Exorcist: House of Evil (2016) User Reviews

House Of Weasels

[shawnblackman · 3/10 · 23 October 2016]

A woman moves into the house where the real exorcism took place that the film The Exorcist was based on. She discovers something is still there.

This thing sucked on a whole new suck scale. First they tell you the film is shot in the actual house but the reality is that the exteriors were but they seem too cheap to pay to use the interior. For an example one scene has the woman eating a bowl of cereal. She is startled then the bowl spills onto the floor. You just see dry cereal spilling on the carpet because they didn't want to clean up a milk mess. Things like that make you wonder what other corners do they cut. The only effects you get are doors closing and eyes turning black. Just all around garbage.

The funniest is when she notices a cross etched in her arm. Not sure she reaches down and grabs a crumpled church flyer. The flyer has a cross in the corner and she holds it next to her arm. Confirmed. It is a cross. If you can handle things like this than this film is for you but everyone else stay away. It should be called Exorcist: House Of Weasels.

I tried so hard to like it but..

[VeronicaW345 · 2/10 · 11 July 2016]

I'm not sure if this is meant to be some kind of sequel to the Exorcist, or simply a rip off, but it falls flat on every level if you put in into any one of those categories.

This film had such potential! But had no atmosphere, no suspense, just irritating music in supposedly "scary" moments.

I always like to give new up coming talent a chance, and I actually enjoyed Amy Pennell acting at the start of the movie which led me to believe that this was going to be a decent low budget horror, but it just got progressively worse.

In short, I had to stop watching because I did not care what happens to any of the characters.

Poor quality exorcism drama

[Leofwine_draca · 2/10 · 19 January 2018]

EXORCIST: HOUSE OF EVIL is one of those low budget indie horrors that attempts to generate some of the same creepy atmosphere as THE EXORCIST but fails miserably. This one has a glossy, colourful look which works at odds with the disturbing atmosphere they're trying to build up. It's not colourful in a good old fashioned Roger Corman gothic way either; instead it just looks like a TV soap. The whole thing is made up of boring conversations with a priest who looks like James Woods while the main actress is attractive but of limited acting ability. There's one exorcism in the last ten minutes; it's very dull otherwise.

Shame shame shame

[flnative-60281 · 1/10 · 22 June 2016]

Shame to everyone associated in the making of this movie. I've never written a bad review, ever......but this really p*ssed me off. First of all they lure you with the word "Exorcist" which is a disgrace to the real Exorcist franchise. Put in a good male lead (shame on you Connor, really). It was SO stupid so disappointing sitting here with my popcorn, giddy as a school girl for a good scary movie night and then you guys throw this sh*t right in our faces? OMG, please do not watch this movie, it'll make you wanna gauge out your eyes with a rusty screw driver. If pictures shaking on the walls scare you then you may like this, but that's all your gonna get. No demon, no ghost, no fright, fear, horror......nada. To everyone involved in this sick attempt at any form of entertainment.....-YOU SUCK- To would be watchers.....you've been warned honestly.

Sigh

[sharon-campone-evans · 1/10 · 13 April 2019]

30 minutes in and the acting, sound and editing are making me want to poke my eye out. Not great, blatant bandwagonning in the exorcist name. Nice touch being filmed in the actual house though!!!!

Maybe the movie would be better with a adult in the female lead roll not a teenager

[berg-74532 · 1/10 · 4 September 2016]

Never in the history of acting, not just movies from the first cave man shadow puppets on cave walls, has had a performance as bad as the actor playing Amy I can't imagine the other girls who were up for this roll, maybe there was some massive wave STD' s that killed all other female actors on earth or I've gone to some parallel earth where horrible is somehow good. Whatever the case there was not one scene that she looked natural you could see on her face she had to be thinking " I need to frown now " " I need to look scared now" no emotion during the entire movie looked real. I can't say anything about the rest of the cast they could have been great but they were sucked into the black hole of horrible from there female co-star. But if you like horrible movies like Plan 9, Bride of the monster this cheapest is for you

B movie

[erickawatson · 1/10 · 5 March 2019]

1. Bad acting 2. Filming low low budget 3. Bad acting 4. Low budget filming 5. Need a remake

It should have been far better.

