The House Next Door (2006 TV Movie) User Reviews

Literally a haunted house!

[hitchcockthelegend · 6/10 · 29 October 2014]

OK! Simple fact is that compared to the novel this Lifetime Television movie pales in comparison. Anne Rivers Siddons' novel is worthy of the praise it has received over the years. Directed by Jeff Woolnough, it's a film that is routine but effective both in atmosphere and story telling.

Lara Flynn Boyle and Colin Ferguson play the contented couple whose idyllic suburban life is tipped upside down when a modern house is built on the land next to their home. Embracing the community spirit of new neighbours at first, the couple soon come to realise that whoever lives in the house - or even those who visit it - are beset by tragedy or uncontrollable urges.

Each segment with the various "house" owners vary in quality, but always there's a smart thematic link pulsing away in the narrative. It's never scary as such, unless you count Boyle's cosmetic surgery (silly girl, she was a natural and sexy beauty), and the house itself is a monstrously modern ode to yuppiedom, which to some (ok, me) kind of negates the horror factor, yet this is worth a look on a time waster basis. But please do seek out the book if you haven't already. 6/10

Simply unmemorable

[BakuryuuTyranno · 5/10 · 6 January 2011]

Basically there was a creepy house. It was creepy on account of its hauntings. Anyways, some woman who lived on the street found out a friend who designed the house lost the ability to design, so she assumed the house was evil, like any sane person would.

Basically the movie tells the story of several people who occupy the building, but these people had little personality outside of attributes the house turned against them. The characters not living in the house really only existed to demonstrate that the protagonist's life was being affected by her paranoia about the house.

There isn't much reason to be concerned with any of these people since... well honestly early on the effect of the house on its first occupants was kinda unexpected.

I've mostly been rambling but this movie while watchable is one of those without any lasting impact on the viewer.

should have been creepier!!

[martlovesmovies · 6/10 · 15 March 2007]

From all the great comments I've read about the book (and now I want to buy the book), you'd think they would have made the movie creepier and more suspenseful. It was too tame in the shock department. I'm not saying it needed to be gory -just more suspenseful, creepy and sinister like a Stephen King movie! The architect character was really the only thing that creeped me out(just a little). Also the house should have been creepier looking. I enjoyed some of the actors' performances, especially the little girl. Some of the characters weren't too fazed about what was going on in the house and just blew it off. I'd be freaked if my neighbors were dying off one by one in the same house. All in all, it was an enjoyable two hours viewing time; I might even get the DVD if it comes out.

Architectural Digest

[jotix100 · 4/10 · 5 July 2008]

No mention if Ann Rivers Siddons adapted the material for "The House Next Door" from her 1970s novel of the same title, or someone else did it. This Lifetime-like movie was directed by Canadian director Jeff Woolnough. Having read the book a long time ago, we decided to take a chance when the film showed on a cable version of what was clearly a movie made for television. You know that when the critical moments precede the commercials, which of course, one can't find in this version we watched.

The film's star is Lara Flynn Boyle who sports a new look that threw this viewer a curve because of the cosmetic transformation this actress has gone through. From the new eyebrows to other parts of her body, Ms. Boyle is hardly recognizable as Col Kennedy, the character at the center of the mystery. This was not one of the actress better moments in front of the camera. That goes for the rest of the mainly Canadian actors that deserved better.

The film has a feeling of a cross between "Desperate Houswives" with "The Stepford Wives" and other better known features, combined with a mild dose of creepiness. The best thing about the movie was the house which serves as the setting.

Can't Get Over The Lips

[wsmith-26 · 4/10 · 25 June 2008]

This is not an entirely bad movie. The plot (new house built next door seems to be haunted) is not bad, the mood is creepy enough, and the acting is okay. The big problem I had is that, being familiar with Lara Flynn Boyle (from Twin Peaks and other shows), I couldn't get over how different she looks with her apparently new, big lips. I kept staring at them. They look so out of place on her face! They make her look completely different (and not better).

Mark-Paul Gosselaar, the actor who plays Kim the architect who designs and pours his heart and soul into the house, does a fine job. And Lara (as Col) is also quite good (but those lips!) as the owner of the house next door. Her husband, Walker (Colin Ferguson) is appropriately wooden. The various characters who live in the house were also fine. I particularly liked Pie (Charlotte Sullivan) and her husband, Buddy (Stephen Amell), the first people to move into the house. The attempt to involve us in the overall neighborhood vibe fails, unfortunately, as the other neighbors are not particularly likable.

