Hell House LLC Origins: The Carmichael Manor

Let me start off by saying this was a very scary movie. I've been a big fan of the Hell House franchise for a while especially the first movie, so I had to watch this. This movie does the Hell House LLC IP justice in terms of scares, but unfortunately falls flat in almost all other regards of an interesting and well rounded film.

The acting is bad. It is very very bad. At no point does it seem like the characters believe or feel what they are saying. Their facial expressions are exaggerated and their mannerisms/speech are simply not convincing. It feels less like the actors are trapped inside an evil, haunted mansion, and more like they are reading lines off a teleprompter. It Is so so so bad. The choices they make are also ridiculous, to the point where it completely detracts from the realism.

Now that that is out of the way... this is in fact a very scary movie. It does rely heavily on jump scares which is slightly disappointing, but they are done very well and the tension building is top notch. The atmosphere is super creepy and the camera work, lighting, music/sound, all contributes to the super eerie vibe of the film.

This easily could have been an 8/10 if the acting and writing had been on par with the first Hell House. Overall I would still suggest giving it a watch just because how creepy it is.

This movie was really good, I think that it has a great set, the Carmichael Manor, the set was really large and had a lot of great hallways that the characters could walk through.

Personally, I think that the movie could have done away with a ton of the interviews that are interspersed throughout the run time. They really killed the momentum of the creep factor that the movie worked hard to get going. I think they were included so that the plot could be explained more in depth? Maybe so that the audience isn't lost in anyway?

I'd say its like eating a nice meal, then while you're eating it, the waiter comes out, takes the meal from you, and points to different parts of the meal and explains to you how the chef made it, and why it tastes good, you say, oh yeah, thanks, could've learned that later, and then the waiter sits it back down in front of you. Strange, but oh well, the food is good, I can deal with it. Then the waiter comes back and does it 5 more times, it gets tiring.

They could've saved the exposition dumps for the scenes that take place after the final climax of the movie, but they didn't for some reason.

The gore that is used, though sparingly, throughout the movie is well done, they weren't fake looking, they were slightly realistic, but the amount of blood that they did use wasn't to the point that it looked ridiculous, they use just the right amount for each scene they needed it.

The acting of the different characters seemed to falter in scenes where I guess the actors aren't proficient, but it didn't detract from the movie too much.

Overall, I don't regret watching this movie, the jump scares were innovative and kinda new, def a 7/10, would probably watch it again with new people.

I was looking forward to this installment of the series but my God I couldn't even finish it since the actress who plays Margot is just horrendous: she's constantly screaming her dialogue; she has no chemistry with her costars (the girlfriend and the brother), who, in comparison, are actually pretty decent; she's not at all convincing in any of her interactions or actions. It feels like she's in a different movie or production altogether, like a bad high school play. There have been some bad performances in these movies but she definitely takes the cake as the worst. Wish they chose a different lead.

I'd put this and the first film in the same league, as in, they're both watchable for the crafting of scares in a minimal but impressive way. But the origin story and lore expansion did little for me, as I didn't think even the first film necessarily had a lot going for it. Also, I haven't watched parts two and three, so I'm unsure if I missed anything significant. Found footage can become extremely monotonous and repetitive, and here I could witness that in parts. The protagonists are still fairly uninteresting and lacking any real motives (other than the quest for fame and adventure), and they continue to make questionable decisions throughout.

Director Stephen Cognetti also fails to capitalize on the outdoors of the manor for more atmospheric fights. While this comes into the picture fairly into the final act, the underutilization of the magnificent outdoors (with all those incredible-looking trees) is evident. The indoor scares are reminiscent of the ones from the original film, and I could see them coming at those critical junctures. One particular scare, during a video call, was quite nicely executed. The clowns are less scary this time, and some of it has to be attributed to what we've already seen. I don't exactly know what to make of those long-running lore connections, but it sure didn't make the experience substantially more riveting.

The first hell house is enjoyable because it's kind of a hidden gem that's just recently gained more popularity. It had a lot of ambiguity in the story and left a pretty open ended story. The acting in part one is pretty good as well. Then we get to parts 2 and 3...

Those movies feel cheap. Much cheaper and just seemed to be feeding off the success of the first one. The acting is horrible in both, the news anchor is part 2 is laughably bad. Part 3 is more of the same. Neither one adds much to the story either.

This movie has much better acting and cinematography than the previous two. It feels like this one was made to actually further the story, not just as a cash grab. This movie does a much better going into the backstory than previous attempts. It's not perfect, but it does have some good scares and does a great job building tension. There are two seperate stories in this one and the way they connect works quite well. I'd recommend this for sure.