House of the Damned/Spectre (1996) TV movie 4 out of 10 ⭐

October 27, 2026

House of the Damned/Spectre (1996) TV movie 4 out of 10 ⭐

House of the Damned/Spectre (1996)

TV movie 4 out of 10 ⭐ Time to read:
People, this IS a Roger Corman movie, what did you expect?!

BASIC PLOT:

Will & Maura South are moving to Ireland to live in Maura 's inherited ancestral home. They're having martial problems due to Will's recent infidelity. He thinks because he's recommited to his family, all should be forgotten, but Maura is still having problems with trust. After moving in, Will removes a strange medallion from the basement wall, and all hell breaks loose. The local priest, Father Seamus, tells the terrified couple that he put the medallion there to restrain the evil lurking in the house. They return it, but Maura begins acting strangely. Can the South's uncover the hidden truths the House of the Damned holds, in time to save Maura from her family's evil legacy?

Maura is still hurt by Will's infidelity

WHAT WORKS:

*GREG EVIGAN AND HIS DAUGHTER BRIANA DO A FINE JOB. They don't phone in their performances, they do an above average job, especially given the shoddy script and how low budget this movie is.

Briana Evigan does a believable job as Aubrey

Greg Evigan does a decent job playing Will South

*THE CINEMATOGRAPHY IS FINE Christopher Baffa (cinematographer) and Scott P. Levy do a more than adequate job with the budget they had to work with.

*FOR THE ERA, THE SPECIAL EFFECTS WORK This is a 1996 TV movie, given the budget, and the fact it was made for TV, I think the special effects were above average. If you're a kid now, you might be disappointed, but if you're older, you won't be. They have a fun, nostalgic feel to them that adds a layer of enjoyment for the older viewer.

The special effects work,
even though some are ripped off
from other movies, like Poltergeist

For a low budget TV movie,
the special effects are adequate

*PROPS TO HELENA WALSH FOR THE RAT SCENE To people like me, who have a genuine fear of rats, this scene of the Char woman with rats all over her, is enough to make my skin crawl. How she did it, is beyond me!

Helena Walsh has the terrifying job
of having real rats crawl all over her!

*THE ATTACKING TURKEY WAS HILARIOUS, but I don't think it was meant to be. Nonetheless, I laughed hysterically and was entertained by it, so it's a win in my book.

From Alexandra Paul's hilarious reaction
when she cuts into the possessed turkey...

...to Dick Donaghue's fighting off the possessed turkey,
I couldn't stop laughing

WHAT DOESN'T WORK:

*THERE'S WEIRD MUSIC AT THE BEGINNING, TRYING TO GIVE IT A SERIOUS FEEL but it just succeeds at being annoying and strange. It comes off as ridiculous, instead of scary. (It's also a rip off of The Omen, but where it works in that movie, here, it just feels like a parody here.)

Alexandra Paul always seems to be over-acting,
but somehow it adds to the hilarity

*WHAT IS WITH THE DEATH OF THE CHAR WOMAN? Why does she freak out, then explode? It makes no sense!! First, she explodes in the car (why?). Then, the car appears to explode while being filled with water. Lastly, it bursts into flames! WTH does this have to do with anything?

First the Char woman explodes...

... then, for some reason,
the car blows up full of water...

...then it explodes! WTH?!

*HAVING WILL "NOT GET" THE SERIOUSNESS OF WHAT HIS AFFAIR DID TO HIS MARRIAGE IS A DETRIMENT TO THE CHARACTER Will doesn't understand why Maura can't just get over, and move pass his affair. It makes the character unlikable, and it's not needed. It would be better if he understood the gravity of what he did, but Maura punished him for it. That type of role reversal sets her up to be the villain later, a needed plot device. But instead, all the women watching just think he's a tool.

Alexandra Paul as Maura South

*MUCH LIKE THE MUSIC, THE CREEPY DOLL DOESN'T WORK None of the "scary" plot devices are ever flushed out into anything more than a trope. What we are left with is just window dressing, nothing more. "Colleen" the talking doll, is later referred to as her imaginary friend. Well, which is she? A ghost? A doll possessed by a ghost? What?

One of the many tropes that don't work

*WOULD YOU LET YOUR KID BACK IN A ROOM WHERE A DEVIL DOG APPEARED? Because I sure wouldn't! But they seem to have no problem with their daughter Aubrey playing in her room (as long as she doesn't sleep there)!

I wouldn't let my kid be in a room
where a semi-invisible devil dog appeared

*THE PARANORMAL INVESTIGATOR/SENSITIVE SHOULD HAVE BEEN LEFT OUT I don't see what purpose Dr. Edward Shea serves, except to be a vehicle for the awkward nude scene, which also should have been left out. He can't act, his scenes are comically bad.

