Hell House LLC Origins: The Carmichael Manor

I enjoyed this instalment. Even though the story model remains more or less the same as the others, the tension and unnerving feelings managed to be effectively executed. I only have one gripe which was the main character was insufferable from beginning to end. I don't know why the screenwriter felt the need to make Margot obnoxious, arrogant, pig-headed, fundamentally unlikable and self-interested, especially seen as how we are supposed to be empathising with her the most, but it created a real divide between my willingness to root for her and my contempt towards her. The girlfriend and brother were likeable enough and I was on their sides when they were faced with conflict. But the lead was painful for me (the character not the actress). If they had written her differently I think I would've enjoyed this so much more. Regardless, as horror goes, this film produced enough sufficient scares to justify its existence.

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.

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 loved the original Hell House: great scares, reasonable characters, great premise. The other sequels lacked all of that.

This one delivers on the great scares. Great tension, effective use of jumpscares. The premise and characters are okay here. Not great but not egregious. There's a couple eye-roll moments where they try too hard to tie it into the original (the music now has lyrics? What?).

It sounds like I'm really down on it when all I have good to say about it is the scares, but really, the directing is great at ratcheting up the tension and then hitting you with a solid moment of horror.

I'm knocking a half point off though for the very last scene before the credits, which felt like a weird retcon that didn't need to be in the movie at all.

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.