The House That Screamed

This has got to be one of the stupidest movies I've ever seen, right up with Troll 2. Still, it's fun to watch with some friends. Some notable elements of stupidity include:

-utterly pointless nudity (what was the point of the shower scene or the woman in red underwear?)

-the goofy flashbacks Marty has. Notice how his wife burnt down the house (which had no walls inside evidently) with a burnt out cigarette, and that his son died in the fire without any burns or even getting dirty

-the Grim Reaper playing with the doorbell

-the "ghostly circle" not extending to cover a the actor's arm

-drowning the plastic doll to kill the ghost inside

-Marty's "famous" novels: Feeders 1-3. The same guys who did this made Feeders 1&2, and they were really awful.

-the ridiculously low-budget makeup. The blind guy looked like he had fruit roll-ups over his eyes, and the blood hitting the window looked suspiciously like a tomato being thrown too late after the gunshot

I could go on & on on how stupid this movie is. Only see this to make fun of it.

Sweet Jeezus i was hoping this craptastic waste of space wouldn't even be on this site. I saw The House that Screamed when i was in high school, about 5 years ago, with a friend of mine. Little did we know the horror that actually awaited us when we started the blasted movie up. I honestly didn't think people could actually sell movies that badly done, ooooh boy was I wrong. I could see a group of 10 year olds make a better movie without trying. I swore to myself i would forget what i saw when i started watching this movie, if for no other reason than i don't want to have to claw my eyes out, but i cant do that. I would be less than human if i saw this listening and didn't voice how incredible bad this festering pile of dog droppings is. Lets put it this way if there were rating below -10 i'd give that to this movie without a second thought.

From the first seconds you know that this is going to be a low budget flick. The quality isn't exactly what we call superb. But being shot on video I was surprised that the opening was a shower scene with close ups of the girl her breasts so gratuitous nudity for. But then the trouble starts. You could see the cheap effects, just watch the lightning.

The haunted house as for effect they used negative colours to gave it a ghost feeling. That's so cheap and that works sometimes but not throughout the whole flick. Just after the opening credits it do has some cheap gory effects, supposed that the kid decapitated the victims and again some gratuitous nudity from a stripper.

Once that part is done the flick actually starts when a writer is searching for a haunted house. Really bad acting takes you through this possessed flick but not only that, it is rather boring from there on. Well, maybe the stripper returning is the most important thing to look forward to.

Gore 0/5 Nudity 0,5/5 Effects 0,5/5 Story 1/5 Comedy 0/5

started with the sequel to this (Hellgate). I've been hooked on Polonia ever since (what is wrong with me?) Come on guys, these Polonia Brothers make these films on like, $10,000, maybe $20,000. What do you expect? A monster that doesn't look like a sock puppet? I actually liked the idea of this movie. The House that swallows up souls, and the sacrifice that has to be made to free them...it's not bad at all. Just plot alone, is it any worst than some of the big named actor Hollywood garbage that comes out? If you can laugh at the very cheap effects, and look deeper to the plot, it's actually worth watching. (I need help, I know).

This movie was very dumb and cheesy. The music was horrible and the special effects looked retarded. The movie was somewhat a little good at times, but it needs some touching up. This message goes to the director. I defenitely won't buy the sequel to this movie after the experience that I had. I guess this movie is not for true horror fans.