[RatedVforVinny · 5/10 · 3 November 2018]

Fantastic location, in the real 'Exorcist' house (Maryland) but sadly does not contain any sense demonic power, associated with either the original case, or the classic film. Contains some real supernatural happenings, captured whilst filming in this infamous dwelling. An interesting one though, but only for the fans.

My Friend Owes Me 90 Minutes Of My Life Back

[redrobin62-321-207311 · 2/10 · 28 February 2017]

I get lonely, sometimes to the point where I often drink to alleviate some of my angst. I haven't had a beer in over three weeks; my friend has been convincing me to hang out with him so I won't have the urge to hit the liquor store anymore. Fair enough. The trade off to all that is he likes watching, as he calls them, "scary" movies. I prefer the term "horror", but whatever, it all amounts to the same thing - a frightfest. So, together, we nuked some popcorn, turned off the lights, and got ready to...waste our time.

As exorcist movies go, this one was unoriginal and poorly scripted. Too many holes were apparent in the film. To wit: why did the buyers of the property need keys to get in the house when, obviously, the vandals who went in often to thrash the place didn't. And how come the graffiti artists scribbled on everything yet leave the photos on the walls untouched. Those would've been the first to have been painted on. Would it also kill the buyers to get rid of all the graffiti'd cloth hanging up everywhere? They left them in place for, like, ever.

All the clichés were there - run to the basement armed with a flashlight when a noise is heard. Give a call to the priest who, of course, will deny he knows anything about ghosts, etc. etc. I gave the movie one star because some of the acting wasn't actually that bad considering the poor material they had to work with. This film could've been so much better.

Bad movie

[ruterdam50 · 2/10 · 3 December 2018]

WHY bother looking at this movie? So bad? WHO would for exampel go done to the cellar with a mobil? Where there is flaschlight? And who is so naiv. This is a bad movie. Give it 3 stars only.

Great, Fantastic and finally a real, movie with unexpected and pleasant surprises! :)

[sweetness-83091 · 9/10 · 22 November 2016]

This is a fantastic movie!!! For all 4 of the reviews before mine, everyone has their own opinion, yes, but do not lie! The fact that real paranormal and audio shots were kept in here, alone makes this movie a hit for the simple fact that this is the only movie I know of where actual surprises for the crew (actors, camera,producers,etc...)were unscripted. It made for a great movie ,leading to REAL reactions. Great move for all involved of making this!!! The real house and activity made this the best movie !!!!! I am definitely a movie historian and critique every one I watch, the only critique I have for the makers of this film is this.....You need to make more!! LOL:) I was pleasantly surprised and happy with this movie. I just wish I would have seen a renowned actor/actress) but loved this either way!!! Thank you for making such a real movie for us!!! :) - Kym

Good Effort For A Low Budget Movie.

[P3n-E-W1s3 · 6/10 · 9 March 2017]

Everybody knows the film The Exorcist (1973) which was based on the brilliant novel by William Peter Blatty. The author based his story on the exorcism of Roland Doe in 1949 in Cottage City, Maryland. This film is based upon those real events and the people involved. They even feature the real house in which the exorcisms took place.

Though this is a low budget film, writer and director David Trotti does a good job of building on the original story by bringing in a new couple to the house. The house has stood empty for years, only vandals have entered to tag their names on the walls. Then enter Amy who is one of the last surviving members of the family. She doesn't believe in the evil all she sees is a house ready to be lived in. Though before she and her fiancé Luke can even move in strange things start to happen...

The story that Trotti gives us is strong and believable; if you believe in evil, daemons, and devils that is.

What surprised me the most is the level of skill the actors bring to the movie. Amy Holland Pennell portrays Amy very well, bringing the character a depth of strength and surety, which is put to the test throughout the film. Mark Holzum as Luke does a wonderful job of portraying a loving fiancé who is having doubts about his girlfriend's sanity and the possibility of the evil which lurks in the house. Connor Trinneer plays Gordon, Amy's cousin, and shows a warm and caring compassion towards her. Peter Mayer gives a wonderful portrayal of Father Halloran who goes from pure fear at just the thought of the house and the exorcism which took place there to controlled fear when he realises that Amy needs his help.