For some reason the director was unable to make the "haunted" house particularly ominous. Other movies (such as Amityville Horror, The Legend of Hell House) manage to achieve that spooky feel, but it just doesn't happen here. The closest is when Col paints a depiction of the house.

Another thing that didn't work for me is the plot twist that occurs with Kim, the architect. Initially, he appears to be a victim of the house like the others (it has sucked him dry of inspiration), but later he seems to have joined forces with it in evil.

Overall, not a bad movie for horror fans if you can take your eyes off those big lips!

The true horror of this film...

[benoit-3 · 1/10 · 15 May 2010]

... is twofold. Firstly, it totally destroys, with a plodding, boring and mucousy script, a fine novel that Stephen King had singled out as one of the best horror stories of the last century in his essay "Danse Macabre" (1981).

The second jolt comes from seeing Lara Flynn Boyle's lips slowly disintegrate all through the movie from the sheer weight of the collagen they are stuffed with. Her mouth gradually descends in her face in a very ominous and asymmetrical fashion, unsupported by facial muscles that are already rendered weak and useless from too many Botox injections. The end result is an inverted wedge of a mouth incapable of smiling or any other recognizable human expression. Those are the only things that qualify this mess as truly scary, if you don't count the sheer ugliness, vulgarity and faux-modern ordinariness of the house itself.

What is that stench???

[kawboy59 · 3/10 · 30 October 2008]

Oh, it's the movie - I thought I waited too long to take out the dog... I can't believe I watched the whole thing. I guess I was optimistically anticipating that it was going to get better. Horribly disjointed dialog, pathetic acting, and totally improbable events. Like Toby's mom hanging herself in the time it takes Col to walk upstairs and back down in a room with a 24' ceiling and no chairs, counters or anything around her motionlessly suspended body that she could have possibly used to climb on to do herself in. The little girl that played the daughter of the last family was the best actor in the whole movie, and the puppy of the first couple was a close second. The basic storyline has potential and with a good script and director could be a seriously creepy flick, but this version sadly is not it. I get more scared when I open my electric bill every month.

The Lights Are On, but Nobody's Home

[wes-connors · 5/10 · 8 July 2014]

Happily married Lara Flynn Boyle and Colin Ferguson (as Colquitt "Col" and Walker Kennedy) live in a beautiful country home. They are okay being childless – although Ms. Boyle pouts, in the opening, some awareness about her "eggs" getting old at age thirty-four. There is a faint subplot about children which could have been more haunting. Boyle (as narrator) tells us a haunted house was built next door. Due to some unexplained incidents, Boyle and Mr. Ferguson have decided to have a showdown in "The House Next Door" – even though it may end their lives… Eighteen months earlier, we watch the events which slowly lead up to the opening scenes. The house is built by attractive architect Mark-Paul Gosselaar (as Kim). One day, he works up a sweat and has to shower at Boyle's place. You expect something to happen, but it doesn't – all the weird stuff happens in the house next door...

It is an unusual and difficult building to manage– but, it's a beautifully-designed building. Watching different people move in and try to live there is entertaining. The first one to leave is Mr. Gosselaar, who notices something strange has happened to him while building the place. Gosselaar helps sell the house and tries to get away, but not for long. This is an average TV movie production, with a couple of problems. Most obvious, the ending is a big disappointment. Of course, it's better not to say much – you'll see for yourself. Part of this has to do with some confusion about the characters – including the House as a real or inanimate character. This was based on a successful novel by Anne Rivers Siddons, which was undoubtedly clearer. Director Jeff Woolnough gets his best results in the house, especially building tension in effective scenes with Iraq War mom Julie Stewart (as Anita Sheehan).

***** The House Next Door (10/30/06) Jeff Woolnough ~ Lara Flynn Boyle, Mark-Paul Gosselaar, Colin Ferguson, Julie Stewart

Through a house darkly. A very good, gripping supernatural mystery thriller, a different kind of ghost story.

