House on Elm Lake

Freddy Krueger? Maybe. Jason? Sounds pretty cool. House at the end of the Street? THAT'S IT! All three!

As the summary says, if this is the better version with a budget, i dread to think how bad the original was. I actually wondered if i was watching the original, its Absolutely shockingly bad, do not waste your time, bad acting, bad effects, well bad everything. I watched a good portion of the film hoping it would get better, but no it doesn't, so i turned it off. Cant believe i paid £5.50 for this.

The story starts of okay, if not predictable. Following the theme of doomed homes'past murders here, DO NOT MOVE INTO THIS HOUSE'. Unfortunately after 10 minutes of the movie, the house has new tenants. The actors/actresses from the start are of a very poor standard. It does not improve. They seem like they are part of a haunted house reality program on daytime television and should really rethink their careers. There are some moments that make you jump, but only because the music gets louder. Without using spoilers, this film progresses into nothing after an Amityville style beginning. If you watch the first 10 minutes and have a feeling of DeJa Vu. Then no need to continue with the movie as you have already seen the plot, film beginning and end. But, most probably with better actors in scores of other movies.

This movie had so many chances to be half decent. Although the acting was subpar the story could have saved it. But nope! The story fell into sad attempts to be scary and only ended up a letdown. Not sure why I keep giving these movies a chance...must be a glutton for punishment hahaha

All I knew about "House on Elm Lake" was that it was a horror movie, and that was the sole reason for why I decided to sit down and watch it. Well, or at least the 1 hour of it that I managed to endure before turning the movie off.

I was ready to turn it off after 40 minutes, but decided to give the movie the benefit of the doubt and hoped that there would be a chance that the movie would pick up its pace and become more interesting that it had managed for the previous 40 minutes. That didn't happen, and I gave up out of sheer and utter boredom after 1 hour and 1 minute of enduring this ordeal.

While "House on Elm Lake" is listed as a horror movie, there is actually very little scary about the movie and the storyline. Unless you count being predictable and generic scary, then this was a frightfest.

The acting in the movie was adequate, taking into consideration what little material the actors and actresses had to work with. And the cast was a very small handful of people, which meant that they had additional pressure on their shoulders to perform well in order to carry the movie. The actors and actresses never were off to a flying start, as they were given a script that was essentially non-functional.

The special effects in the movie were primitive, albeit they did work well enough for their intended purposes. So at least that was counting in favor of the movie.

And I will also say that the production value was actually quite good, it seemed that they actually took the time to put effort into production and post production of the movie, because it did have a very good and professional presentation to it. It looked very well-made.

I have no intention of returning to finish the rest of "House on Elm Lake", because it just was way too boring and offered nothing of any interest to a seasoned horror veteran like myself.

I was lured in by the movie's cover. Spare yourself the anguish and stay well clear of this movie, because it just isn't worth the time, money or efforts. Some of us suffered through it, or most of it at least, so you don't have to.