House of Evil (2017) User Reviews

House Of Evil

[a_baron · 3/10 · 2 December 2017]

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.

Not great

[sedelgarcia · 3/10 · 7 August 2021]

I endured through this movie hoping it would improve . I like the 70s vibe, location, and the concept but the script is poor. You can feel the actors trying to make it better which only results in overacting. Overall the production is poor and tries too hard to be scary throwing every horror cliche at it leaving it feeling contrived. Yes, I know it's not real but what makes a good horror movie is one that draws you into its story. This one did not.

Just another haunted house

[RandomTard · 3/10 · 5 October 2021]

So 2 hippies move into a mansion with their dog, because apparently in the 60's it is cheaper to live in a castle than in a house. Next we find out that the building is haunted, what a surprise. Then some boring things happen, a priest appears (who could of guessed that) and like in the standard haunted house format the dog dies.

It's not a terrible movie nor is it actually any good either. It's pretty much what one would expect from a haunted house movie even having the mandatory "Based on true events" joke in there.

couldn't give it a zero

[paulwebber-06391 · 1/10 · 6 January 2018]

Terrible movie...bad everything...really don't waste your time like I did.

Avoid this brain fart

[paulmalone81 · 1/10 · 6 June 2017]

This film is truly awful.Terrible acting,after about ten minutes it becomes more annoying but you decide to give it the benefit of the doubt in the forlorn hope it will improve.Alas it dose not. The plot has been used in countless movies over the years and this is just another botched attempt of a worn out script. To add insult to injury we are informed it's inspired by true events.Maybe I'm being too critical and some people may enjoy this movie, but for me it was a load of schlock.

absolutely horrible

[AlbertsTaylor · 1/10 · 5 July 2017]

Even if you can get past the horrible acting (I mean really really horrible overacting), the plot is so overdone it will leave you bored to tears. This movie is in no way "homage" to the classic pieces of the genre. It was not nearly original or well directed enough to be considered such. Very much a failed attempt. Don't waste your time unless you want a laugh at the bad acting.

Please don't

[stacy_bep · 1/10 · 30 October 2017]

Such a disappointment... Let's say that I love horror movies and I'm an avid watcher of new titles that would give me a good scare (yes, I actually get scared easily). This movie I could have watched alone in a dark abandoned house (just to stay on the subject) and still don't get the chills.

It is set in the 70s, good. It is also set in Italy, and it is hard not to notice it BUT no one mentions it. It is hard to believe that every character we see in an English native speaker. It feels odd and.. fake.

The acting is awful but the music is really good, maybe a little bit too intense in some scenes (you know something is going to happen way before the characters do).

The film has the same clichés of the haunted house stories and doesn't really add much to the mix. The viewer knows what is going to happen: as soon as it is found out that the protagonist is pregnant you know you're in for a bad remake of Rosemary's baby.

The epilogue seems forced with the stereotype devil-worshiper priest that has to explain the public why they had to endure this amateur production for 80 minutes.

Just Completely Uninteresting.

[wandernn1-81-683274 · 2/10 · 3 May 2020]

I'm not sure what it was about this movie. I watched it. From beginning to End. And I really couldn't tell you what happened. The story was so....devoid of story. And by the time it ended, I didn't care anymore.

Great Setting, Hackneyed Story

[twelvehousetwelve · 2/10 · 31 August 2017]

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.

Why the wigs so fake?

[crunchycloset · 1/10 · 19 June 2021]

Lots of bad acting, a histerical actress and a funny (trying to be scary) face from the actor! I just don't understand, if you have a short budget you can still do it with actors natural hair, this was one of the things that more bothered me, those super fake wigs make it ridiculous!

Good artsplotation and best "Amityville" rip-off of last two decade

[edgy-827-486965 · 9/10 · 29 June 2017]

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.

Not great but entertaining.

[narftroz · 6/10 · 24 October 2017]

I usually do not waste my time writing reviews. There is some unnecessary bashing of this movie. I do watch a lot of movies. Most all of them. I enjoy a bad movie a lot. I think they are funny and entertaining. This movie is set in a beautiful home and piece of land. The antagonist is unique. The clothing and atmosphere are period correct. The acting and directing is fine. It is not perfect, but it is fine. There is also sufficient apprehension for this genre. If you haven't seen this one yet, save it until you have run out of other movies. Simply pay attention to what is happening and enjoy the scenery.

