disappeared around the time Sonia managed to escape from the house on the hill. The flashbacks show Lake and Ng as somewhat unskilled kidnappers who tried to build a money making enterprise around their murderous exploits. They would enslave the female victims, keeping them in grungy prison cells, and were not above kidnapping relatives and people they just didn't like.
Frentzen, here a first-time director who also co-wrote and edited, had helped produce several low budget direct to video genre flicks with German expatriate filmmaker Ulli Lommel between 2005 and 2008 (with title such as KILLER NURSE, DIARY OF A CANNIBAL and GREEN RIVER KILLER). Superficially, HOUSE ON THE HILL is reminiscent of these earlier productions by virtue of also having been shot on HD cam under what could charitably be called tough, small crew conditions in claustrophobic rooms. Unlike most found footage disasters, this movie's low-end video look actually complements the grainy testimonial footage of Leonard Lake. The reportedly extreme sexual violence was toned down for U.K. and U.S. release..
HOUSE ON THE HILL is fairly well directed by Frentzen, who constructs gruesome set pieces, such as the drawn out killing of Crystal Nelson, Laura Leigh's death by baseball bat, and the murder of an entire family. Although the movie occasionally drifts into the same territory as John McNaughton's HENRY PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER, the disjointed flashback format sadly keeps characterization to a minimum. As soon as we start to know the victims they are dispatched. The concept of showing the two murderers as incompetents that try but cannot seem to make a profit from their killing spree is a different approach for a serial killer flick.
Though ultimately done in by low production values, a grating music score but offset by decent acting from a small cast of unknowns, HOUSE ON THE HILL shows off a solid directorial debut and proves once and for all that serial killers should choose their victims carefully if they expect to make any money from their exploits.
harrowing, scary and believable
phil_n_jason27 January 2015
Are just some of the words I can say about this movie! others would be! Bone chilling, nerve shattering, terror trip into insanity, and make you disbelieve that you just seen what you have seen. This movie really did leave me feeling totally disturbed to my wick. Yes I know I gave it a 10* this is how I reached the rating, 64 % Direction, 10% sound track, 23% production & cinematography & 3% acting. so overall is a 10*.
weather or not I would watch again? I think not! if disturbing movies that push all boundary's leaving you wanting to stay awake is your bag? then OK give the movie a go! If not avoid personally the movie should never have been made. But overall other than that I cant find fault in any level
weather or not I would watch again? I think not! if disturbing movies that push all boundary's leaving you wanting to stay awake is your bag? then OK give the movie a go! If not avoid personally the movie should never have been made. But overall other than that I cant find fault in any level
Not a total disappointment
GeoDover16 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
This is a slow-burn creeper of a film focusing on two real-life serial killers, one of whom gets a co-starring role here as himself in flashback "found" footage. The story of House on the Hill is, well..... A woman recalls her days and nights with one of the killers as her tormenting lover, with digressions and flashbacks within flashbacks. The killers kill a succession of women and some of it gets very tedious. Creepy at times, somewhat effective for the most part but in terms of movie-making it's crude. There are a couple of gruesome moments but it's mostly about the processes they employ to kill. Even worse, the killers appear frustrated much of the time, and shows them playing a lot of chess; yet, neither of them seems very bright. The real-life killer appears at interludes, speaking to the viewer directly, with a chilling nonchalance that elevates the movie somewhat. The movie's bluntness creates suspense in some scenes. Most of the dread is created by the acting but there is no coherent story to support the effort. Things get monotonous but on balance it's not a total disappointment.
Why?
b-ojonsson1 May 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Why was this film ever made?
To justify making a film, you need the following:
1 a story 2 an idea of what you want to make of that story 3 a good director 4 actors 5 some sense as to WHY you want to show what you DO show
1 serial killers make good stories for movies. There are hundreds of movies about the issue, some bad- some really good. 2 how can you justify showing torture and prolonged killing scenes? 3 what the film had a director? This looks like two torture porn
interested guys made a home video, torturing women for fun 4 justify the side story (the investigation) having lousy actors? Shows all the more that the people behind this offensive tosh ONLY wanted to show torture and killing
5..Yeah.. do you really know?
We are horror buffs and watch countless films at the weekends. We turned this one off, since there was nothing justifying us to watch the whole thing, since we like a good PLOT and good DIRECTION.
in short: disgusting
To justify making a film, you need the following:
1 a story 2 an idea of what you want to make of that story 3 a good director 4 actors 5 some sense as to WHY you want to show what you DO show
1 serial killers make good stories for movies. There are hundreds of movies about the issue, some bad- some really good. 2 how can you justify showing torture and prolonged killing scenes? 3 what the film had a director? This looks like two torture porn
interested guys made a home video, torturing women for fun 4 justify the side story (the investigation) having lousy actors? Shows all the more that the people behind this offensive tosh ONLY wanted to show torture and killing
5..Yeah.. do you really know?
We are horror buffs and watch countless films at the weekends. We turned this one off, since there was nothing justifying us to watch the whole thing, since we like a good PLOT and good DIRECTION.
in short: disgusting
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
