Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Gurlyndrobb While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Stephan Hammond It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

Brennan Camacho Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

christopher-underwood Blasphemous declaration: I prefer watching this re-edit than the original Lisa and the Devil. Well, I am not going so far as to suggest this is a better made film, just that I have some difficulties with the constant (although very pretty) dreamlike structure of the original. This version clearly comes under the heading of 'exploitation' and can therefore be ignored because of the extremes of language, sexuality and blasphemy on display. I just happen to feel that the editing together is remarkable and adds a little sense to the picture. It may not be a pretty sight but there is real vigorous here and Elke Sommer desires a medal for going back and performing those remarkable scenes. I realise I am upsetting not only fans of the original but at the same time fans of the original Exorcist. So be it, in my opinion, the original is what Bava intended and always hoped to get made but being magnanimous was able to assist in creating an alternative movie, perhaps more able to gain an audience. There again, it seems, maybe not.

BA_Harrison Tourist Lisa Reiner (Elke Sommer) is on holiday in Spain when she falls victim to demonic possession. A concerned priest, Father Michael (Robert Alda) attempts to exorcise the evil being.The House of Exorcism is Mario Bava's commercial flop Lisa and The Devil re-edited with new Exorcist-style footage by a producer desperate to recoup some of his investment. Many regard this new version as a travesty, a work of art butchered in the name of money (indeed, The House of Exorcism was a financial success). I, on the other hand, think that both versions stink: Lisa and The Devil is a dull, languorous ghost story that makes very little sense and House of Exorcism is a dull, languorous Exorcist rip-off that also makes very little sense.If pushed to choose, I would actually give the edge to The House of Exorcism for being a couple of minutes shorter, having more gratuitous nudity (including full frontal from Carmen Silva, who tries to tempt the priest), and for getting Elke Sommer to puke up a rubber frog.

MartinHafer "Lisa and the Devil" is one of director Mario Bava's best films. It's extremely atmospheric, very scary and has an amazing artistry about it that you just don't expect from a horror film. Sadly, however, some dirt-bags decided to take Bava's excellent film and re-edit it into a new movie! So, they sloppily filmed some new scenes (complete with LOTS of nudity) and pasted it and the original picture together to make it an incoherent mess of a movie. It's terrible in most every way and I am pretty sure Bava must have been ticked about this. Fortunately, while this movie truly is terrible, it IS available on the DVD with "Lisa and the Devil" so you can compare the two and appreciate the original film. It's really an interesting experience and one you can do (at least in the USA) by streaming both versions of the movie.

scott-palmer2 I remember well in 1975 when in High School a bunch of us went to see House of Exorcism-which we all thought was better than the much overrated The Exorcist. Many years later I got a video of what was called Lisa and the Devil, which I thought was the same film under a different title. However this is NOT the case: Lisa and the Devil and House of Exorcism are two different films. When I saw the Lisa and the Devil version it had nothing to do with the film of my youth, and I was quite disappointed as I found that version quite boring-there was no possessed Elke Sommer or the Robert Alda priest character (although Telly Savalas was marvellous in both versions). Luckily a recent DVD had BOTH versions, so I was able to see the original after many years.Unlike many of the reviews, I think House of Exorcism was the better of the two, and I am not alone, even though posted reviews seem to like the "Lisa" version better. NOW here comes the truth, which most people don't know. When the original film(Lisa and the Devil)was finished in 1973, it was shown to many distributors-none of whom thought it was any good. Two years later the "redone" version, called House of Exorcism, was made-using much of the same footage of the other film but now having Elke Sommer possessed by the devil and in hospital, and having Robert Alda as the priest who not only exorcises the devil from Elke, but also the house where she had stayed. The same distributors who had shown no interest in the other film now decided to go ahead with House of Exorcism-and the result was that it made millions (at a time when it was still only a dollar or two to see a film). The bottom line here is that millions of people went to see House of Exorcism, while nobody went to see Lisa and the Devil.So in conclusion I guess that all the distributors, as well as millions of filmgoers, preferred House of Exorcism!