TrueJoshNight Truly Dreadful Film

YouHeart I gave it a 7.5 out of 10

SoftInloveRox Horrible, fascist and poorly acted

Gutsycurene Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

chelsgreera 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.

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.

jerrodalbertstaylor 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.

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.