[Foreverisacastironmess123 · 7/10 · 27 January 2012]

I first had the pleasure of seeing this rather elegant horror movie on my beloved Horror Channel and I immediately appreciated it's subtle approach and slow but steady build up of fear, and how you could feel that fear without truly seeing anything. No ghostly figures, no dark rushing shadows, just a rather great oppressive atmosphere of rising dread, and a series of unfortunate events...:2: I thought that before I reviewed the movie I would read the book it's based on. I did and I was very disappointed. It was way too depressing, not to mention long-winded, boring, and very weak. There was also an endless blatant and challenging snobbish arrogance to the entire thing that I didn't like either. I ultimately found it to be a better film than a book...:3: The tone and feel of the book was pretty much just like the movie, except for the following differences: Anita Sheehan doesn't kill herself, and is instead shocked into a permanent coma. Suzanna Greene doesn't just shoot her husband. First she shoots him, then her daughter(!), then herself. And possibly the biggest change, at the end, instead of blowing up the house with Kim the possibly demonic architect still inside, Walter and Col, after figuring out that is is somehow Kim causing the dire events, and not the house, quietly murder him and take his body to the basement of the house and then set the place on fire. Then the two of them, believing the house will not let them destroy it and live, sit and wait to see what will happen next. It sounds creepy, but it was a weak end to a weak book written by a snob, I thought...:4: I quite liked Lara Flynn's performance. She kind of makes the movie, in my book. So much better than her turn in Men in Black 2! And, consequently, the lips WERE pretty damn big...:5: I thought Noam Jenkins was just awesome as the anal, arrogant, and deliciously odious Mr Norman Greene. (that's Greene with an "E" and don't you forget it!)He's not quite as monstrous as the book version of the character. I found the guy so funny to watch with his uppity, almost camp delivery, appearance and overall demeanour. And that thing he said! I mean, when you've got a grown man repeatedly uttering the phrase: "What is wrong with this picture? What is wrong, tell me sister?!" It's a little silly, especially coming from this guy. To me a very intense and scary scene is when the long-suffering Anita Sheehan, very movingly played by Julie Stewart, sees the moment of her son's fiery death on a TV screen in high definition. It's a very serious scene, but I find it hard not to laugh at the poor woman's crazy reflection on the screen as she does look very funny! It makes for a very weird contrast! I also laugh at the bit where Mark Paul Gosselar gets kicked in the head!:6: I thought the theme of the malignant house of creeping evil thing was very well done. But uh, I personally just can't find a house scary to look upon. That house wasn't scary, it didn't look ominous, or magical, or anything remotely weird to me. It just looked like one of those ultra-modern, cold and ugly houses. No more frightening than a car, a closet, a pair of shoes, or a refrigerator! (Mr King!) Don't get me anywhere near a wicker basket, though! This is a little mild, a little cheap, and a little TV, it's still very enjoyable despite all that. Not a bad movie at all. Do you have the equipment to deal with it?

Wow...is that boring

[Rothchild667 · 2/10 · 31 October 2006]

The cast is OK. The script is awkward at times, and it takes a while to figure out what the point of the movie is. I found myself looking forward to doing the dishes. The Shehan bit is a cheesy statement on the war. I guess we were supposed to not notice it...we did. Its a house, you did nothing more than kill forty five minutes. The shower part...huh? What was that about? Literally, it is I have a client, "Ok you can use our shower." Yawn. The angles are trying way to hard. There was a set of woods, suddenly its gone cause you can see right through, then next it is deep and animals are dying. In the end this is a horrendous movie of boring proportions.

There goes the neighborhood! A good psychological thriller based on the famous novel.

[Hup234! · 8/10 · 30 October 2006]

After too many years of waiting, Anne Rivers Siddons' noted 1979 book "The House Next Door" has finally been filmed. The result veers a bit from the novel which, especially in the first story of the trilogy is understandable if unsatisfying as it's a TV film, the whole of which is absorbing and actually very good, just not as great as the book, one of Stephen King's favorites and one of mine as well.

With more running time and fewer constraints as a theatrical release, all the richness inherent in the original three-part story of the ominous ultramodern house could have been explored and nurtured, especially the climactic revelation near the very end.

Still, the whole cast does well in this thoughtful tale of mindless malevolence. There are a few unnecessary cheap shocks but the growing atmosphere of dread is well developed. Actually, one of the most disturbing scenes involves an abstract painting of the house by its next-door amateur-artist neighbor who is trying to visualize its corruption on canvas.

Be sure to read the great novel.

Decent movie, Great Book.