Something is not right with this house.

[nogodnomasters · 2/10 · 26 July 2018]

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

If only I could give this movie a 0...

[ravenhair702 · 1/10 · 21 May 2019]

Gosh. Just where do I start. When I put the DVD into the DVD player...it went straight to the movie. No previews. RED FLAG. I started to groan, but I kept an open mind. I watched the movie and realized that I'd made a mistake and I should have picked Dishwater...THE MOVIE. I'm really not kidding. DON'T rent this waste of time. If you see any reviews any higher than 7...the 5 people who made this meaningless film managed to scrape together enough money to pay some moron to write a complete lie and say wow! what a film! Don't believe anything you hear about how great it was. It's money and time you will never get back. TRUST me. DON'T rent this garbage. See ya.

Watchable, but a bit generic...

[paul_haakonsen · 4/10 · 7 December 2023]

Stumbling upon the 2017 movie titled "House of Evil" by random chance here in 2023, and seeing that the movie had something that was very much reminiscent of a 1990s horror movie cover, of course my interest was caught. And while I had never heard about the movie, my love of the horror genre made me pick up the movie and give it a chance.

Writers Lorenzo Paviano and Raffaele Picchio put together a fair enough script and storyline. Sure, "House of Evil" was watchable and the storyline was adequate, but ultimately the storyline was actually a rather generic one. And it was something that I've seen in many other similar horror movies throughout my many years of watching movies. So the writers didn't really bring anything new to the genre here, nor did they revolutionize the genre with this 2017 movie.

The acting performances in "House of Evil" were fair. It was a rather small cast ensemble, so the actors and actresses had to put on all the more convincing and good performances, and I will say that the cast followed through and delivered, because it was their performances that carried the majority of the movie, as the script itself was a bit generic.

Visually then "House of Evil" wasn't impressive. Now, don't get me wrong, because I am not saying that it was a bad movie, not at all. It just wasn't a movie that was heavily reliant on special effects, neither mundane or CGI. Whatever effects, however minimalistic, that was in the movie actually played out well enough.

"House of Evil" is an atmospheric horror movie, and it doesn't rely on cheap tricks and a barrage of jump scares, and that was actually a nice thing to see in a newer horror movie for a change. And I will say that it definitely was also improving on the overall impression of the movie.

Ultimately, then I found the movie's cover/poster to actually set the movie up to be a bit more than what was delivered. I found the movie's cover rather interesting, and feel that the movie didn't really manage to live up to that.

My rating of directors Luca Boni and Marco Ristori 2017 horror movie "House of Evil" lands on a four out of ten stars.

Seems a little too familiar...

[meganbmoore-98247 · 3/10 · 25 February 2024]

This is straight up a reimagined version of Amityville Horror. The husband becomes obsessed with the house and becomes essentially possessed, no longer caring about his wife and their child. It's even set in the 70's, I mean c'mon. I think the creators actually really wanted to remake Amityville but after the Ryan Reynolds version did horribly they thought they could just changed a couple things, obviously out it Ina different house and no one would be the wiser. Vrry disappointed, it's proof once again that original horror stories are getting harder to come by. Even the great ones like "Insidious" and "The Conjuring" had something great and then sequeled it to oblivion. With Conjuring all I can say is that at least we got "The Nun" out of it, and if stops at the second movie then I will call that a win. But again this movie is just a rip off, and not even a good rip off. My recommendation is to just go and watch the original "Amityville Horror" and you'll what you thought you were going to get from this.

If Wolverine tried to be Thor

[chelsgreera · 10/10 · 19 July 2018]

The toad was the best actor in the whole film. The dog deserved it. Best wigs in show business. Best supporting roach I've ever seen. The pastor is my new sugar daddy. Should've won an oscar. Lowkey main ghost could use a face lift but im not judging. Where can I get a dope ass cape? 10/10 would pee again.

Atmospheric horror.

[fstapleton-75543 · 6/10 · 3 July 2020]

This would be 5 going on story but give it an extra mark for the superb location. Really liked the creepy house in the countryside, the 70's vibe and visuals. No looking up the internet here to find out whats going on. Acting is fairly good, script and direction okay but the story is somewhat uneven. It rushes through too much in the last 10 minutes that maybe could have been developed a bit sooner. Overall a reasonable effort with a great location.