Basically this movie is like a more gruesome haunted house tale than the original Amityville or a less gruesome haunted house tale than the Amityville remake. However, the movie most certainly follows the flow of those two movies. I would have actually given this movie a six, but they kept trying to make out like this story was pure fact and that rather ticked me off, I mean what do they take me for a moron. I know a bit about the story it is taken from and there are so many differences it is pathetic. I realize that you have to add some stuff or the movie is going to be kind of boring, heck I am even for embellishing the story to the degree this one did, but do not have the this serious voice over telling me how this is true and have the writing at the end tell an out right lie. So what is the story you ask? Well a teenage boy has cancer and his mother is having to drive him a great distance quite often for a special treatment. Mother decides to find a place to rent closer to the place the son gets treatments so he does not have to endure the long drive in pain and vomiting. Of course, the family's financial situation is not to good so when the house with the history comes up for rent you know our family is going to make that their new stomping ground. So spooky reflections and such start to take place as well as strange visions and we even have a reverend enter the picture to give our youth guidance. So yes, the typical haunted house formula is here. Add in a pointless stretch of film where the father drinks and you have your movie, though I am betting that part of the film is actually true, but they changed so much around why not just omit that part all together as it really did not bring anything to the film. So I say add some more scares, perhaps a little gore, do not try to pass off the movie as being a reenactment or something and this film might have been really good...just like a lot of horror movies it is usually might have is it not?