[bakeram-1 · 7/10 · 31 October 2006]

When I heard that this movie was coming out the night before Halloween, I was very excited. When I found out that it was a book, written in 1978, I had to read it before seeing the movie. I'm sure the movie would have been much different to me if I had not read the book. The writers actually did a good job of staying true to the main plot of the book, with minor differences, naturally. I think the thing that disappointed me the most about the movie was Boyle playing the role of Col. I'm not a big fan of Boyle, and it seems that no matter what the mood during the movie, she's always trying to use her over-plumped lips, and darkly makeup-ed eyes to make herself seem super sexy. Indeed, I think that the movie held true to the genuine creepiness of the house. My favorite subplot was the Sheehan family (which is so weird b/c the son was killed in Iraq and in current events there is Casey Sheehan whose mother went on a huge anti-Iraq tirade). In the book, obviously the war was not Iraq, but rather, Vietnam, and when the house turns on that video of the son in the helicopter, I was truly creeped out. Overall, I was impressed with the movie, in that it followed the book very well.

Not Bad, But a Pity They Couldn't Have Made it a Feature Film

[ScottAmundsen · 4/10 · 29 August 2011]

I read Anne Rivers Siddons's excellent book some years ago. Stephen King, in his essay DANSE MACABRE, refers to the novel as one of the best haunted house stories ever written, and he is correct. Unfortunately, in translation from the printed page to the small screen, quite a bit is lost.

The basic plot remains intact, happily: a young, hot-shot architect (Mark-Paul Gosselaar) builds a new, contemporary house on a vacant lot next door to the Kennedys, Col and her husband Walker, who frame the story and serve as the narrators (Here is where the inexplicable differences begin: in the novel, Col was Colquitt and Walker was Walter, and the book is told in first-person by Colquitt). During the course of the next year and a half or so, three couples occupy the house, and each of them suffers terrible tragedy, leading Col to the conclusion that there is something malevolent about the house.

She's right, but some of the terror has been diluted by two things: the choice to make this a television movie, and the choice to update it by nearly thirty years (the novel was published in 1978). Had it been made as a feature film set in the Atlanta suburb of the original late-Seventies novel, perhaps they could have captured the indescribable creepiness of the book.

The cast isn't much help, either. Lara Flynn Boyle leads the proceedings as Col, but she seems miscast (To be fair to Boyle, Siddons never actually gives a physical description of Colquitt in the novel, but Boyle is not what I myself pictured), and worse, she underplays the role so severely that she often appears comatose. And the massive amounts of collagen plumping up her lips on one side don't help matters any either; in some scenes her mouth is such a distraction it is easy to miss what is going on. Still, there are moments when her dreamy, almost-hypnotized stare does send a chill through you as you realize what the house next door might be doing to her, never mind the neighbors. And Colin Ferguson is just about right as her husband; he wisely plays his role at the same emotional level so as not to upstage her or make Walker seem foolish.

Unfortunately, the rest of the cast is not worth talking about. In the novel, the effect of the malevolent house was felt by eight of the neighbors on the street, and each, especially the women, reacted in his/her own way. The supporting cast in this telefilm is so homogeneous that unless Boyle says their names it is hard to tell them apart. A pity, because Siddons described them quite vividly.

Mark-Paul Gosselaar as the architect was probably cast to pull in the young girls, but he is probably the worst choice of all. For starters, he still can't act. He couldn't as a kid on "Saved by the Bell;" he couldn't on "NYPD Blue;" and he still can't. All he can do is pose and look pretty. Which he does very well, except that the role does not call for it. The architect wasn't unattractive in the novel, but he certainly wasn't a pretty boy like Gosselaar.

I can't say I hated it. I loved the novel, and there's still enough of the novel left to make this worth sitting through on a rainy afternoon if you've nothing better to do. But I'd sooner recommend reading the novel; you'll get all the shivers that way, and you won't think Stephen King has terrible taste in horror stories.

So disappointing!

[debkie · 3/10 · 9 March 2007]

Not that I was really surprised....movies are never as good as the books that they originated from. I was looking forward to seeing this movie because this is one of my favorite books, even though I knew it would probably suck. I was hoping to be pleasantly surprised. However, they strayed from the book's storyline too much, and the movie version did not convey how horrible this house really was. Ending was different too. Lara Flynn Boyle looked terrible due to some really bad cosmetic surgery. The acting was unremarkable at best. Perhaps if a theatrical version was made so that they wouldn't have to stay so much in Lifetime's "made for TV movie" box, it would be a better flick. If you saw this movie I highly encourage you to track down the book and read it. I doubt you'll be disappointed and hope you enjoy it as much as I do every time I read it.

Insipid

[Leofwine_draca · 3/10 · 23 April 2015]

THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR is one dull TV movie. It's a simple story about a suburban housewife who lives next door to what might be the ultimate haunted house. A series of her neighbours living in this evil abode are subject to all manner of ill fortune and even death, and it's all something to do with the sinister architect who built it.