Dick Donaghue as Dr. Edward Shea

Every scene with this guy turns into a parody

*WHO IS THE CHILD WATCHING AUBREY? IT'S ANOTHER TROPE THAT DOESN'T WORK

Is this Colleen? Is she evil? If I don't know, by this point in the movie, it's another fail.

Aoife O'Grady as Colleen

*THE MILK/BLOOD SQUIRTING IS STUPID

The milk-blood squirting Aubrey in the face is just hysterically bad. It belongs on MST3K.

The blood squirting on Aubrey is ridiculous

But she sure can scream at the top of her lungs

*HOW MANY BAD, OVERUSED TROPES CAN WE FIT IN ONE MOVIE?

Haunted House, bodies in the wall, Irish priests, ghost children, old hags, magic amulets, the list goes on.

So many tropes, so little time!
This ghost child even has a
creepy clown in the background

A priest with all the answers...

...a dead body in the wall

...an old hag

....a creepy haunted house

....an amulet 🗡️, this movie has every trope
you can think of and more!

*THERE'S A WEIRD NUDE SCENE THAT FEELS LIKE IT BELONGS IN ANOTHER FILM

Don't get me wrong, I think horror films should ALL have nudity, and lots of it! But that's just it, this isn't a horror movie. It's a low budget, made-for-TV Roger Corman movie. The nude scene feels tacked on and weird, like we had to include it because it's Showtime Network, and our viewers expect nudity! Well, only when it works, because it doesn't here.

Elizabeth Costello as Naked Woman
What is this scene doing in this movie?

What the hell does this hand have to do with anything?

This scene does NOT belong in this movie!

A severed hand that moves by itself
is another trope that's never explained.
It just exists for no reason.

*GREG EVIGAN HAS A HILARIOUS SCENE WHERE HE OVER STEERS

He moves the wheel waaaay too much, but again, I was laughing, and entertained

Greg over steers so much
he would have driven off the road

*WILL DOESN'T SEEM TO CARE FOR MAURA

After finding Father Seamus' journal, he drives hilariously back to the house (oversteering in the most over the top way), he only calls for Aubrey, never Maura. It's like he's already written her off, again making him unlikable. It also ruins the "happy" ending.

The happy ending doesn't feel as rewarding
because Will didn't fight for Maura when she was possessed.
He only fought for Aubrey. It takes some of the joy out of the ending.

*I KNOW MAURA IS OPPRESSED/POSSESSED, BUT WHY DOESN'T SHE REALIZE WILL WOULDN'T HAVE SEX WITH AMY IN BROAD DAYLIGHT ON THE HOOD OF THEIR CAR?

She looks out and sees them cavorting naked on the hood of the car. It's broad daylight, and Aubrey is running around, and would see them. Shouldn't this shock her back to reality?

Will wouldn't have sex in front of his daughter

Why doesn't this shock Maura back to reality?

*IF WILL VANQUISHED THE EVIL WITH THE KNIFE, WHY DOES THE HOUSE COME DOWN? Father Seamus' journal says, "the dagger destroys the evil and frees the soul of the oppressed" except when we're trying to copy the movie, Poltergeist.

If Will vanquishes the ancient evil,
why does the house come apart?

Father Seamus' journal is another trope, it explains
everything and is left where Will finds it easily

*IT'S A PET PEEVE, BUT I LOATHE MOVIES WHERE HOUSES BURN DOWN

Especially, when there's no need for it (like here).

I hate it when they burn houses in movies,
especially when it's not needed,
and obviously a miniature (like it is here).

TO RECOMMEND OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION:

If you're looking for a campy, 1990's, nostalgia-fest, then you might like this. In typical Corman fashion, nothing takes itself too seriously, and all the performances are over-the-top (usually bad). The plot is a amassment of other movie's platitudes, who lost their potency years ago. That doesn't mean it's not entertaining. Alexandra Paul's over reactions are hilariously bad, and entertaining in a terrible movie kinda way. If you like bad, low budget movies you might like this. If you came of age in the 80's or '90's, you might find this a little bit of nostalgic fun. It's not great by any means, but if you're in the right frame of mind, it can be entertaining. If you like your movies with torture porn and lots of special effects, this won't be for you.

This movie does have some gore....

...just not torture porn

CLOSING NOTES:

*THIS IS A MADE-FOR-TV MOVIE, please keep that in mind before you watch/rate it. TV movies have a much lower budget, and so you expectations should be adjusted.

*I HAVE NO CONNECTION TO THE FILM, or production in ANY way. I'm not writing this as a favor, or because I was paid.

*CERTIFIED HUMAN WRITTEN REVIEW This review was NOT written in full, or in part, by a bot. I am just an honest viewer, who wishes for more straight forward reviews (less trolls and fanboys), and better entertainment. Hope I helped you out.

*I'D LOVE TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT MY REVIEW Even if you disagree, I'd love to hear your thoughts. I love discussing movies, and I also like honest opinions about my reviews. It helps me get better - did I leave anything out, add too much, let me know!