Merolliv
I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.
Lollivan
It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.
Leoni Haney
Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.
GL84
Getting stranded at a remote, vacant hotel in the woods, two couples find themselves beset by a deranged killer who forces them to confront their inner-most demons buried within them in order to get out alive.This is an overall quite troubling effort as this really could've been something quite decent but is too heavily flawed to rise above. The biggest issue here is that this one is just way too overall clichéd and familiar to scores of other films where people find themselves trapped at a house or shack in the middle of nowhere that's not what it initially seems at all, and that familiarity makes for this one to simply run through the motions of hitting every single general plot-point without fail. There's the initial meeting with the family that shows them off as general creeps, the scramble throughout the house to secure weapons once the killer arrives and then the play-out with each one forced to confront something troubling from their past which is the main genesis of the film rather than the killers' stalking scenes which are quite problematic since this really only makes a specific point within the film come to pass. If none of these actions that are presented as the most horrific memories and events in their lifetime mean nothing or are not that scary at all, then the film as a whole is just utterly bland and boring during these sequences which is what's presented here. Only one of these events is really all that terrifying and worthy of being that kind of unrelenting psychological torment yet even that is dutifully hindered by the film's Christian morality that comes into play in the final half which is just so problematic that there's almost nothing at all to praise in these scenes. It's all so bland and boring that there's almost a negative impact taken here from the few scares that do occur here which is what's the most troubling part of all this. Those middle scares, especially the frantic search around the house to locate weapons that soon turns into the different torments that are undertaken which comes out of nowhere as this was set-up quite nicely with the human killer in a dark, decrepit house, yet there's a lot to like with these scenes that gets taken away by the unneeded Christian morality that utterly destroys a lot of that.Rated R: Language, Violence and themes of child molestation.
Neto Alfaro
I have read the book. It is a really good book, not a religious book, it has a great story that give you the chills and at the same time gives you a beautiful perspective of Gods love and forgiveness. But I just saw this movie and, as always, the book is better. I didn't like this movie, it has a good choice of cast but really bad acting, bad way of telling the story, everything happen to fast and without any explication, and bad effects. M. Madsen does what he does well, being the same character on Kill Bill or Reservoir Dogs... My advice? read the book first. Because if you watch the movie first, you will never read the book, because of how bad this movie is. P.S: The book is awesome.
Jared Midwood
Keep in mind that I watched House having already read the book by Ted Dekker and Frank Peretti. In keeping with what reviewers have already said, the book was exponentially better; it was truly terrorizing, and well-paced with fantastic memorable characters. Frankly put, it was one of the best books I have read and probably one of the top 5 killer thrillers of all time. The spiritual message was also strong and unambiguous. But this is not a review on the book, so moving on ...To be fair, House the movie never had a chance of succeeding since it was crippled by the typical Christian movie low budget. It achieved slightly more than the dreadful Left Behind films, but was much worse than recent religious movies such as God's Not Dead and even Dekker's other famous movie Thr3e.The story of house is horrific and not for the squeamish, but this real terror never came through in the movie. It is not even that scary. The R rating is absolutely absurd; it could have passed for PG if it had come about via mainstream Hollywood. There is no blood, sex, and the only curse is "hell" once. What is the R for? Apparently pure shock value.Michael Madsen is wasted as the psychopathic Tin Man. In the book the killer - otherwise known as Barsidious White - is a terrifying madman and one of the most memorable modern literary villains. But in the movie he is just corny. The mask is horrendously done, his jerky movements are humorous, and the stupid voice overs are reminiscent of a low budget Indie horror flick. The Tin Man never really gets going, and his dialogue is forced and stale.The members of the house are fairly scary, although Betty is a bit stereotypical. Pete makes a decent sex pervert chasing after one of the refugees, and Bill Moseley's excellent performance as Stewart is responsible for at least 2 of the 4 stars I gave the movie.The travelers themselves are fairly lame, although they look the part. As soon as Randy opens his mouth you can tell he is a soap opera dufus. Jack and Stephanie are too attractive to be taken seriously, and Leslie would be a good actor if it weren't for her perpetual cheesy grin. The acting by all four ultimately falls flat.Susan, the angel trapped in the house who ultimately sacrifices her life for the good of the others, is a bright spot about halfway through the movie. True, she is too cute to be taken seriously as a victim of a deranged serial killer, but she plays the part well and is probably the strongest character in the movie besides Stewart. The depth of her sacrifice is not lost on the movie's viewers, even in the midst of the tragically bad filmmaking.The music in the movie is pretty good, but the actual visual effects are pretty lame and the quality of the picture is not so hot. The dialogue falls into soap opera cheesiness at times, but for the most part it is not horrible. The plot is based loosely on the book but is not always representative of the ideals Peretti and Dekker were trying to convey. God is not mentioned much, if at all, and the spiritual side of the story is missing. Keep in mind that the Hollywood depravity of most horror thrillers is also missing, refreshingly.Perhaps this movie would have been better if the directors and producers had not deviated so much from the plot of the novel, and if they had maintained the spiritual aspect of the narrative. The book was dynamic, the movie falls short.Labelled as a horror movie, House is not so much horror as it is blandly scary. The producers throw in some pentagrams and 666's for good measure, but even the Satanism of the house's inhabitants is not that scary. It just seems silly. Without spoiling the outcome of the movie, there is also a fair amount of bloodless killing, but it is somewhat expected and not that shocking.One aspect of the movie I enjoyed was the LOST-esque flashbacks to the "sins" of the four characters. Melissa's death is heart-wrenching, and the revelation that Leslie was raped by her uncle elicits some sympathy for her character. At least the brass behind the movie got this film technique right.Overall, House is not a bad movie, but it is not an especially good one. It falls a tad flat for the most part, but it is worth a watch. Go into it not expecting much, and you should get at least some mild enjoyment out of it. The younger you watch it the more you will like it. And the less experienced of a horror fan you are the more scared you will be.To borrow the story's catchphrase, the only way out is in ...
Claudio Carvalho
While driving through a secondary road for a meeting with a marriage counselor in Montgomery, Alabama, the estranged couple Jack Singleton (Reynaldo Rosales) and Stephanie Singleton (Heidi Dippold) ask for directions to a Police Officer (Michael Madsen) but they have a car accident with a metal part left on the road. Jack realizes that his Mustang has two flat tires and they see an abandoned Beamer parked on the road with the head lights on and flat tires.Jack and Steph walks in the rain seeking for help. They see an inn where they meet the businessman and owner of the Beamer, Randy Messsarue (J.P. Davis), and his fiancée Leslie Taylor (Julie Ann Emery). Out of the blue, the weird owners Pete ( Lew Temple), his mother Betty (Leslie Easterbrook) and Stewart (Bill Moseley) welcome the guests and invite them to have dinner. Sooner they are chased by the owner and the maniac The Tin Man and they find that they are trapped in the evil house. Further, for surviving, they lean that they must kill one of them in accordance with The Tin Man's rules. But the mysterious girl Susan (Alana Bale) befriends Jack and advises that if anyone kills, he or she will definitely belong to The Tin Man.The underrated "House" is a surprisingly entertaining horror tale. The creepy story is not a masterpiece, but I was misled believing that it would be another torture film and not a supernatural thriller. Leslie Easterbrook, in the role of Betty, and Lew Temple, in the role of Pete, are very scary and creepy. The plot is not a masterpiece and does not explain well the presence of Susan, but I liked this movie. My vote is six.Title (Brazil): "Jogos de um Psicopata" ("Games of a Psycopath")
