The Hagstone Demon

I have to say that this is a surprisingly worthwhile no budget horror film if you can get by the bad acting, editing and some serious lows in the dialogue. Otherwise it's stylish, has a pretty good plot, a few twists and turns (that would have been carried off better with some better acting, editing and dialogue) some moments of tight scripting and some great reactions from the weird the Dude/Napolean Dynamite hero of the films.

If you're looking for the screw twist of Lake Mungo or the outright ridiculousness of a Troma film look elsewhere, and if you're a snob you probably won't even sit through a half hour but if you liked Evil Dead or Doom you should be able to get a kick out of this.

As a silly horror film for a horror fan to watch inebriated for a bit of a thrill I would say that you couldn't go too far wrong with this.

This motion picture has to be one of the most stupid films I have ever seen. I'm even surprised I watched it till the end (Its 7.4 rating influenced me, I admit). It vaguely makes a connection between scenes, the protagonist changes his personality without any viable explanation, antagonists are poor imitations of evil individuals in other films, and the overall script is embarrassing. This movie is amusingly boring (I know, a paradox...right?). I can't imagine why someone would want to do a film like this. One of the most annoying things about it is that it constantly makes viewers feel that they are about to see something interesting. It quickly disappoints, however... I wouldn't recommend it!

Sure sounds like it. This is one rotten movie. I give it a 10. I like bad movies, you see. This has everything: bad writing, bad direction, bad production, bad acting.. bad everything. Even the Hagstone is a disgusting looking old building with smelly slimy creepiness oozing out all over. Bad bad bad. But is it Doris Wishman bad? Is it Hershel Gordon Lewis bad? No way. Is it Plan 9 bad? Yeah, sort of. It is bad in an innocent, endearingly bad sort of way. The sort of bad you can scoff at with a good conscience because you support the idea of low budget truly independent film making and rather hope the makers keep making without ever getting good enough to sell out and become mainstream "good". Because that would be truly bad and truly unwatchable. Ya know what I mean?

If you commit to the slow burn more than the actors or the scriptwriters did, there's a bit of a payoff in the end. Unfortunately, the acting and the pace of the story were both so bad, I couldn't make it that far and still take it seriously. It's a straightforward dark possession horror, except it feels like Tommy Wiseau was the writer, director, and acting coach.

This movie is a proof you can still make cheap horror flick that is actually quite interesting.

I would really not describe this movie as a "good", because the actors are kinda wooden and the script seems to be somewhat incoherent. But the story is actually pretty cool. It reminds me of classic like "Young Goodman Brown".

The atmosphere of the place, "the house that is going to be demolished" is creepy. Not because of its unique architecture or meaning (like in The Toolbox Murders), but rather because of the very strange people who still live in the house. Especially the young female tramp gave me creeps (she seems never to blink, that's really unsettling!) The story of the main character, the caretaker, is actually very good.

It's not modern gory horror, but rather the old psychological one, which is good. The ambitions of the authors of the movie were probably beyond their budget and resources so if you want your "bag of popcorn, blood and screams" you are going to be disappointed. But if you wish to see something slower yet chilling you will tolerate the weak spots here and there.