I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Absolutely Brilliant!

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

The film only held my interest for a little while then I ended up fast-forwarding, stopped to watch the part with him and the priest and then watched the crappy ending. I wasn't expecting much out of this film, and it isn't much.Basically his mother was strong in her Catholic faith, she took things literally especially "burning to purify". His mom burned his arms as a child every time she considered him "evil". His mom died at the beginning of the film, he's now free and he burns women. He also hears voices - voices of women particularly when he's about to do his killing.The ending is just awful - supposedly burned women he sees walking towards him (all in his mind of course) - just terrible. I think if this film was NOT an exploitation styled film but styled more noir-ish (like the psycho films) then I would have enjoyed the film a lot more.3/10

I like this movie, it grew on me a lot since I first ever saw it. The story is very blunt and straightforward and isn't what you'd call super-complex, but I found it to be a very focused direction and I ultimately found it a very solid and satisfying psychological horror movie and I think it might be one of the more underrated gritty gems from the "Video Nasties" era. I loved the starkness and the whole dingy and dull cinematic quality that it had that gave it a certain consistent feeling of unease throughout without there ever being a single drop of blood in it. It creates a strong sense of dread by letting the audience know early on that the main character is a complete batsh*t schizoid crazy who's fully intent on taking women back to his dead mother's mansion and roasting them alive in a specially made boiler room. The first burning of the beautiful flower shop woman, which is the only one that you really see, is the most horrific part of the movie for sure and is still quite shocking because it's so prolonged and shot in such a stark unflinching fashion that really puts you on edge. The visual effect is frighteningly convincing, it looks like she's really burned alive. The house that he lives in was such a fantastic setting, very grand and decayed, and it looked so striking from the outside, very similar to the domain of Norman Bates! And to say that fire is his method of killing the place looked noticeably freezing, a lot of the time you can see the actor's breath. Dan Grimaldi was very good and effective, his character kind of talked like an overgrown bashful kid and at first he's pitiable, but for me any sympathy towards him goes right out the window after he starts burning innocent women. At that point he's nothing but a heartless murderer who doesn't deserve to live a normal life and does very much deserve to rot in the hell that he's made for himself and to be dragged down into the fire by charred phantoms of his own making... I like the odd interlude where the film takes a pause and tries out a little levity when he goes to get a disco suit with some pointers from a flamboyant tailor! I didn't like all the schlocky disco crap though, not at all, even if it does kind of add to the charm in its way. The obnoxious excuse for a song that plays over the end credits is incredibly inappropriate! Speaking of bad impressions, they really should have stuck with "The Burning" for a title, "Don't Go in the House" is a silly-sounding lame B-movie title.. I wouldn't call it a slasher at all, it's not a roller coaster 'hold me I'm scared' popcorn type of picture, it's meant to be a sad disturbing character study of a man's sad descent, one that has some horrifically effective, especially for a low budget movie, fire effects. It doesn't glorify the violence like the Freddy or Friday the 13th movies do, and it doesn't create a power figure, he can't pick people up or stab them through a door - this person isn't fun to watch in action, he's a very sick twisted individual who has been tormented. Who would want to be this man? I know he's insane but the evil whispering voices made me wonder if there was meant to be some kind of supernatural element to the story, particularly at the end when they speak to another young child with an abusive mother, and potentially starting it all over again. But of course it's more likely just a statement on the nature of abuse and how violence can beget violence, and how monsters are always made by other monsters, and that's a pretty chilling message. Anyway it's not a very nice or uplifting movie but to me it's certainly a good one that has its place in time and deserves to be seen. Not burned but nicely toasted and very well done.

Don't Go in the House (1979)** (out of 4) Donny Kohler (Dan Grimaldi) is a troubled man suffering from various mental issues due to the abuse by his mother when he was a child. After the mother dies the man's mental state takes a turn for the worse and his obsession with fire leads to him kidnapping various women and burning them.DON'T GO IN THE HOUSE has quite a bit in common with Bill Lustig's MANIAC, although that film was released after this one. You have to wonder if Lustig and star Joe Spinnel had seen this one because there's no question that the two of them cover a lot of similar ground in regards to the impact of child abuse and the ending, which I won't spoil, is also similar. With that said, I still think the Lustig film is the masterpiece while this one here is interesting but flawed.If you're looking for a bunch of sleaze then you're going to be disappointed because there's really not too much. We do get a burning victim, which was a well-shot sequence but outside of this a lot of the action takes place off screen. With that said, sleaze isn't what the film is going for and instead it's more of a character story about this very troubled man. The majority of the running time is devoted to him, his mental state and how he acts out because of it.Thanksfully Grimaldi gives a good performance and helps carry the film. Without it then we would have been left with a complete bore. The problem with DON'T GO IN THE HOUSE is the fact that it suffers from some weak direction and at times the film beats a dead horse so to speak. I say that because the film needed more to it. Perhaps showing more of the murders? Or perhaps just playing up the sleaze a tad bit more? I think just about anything would have worked and the supporting characters are all rather weak and add very little to the picture.DON'T GO IN THE HOUSE deserves some credit for tackling the child abuse story line. The good lead performance helps and horror fans will still want to check the movie out.

The title here is VERY apt... unless you fancy being tied up before burnt to a crisp. Yes, it's yet another Norman Bates clone, who talks to his mother even though she's a corpse in the corner and is a pyromaniac to boot, too. Not to worry though... she'll soon have some company. You'd think they'd be some kind of care in the community fallback to people like this, but nope... government cutbacks strike again. Mind you though, it IS hard to fathom why no many girls would go home with someone who displays no social skills whatsoever. It's gotta be the shirt.The first murder is exactly what you'd want... shocking and merciless. Savour it... they'll only be two more in the duration, and both are off camera. What a swizz. Instead, we have to put up with such meaningless passages such as our bats**t crazy friend shopping for clothes to wear at a disco, or 'listening' to the evil voices in his head (which are barely audible). The final couple of scenes are a comeback of sorts, but they deserve to belong to a better movie. If a film feels overlong at 80 minutes, then its got a problem. 4/10