The story does suffer from a slow midsection, which I can forgive as this is his true first writing and directing debut, but it does pick up for a worthy and respectable ending. The worst thing about the movie though is the camera work. There are sections where the camera shakes so much it's practically vomit-inducing and really spoils the movie.

There are some nice parts to the story and the film which make this a watch once movie if you're interested in possession and exorcism or The Exorcist story, which I was. I may even watch it again sometime, though not in the near future.

So much wrong to be a "right".

[the_silver_angel_13 · 2/10 · 20 January 2017]

First to say, there may be spoilers here... Can't say knowing anything ahead of watching this film could really spoil the experience- it does that all on its own.

I give them a couple props on the "Kilroy was here" doodle on the boys notebook! (A popular tag from the WWII era.) The second is the surprisingly NOT bad quality of lighting and camera use. Too bad the camera can't fix poor acting...

In my humble opinion... The movie was low budget- bad effects, poor sound quality, and little direction in plot. The main actress had stiff acting, and all other acting was just as shoddy. I believe watching Fantasia would make a better Exorcist movie than this one. And no, this film has nothing to do with the popular Exorcist franchise. There is no exorcism in the actual film, besides a short glimpse in the backstory. Also, I can't tell if the interior of the house was the actual house in Missouri or a staged home... They tried their best to make it look as though vandals had been in the vacant house, but a few scribbles in a few corners could have just been left out.

Lastly, when they showed letters appearing in people's skin... In one scene with the dementia patient, the Aunt, she had letters etched into her forearm. It was supposed to be the initials T.E.S. However, I seriously thought they said SEX. Anybody else see that?...

Don't look Ethel

[nogodnomasters · 3/10 · 28 November 2017]

This is not a story based upon the REAL EXORCIST in St. Louis. It is a fictional continuation set in modern times presumably at the same location. Amy (Amy Holland Pennell) wants to buy the house along with her cop boyfriend Luke (Mark Holzum) from her cop cousin (Connor Trinneer). This house has been in the family and was where our 14 year old boy had an exorcism.

She gets the house. Things happen.

There were a number of issues, one was the sell point making me believe I was going to watch the 1947 exorcism. The script proved to be tiresome, unable to decently close it out after an hour of build up. They find the 1947 teen's schoolbook from when he became possessed. It had first grade math and third grade printing and drawings. The house had been ransacked yet, not looted and the wall with the old family photos had no graffiti as did the rest of the house. Photos and newspaper clippings from 70 years ago showed no signs of yellowing. The demon special effects were two-fold: Black contacts and a silly voice enhancer.

Supposedly there was something paranormal caught on film left in the production. If there was, I didn't see it. I thought I saw a shadowy reflection in the window, but that was just Connor Trinneer that moved with him.

I enjoyed Amy Holland Pennell acting at the beginning of the film. I thought this was going to be a decent low budget flick. Then the whole film became possessed with laziness.

Guide: No swearing, sex, or nudity. Amy in panties showing some nice leg.

Spoilery or Not?

[scifihorrorbat · 18 March 2017]

I haven't seen the movie yet, but WANT to rent it, since most reviews of it are not kind, BUT the main thing I want to say is, the REAL Exorcist house (if they are referring to the house of Roland Doe/Robbie Mannheim) that William Peter Blatty based THE EXORCIST book on, was in Cottage City, Maryland. Apparently this movie says it was in St. Louis, Missouri? At least that is where the movie was made? Anyway, I would like to see the movie for Connor Trinneer, since I am a fan of his and would watch/listen to him read the telephone book and be entertained, but I really only want to RENT it, till I see if I like it or not. It is NOT available through Netflix and I still have to check to see if it's available through Redbox. It's only $9.99 through Best Buy and Amazon to buy it on DVD, but I would rather just rent it, so if it truly is as bad as most reviews say it is, I can send it back and not have to wait for a refund ;-)