day
» » House of Evil (2017)

House of Evil (2017) HD online

House of Evil (2017) HD online
Language: English
Category: Movie / Horror
Original Title: House of Evil
Director: Luca Boni,Marco Ristori
Writers: Lorenzo Paviano,Raffaele Picchio
Released: 2017
Budget: $500,000
Duration: 1h 25min
Video type: Movie
Set in the 1970s, House of Evil tells the story of a young couple who move into an old mansion in the Connecticut countryside to start a family. They soon discover that their new life is destined to be fraught with disaster as they fight against a dark, terrifying force in order to survive.

Videos

Cast overview:
Andrew Harwood Mills Andrew Harwood Mills - John
Lucy Drive Lucy Drive - Kate
Désirée Giorgetti Désirée Giorgetti
David White David White
Eleonora Marianelli Eleonora Marianelli


Reviews: [10]

  • avatar

    Macill

    Terrible movie...bad everything...really don't waste your time like I did.
  • avatar

    Xmatarryto

    This film is truly awful.Terrible acting,after about ten minutes it becomes more annoying but you decide to give it the benefit of the doubt in the forlorn hope it will improve.Alas it dose not. The plot has been used in countless movies over the years and this is just another botched attempt of a worn out script. To add insult to injury we are informed it's inspired by true events.Maybe I'm being too critical and some people may enjoy this movie, but for me it was a load of schlock.
  • avatar

    caster

    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.
  • avatar

    Dammy

    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.
  • avatar

    Androwyn

    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.
  • avatar

    Shan

    The end of the film claims"based on true events."

    John (Andrew Harwood Mills) a photographer and Kate (Lucy Drive) an artist, move into a country side home to start a family. John starts to go off the deep end and does a bad Crispin Glover impersonation. Careen, the nude model, doesn't trust John over something that happened four years ago. They live in the part of Europe where everyone drives a VW.

    The film doesn't get "scary" until the last 15 minutes and we get the backstory with 5 minutes left. Letting us know what was going on would have made a better film.

    Guide: F-word, sex, brief nudity
  • avatar

    Zacki

    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.
  • avatar

    Aloo

    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.
  • avatar

    Ka

    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.
  • avatar

    Ahieones

    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.