House of Evil (2017)

Such a disappointment... Let's say that I love horror movies and I'm an avid watcher of new titles that would give me a good scare (yes, I actually get scared easily). This movie I could have watched alone in a dark abandoned house (just to stay on the subject) and still don't get the chills.It is set in the 70s, good. It is also set in Italy, and it is hard not to notice it BUT no one mentions it. It is hard to believe that every character we see in an English native speaker. It feels odd and.. fake.The acting is awful but the music is really good, maybe a little bit too intense in some scenes (you know something is going to happen way before the characters do).The film has the same clichés of the haunted house stories and doesn't really add much to the mix. The viewer knows what is going to happen: as soon as it is found out that the protagonist is pregnant you know you're in for a bad remake of Rosemary's baby.The epilogue seems forced with the stereotype devil-worshiper priest that has to explain the public why they had to endure this amateur production for 80 minutes.

I usually do not waste my time writing reviews. There is some unnecessary bashing of this movie. I do watch a lot of movies. Most all of them. I enjoy a bad movie a lot. I think they are funny and entertaining. This movie is set in a beautiful home and piece of land. The antagonist is unique. The clothing and atmosphere are period correct. The acting and directing is fine. It is not perfect, but it is fine. There is also sufficient apprehension for this genre. If you haven't seen this one yet, save it until you have run out of other movies. Simply pay attention to what is happening and enjoy the scenery.

The acting was fine, the setting really great, and much of the plot both believable and fresh. A photographer and a painter move into an old Spanish Revival house outside of New Orleans. Things seem alright until entities, both demons and ghosts, begin to appear, first seemingly only in dreams. We hope for a climax to match the slow-burn creepy story line and eerie atmosphere created by excellent camera work and superb lighting (though at times a bit too dark, but maybe that was the point.) Then, bam!, like being hit in the face with a hammer we are offered as the whole point of the film, and nothing else, a rehash of Rosemary's Baby. It's then we realize that the male lead has really been no one other than the husband in The Amityville Horror for most of the flick, and we feel duped. Really, really duped. A homage to 1970s horror films was attempted here, much like with The House of the Devil, and since we have all come a long way with film this attempt was far better than many of the originals, but the story itself failed in a miserable way.

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.