Apparently this film was based on a novel so I can only imagine how horrendous that is. The main problem here is that the focus of the story isn't on the main characters at all but on the supporting characters who live next door. Thus the attempts at drama and human conflict are subdued. There's no real sense of resolution here, not even a real beginning, middle, or end, just continued nonsense.

Frozen-faced Lara Flynn Boyle was a vibrant and even volatile screen presence in the 1990s so it's sad to see her hidden behind copious plastic surgery and reduced to starring in this kind of insipid TV movie fare that I thought they'd stopped making in the 1990s.

It should have been made into a film in 1980

[moviegoingcat · 3/10 · 12 November 2006]

It would help to know why it took so long for a book as movie-ready' as "The House Next Door" to be adapted for film or television. The book was copyrighted in 1978. One reason could be problems designing 'the house'. The house in this Lifetime film is really so ugly that I can't imagine anyone buying it. In fact it's so ugly that someone would probably have come and destroyed it as soon as it was built.

I'm not crazy about horror genre books, but this one was hard to put down when I came across it around ten years ago. The main characters are not the kind of people to look for anything occult in life, and this is one of the book's strengths. They are not people who would conclude that the architect was some type of demon..(or the devil personified) without witnessing and analyzing the events described so well in the book. However, it is a downbeat book for the most part, and I don't think that appeals to the people who run Lifetime. Maybe someone will come up with another version of the book in years to come. A better house..better music..a better screenplay and darker lighting...would certainly help.

Dull as dishwater.

[poolandrews · 14 July 2011]

The House Next Door is set in a very nice suburban area in the US, loving couple Col (Lara Flynn Boyle) & Walker (Colin Ferguson) live in a nice residential street & have a seemingly perfect life. However their quiet & tranquil lifestyle is abruptly disturbed when a new house is built next to their's, a very modern house that looks very impressive both outside & in designed by novice architect Kim (Mark-Paul Gosselaar). Once the house is built a young couple named Pie (Charlotte Sulivan) & Buddy Harrelson (Stephen Amell) move in, at first they seem the perfect couple happily in love but Buddy unexpectedly pushes Pie down the stairs causing her to lose their unborn baby. The next couple that buy the house & move in also suffer tragic events, watching this take place from next door Col becomes convinced that the house is evil & decides to do something about it before more lives are ruined & lost...

This Canadian & American co-production was directed by Jeff Woolnough & was based on the novel by Anne Rivers Siddons published almost thirty years prior & by all accounts is far superior to this tame made for telly supernatural drama. The House Next Door is so forgettable, plain & dull that it fails to make any sort of lasting impact. The script is fairly slow going although as far as haunted house horror flicks go does have the slightly unusual angle of being told from the point of view of the neighbour's rather than the inhabitants of the evil house itself which in all honestly doesn't amount to much anyway. The reasons behind the haunted house are never explained beyond vague guesswork & the events inside the house aren't that frightening anyway, I mean some guy shouting at his wife? Isn't that called an argument? Doesn't everyone have them from time to time? Why the stupid cow decides to pull a gun out & shoot the guy I don't know, then strange phone-calls are hardly a reason to commit suicide are they? I don't know, The House Next Door just feels like a really tame made for telly drama with a hint of supernatural thrown in & plays it safe. There are no major surprises or twist's, the character's are dull & as a whole the film is forgettable. Also what is up with the names in this? I mean you have men called Walker, Buddy & Kim while women called Col & Pie.

The film looks alright, it's reasonably well made although very static & dull to look at. The house itself isn't imposing enough & looks too modern to be haunted or generate any sort of suspense or atmosphere. The gore count is zero with no blood spilt at all.

Filmed in Toronto in Canada actress Lara Flynn-Boyle has noticeable Botox filled lips, it's not a very pretty sight. The acting is alright, no-one stands out as great though.

The House Next Door is a throughly tame & forgettable made for telly supernatural drama that didn't do anything for me, it's far too slow & dull for me to be able to recommend it. There are far better haunted house horror flicks than this so don't waste your time.

Ho Ho Ho ....What a dog

[Sam_Owens · 3/10 · 31 October 2006]

I read the book a long time back and don't specifically remember the plot but do remember that I enjoyed it. Since I'm home sick on the couch it seemed like a good idea and Hey !! It is a Lifetime movie.

The movie is populated with grade B actors and actresses.

