Titreenp SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

Lucybespro It is a performances centric movie

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Dana An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

Bofsensai BUT NOTE = UNMISSABLE TEN STAR ********** L. BLAIR ENTRY! This TV movie is now perhaps more fairly titled the same as its (Lois Duncan) book source, although was originally shown more accurately with the title 'Stranger in Our House', since it's an early example of the ' dangerous / nutter cuckoo in the nest' genre that became popular later (like Single White Female and Hand that Rocks Cradle etc.), and so, if not matched with such as some sort of double bill, is otherwise a fairly routine 'nobody believes me, I'm the only one who can see we have a destructive force right under our noses' more or less forgettable offering …Ah, that is UNLESS, in curio, you watch keeping in mind it was the late W.Craven's not only, only third film, but also his first in 35 mm apparently (Last House and Hills were in 16mm, did you know? - all gleaned from re-issue W.Craven collection direct from the, ah, horse's* mouth audio commentary), but even then seems dully devoid of any of his flourishes. (Being a TV film, certainly none of his more characteristic horror gore.)OR, for the real reason a must see watch, is if you are a fan of pint sized, cherub faced beauty dear Linda Blair, coz in which case, this becomes a simply unmissable TEN STAR film in her oeuvre, since she is not only in virtually every scene, but she sports an utterly magnificent 70's style big hair ringlet perm throughout by which to top some superb flashing eyes and smiles sessions (particularly when grooming her horse) - e.g. at one time slapped in the face by Mom that appears to be so realistically hard, that her subsequent burst into tears is surely genuine rather than acting. In short (opps, sorry about that pun there) she really is delightful in this one. (And in passing, I can imagine Wes was rather enamoured of her - rear end profile especially, too, as there are surprisingly many of her posed or walking away longueur takes throughout its running!)BTW:, once you settle down so to savour Linda, you can also look out for (I believe debut?) of future 'Nanny' Fran Dreschler, already almost incapable of disguising that idiosyncratic Bronx nasal drawl of hers.So, if not a L. Blair fan, beware, although, perhaps can also be fun double billed with another of the source material' s Ms. Duncan's 'summers' titles: 'I Know What you did Last Summer', too. *And apparently that's how they got horse-riding mad Linda to star, by changing the 'it can intuit a witch' animal from the book source, originally a dog.

The_Void Well, I didn't have much hope for this one - but it actually turned out to be a big (pleasant) surprise! By 1978, director Wes Craven was best known for his brash exploitation thrillers The Last House on the Left and The Hills Have Eyes, making this film something of a change of pace for him as not only doesn't it feature the hardcore violence of the latter two films - it's actually a 'made for TV' picture! However, in spite of that - it's actually really good! Fair enough, it doesn't break any traditions and it doesn't have a whole lot of 'bite', but the story is perfectly paced and this ensures that the director is able to keep things interesting throughout, and this is what makes Summer of Fear a cut above your average TV movie. The plot focuses on Rachel Bryant - a young girl who lives with her family somewhere in America. Her aunt and uncle are killed in a car crash one day and, other than the obvious implications of this event, it turns out to be really bad news for her as her cousin comes to stay with the family. Julia Trent is an instant hit with the household and all their friends - but her antics aren't fooling Rachel, who comes to believe that Julia is a witch.This is the sort of story that would lend itself brilliantly to a book (the film is based on the children's novel of the same title written by Lois Duncan), but doesn't often translate well to the big screen. That makes this film an exception as despite featuring no big scares and relying entirely on the intrigue generated from the central situation, the film keeps itself going well, and the way that the story constantly hints at the witchcraft theme works very well. The film stars Linda Blair in one of her first post-Exorcist horror roles, and she does brilliantly with it. Her hair looks a bit silly throughout, but she gets over this with a nice performance in which she captures a balance between the naivety and ingenuity of her character. The rest of the cast act in support to Linda, but all give decent performances. The events leading up to the inevitable climax aren't all that terrible; but by keeping things down to earth, the film actually becomes more effective as it nicely gets into a rhythm and nothing in the film feels out of place. Even the ending, which shows the film at its most over the top, still feels rather tame in comparison to other, similar, films. Overall, I can't recommend going out of your way to find this - but if you happen across a copy, it does at least make for a fun, relaxing viewing.

gridoon Linda Blair is this film's main draw today, but Lee Purcell is the real star of the show: at first I wasn't too sure about her, but she has the mysteriously seductive presence that her role calls for, and her performance literally gets better by the minute. This may be a Wes Craven movie, but it is also a TV movie, so it is rather tame in terms of sexuality and violence; there are few real surprises and few real thrills until the last 15 minutes and the (long awaited) catfight between Blair and Purcell. With its "evil stranger is disrupting the life of a normal happy family" plot, you could say that this film was ahead of its time; thrillers of this type didn't become popular until the early 90's, with "The Hand That Rocks The Cradle" and others like it. But one look at Linda's hair will convince you that it was NOT ahead of its time in other areas. In short, rent it but don't buy it. (**)

thedarkestclear It doesn't intrigue. For the first half hour this long role play occurs, in which the characters are introduced. The role play continues and slowly takes a slight turn as protagonist Rachel discovers THAT HER COUSIN IS A WITCH. That is quite the climax already. After an hour and about twenty minutes, the role play still continues and doesn't really change. No horror whatsoever, I only shrieked a bit as my cellular phone rang. As a 'psychological thriller' this movie might deserve something because I was so scared that the boredom of the movie begin would determine the entire process in time, but I just waited for something that would never happen. Craven can do better. And of course... the cousin continued.