The female cast is right out of Desperate Housewives. I've never seen the show but there are lots of commercials for the show and I get the gist. Is there nothing original anymore? Sure, but not on Lifetime.

The male cast are all fairly effeminate looking and acting but the girls need to have husbands I suppose.

In one scene a female is struggling with a male, for her life, and what does she do??? Kicks him in the testicles. What else? Women love that but let me tell you girls something... It's not as easy as it's always made to look.

It wasn't all bad. I did get the chills a time or two so I have to credit someone with that.

Great book, OK movie

[BandSAboutMovies · 4/10 · 3 October 2022]

Walker Kennedy - the kind of name someone has in a Lifetime movie or a country star, played by Colin Ferguson - and his wife Col - also a Lifetime name, but hey, Lara Flynn Boyle should be a giallo queen and I'll take this - don't want kids and are happy to just live in the suburbs. Well, they were.

That's because their quiet home is soon in the shade of architect Kim's (Mark-Paul Gosselaar) obsession, a house that seems like a cathedral to Col. Also, if you don't think that Zack Morris isn't going to put it to Donna Hayward, you must not watch many Lifetime movies.

Every couple that moves into that house goes absolutely insane and kill one another, which would seem to stop people from moving in but you know, as someone who bought a house next to a Native American ground and the last owner killed himself - at least not in the house as far as they told us - I know how hard it is to get a home.

Based on the book The House Next Door by Anne Rivers Siddons, this was directed by Jeff Woolnough, who also made Universal Soldier II: Brothers in Arms and Universal Soldier III: Unfinished Business. It was shot in Toronto, which makes a lot of sense when you watch it, because this neighborhood seems a bit too polite, even when the ladies are all discussing affairs. Man, this movie makes me glad I don't talk to any of my neighbors other than the biker dude next door.

Possessed House

[Pairic · 6/10 · 4 March 2021]

The House Next Door: A Possessed as distinct from a Haunted House. A new house is built in an exclusive area, a lovely young couple own it, a nice young architect designed it. But the architect is troubled, this was his first independent commission, now he seems to have lost his inspiration. Trouble soon befalls the new couple and other residents who follow them in occupying the house. Mostly psychological horror, people seem pushed to do things they normally wouldn't but also scenes of genuine horror. A TV set taken over to show films of past deaths, ghostly apparitions; gruesome suicides and murders occur. Directed by Jeff Woolhaugh. On SyFy Channel. 6/10.

"The Room" Original Quality but not even funny

[cerketadjordjo · 1/10 · 7 April 2024]

Wow I am suprised they still showing these bad movies in TV. I guess thats one reason i dont watch TV usually. Probably the worst Movie i saw in 10 years. The Cast is typical Stereotype wrongly casted and bad acting but unfortunately its not bad enough to put it in a comedic trash movie genre. I usually dont write comments but as this is the worst Movie I saw in 10 years i thought i write my opinion. Sad that there is so much money invested into production while people suffer poverty and hunger. Even its a Low-Budged-Production i would have recommended doing a theater about it in a Free University or a free Play but not Investing in something that obviously will not have any gross success unless something like "The Room" Phenomenon happens.

The Depiction of Evil Incarnate

[lavatch · 8/10 · 25 September 2019]

"The House Next Door" is much more than a haunted house film. It is a study in evil incarnate and the unseen forces that lurk within the darkest caverns of the human mind.

The crisply-written screenplay included snappy dialogue that built dramatic tension with each new resident occuping the house next door. First, Buddy and Pie move in, and Buddy is transformed into a monster who pushes his pregnant wife down the stairs. Then, Buck and Anita reside in the home, and, to their horror, their deceased son Toby, who perished in Iraq, returns to torment them. Finally, Norman and Susie move in with their little daughter Melinda. Norman is instantly transformed into a monster.

A dramatic question that arises has to do with the source of the evil. Is the evil in the house itself? Or, is the locus of evil in the soul of the architect named Kim? There is an interesting dimension of Irish folklore that is interlarded in the film. The neighbor Col keeps a lucky green acorn from her youth growing up in an Irish family. Will the lucky charm help to ward off the evil? Or must Col and her husband Walker take things into their own hands to defeat the forces of darkness?

There was good suspense throughout the film in large part due to the excellent cast. The line readings were superb, and the actors developed credible character transformations. The directing made effective use of close-ups. While not always flattering, the facial reactions added to the sense of urgency. In the end, the filmmakers were successful in capturing the human dimension of evil, as opposed to relying on gimmicks and the tired conventions of a haunted-house horror picture.