Why was this film ever made?To justify making a film, you need the following:1 a story 2 an idea of what you want to make of that story 3 a good director 4 actors 5 some sense as to WHY you want to show what you DO show1 serial killers make good stories for movies. There are hundreds of movies about the issue, some bad- some really good. 2 how can you justify showing torture and prolonged killing scenes? 3 what the film had a director? This looks like two torture porn interested guys made a home video, torturing women for fun 4 justify the side story (the investigation) having lousy actors? Shows all the more that the people behind this offensive tosh ONLY wanted to show torture and killing 5..Yeah.. do you really know?We are horror buffs and watch countless films at the weekends. We turned this one off, since there was nothing justifying us to watch the whole thing, since we like a good PLOT and good DIRECTION.in short: disgusting

This is a slow-burn creeper of a film focusing on two real-life serial killers, one of whom gets a co-starring role here as himself in flashback "found" footage. The story of House on the Hill is, well..... A woman recalls her days and nights with one of the killers as her tormenting lover, with digressions and flashbacks within flashbacks. The killers kill a succession of women and some of it gets very tedious. Creepy at times, somewhat effective for the most part but in terms of movie-making it's crude. There are a couple of gruesome moments but it's mostly about the processes they employ to kill. Even worse, the killers appear frustrated much of the time, and shows them playing a lot of chess; yet, neither of them seems very bright. The real-life killer appears at interludes, speaking to the viewer directly, with a chilling nonchalance that elevates the movie somewhat. The movie's bluntness creates suspense in some scenes. Most of the dread is created by the acting but there is no coherent story to support the effort. Things get monotonous but on balance it's not a total disappointment.

The case of serial killer Leonard Lake is one of the most notorious in California history. Along with his equally psychotic partner, Charles Ng, Lake was an ex-Marine and survivalist responsible for kidnapping, human exploitation and murder during the 1980s. They took their victims to a secluded mountain hideaway for ransom, torture, sexual assault and finally murder. Lake also videotaped activity with his victims, and taped himself describing for the camera why he wanted to commit these atrocities. This latter video came into the possession of director Jeffrey Frentzen, who constructed this middling "terror" film around frankly astounding testimonial footage.The loosely constructed plot tells the tale of the two killers in flashback form, as a fictional survivor Sonia (Naidra Dawn Thomson) recalls to a private detective (Kevin McCloskey) the horrors of being one of Lake's captives years prior. The detective is seeking the whereabouts of another Lake victim who disappeared around the time Sonia managed to escape from the house on the hill. The flashbacks show Lake and Ng as somewhat unskilled kidnappers who tried to build a money making enterprise around their murderous exploits. They would enslave the female victims, keeping them in grungy prison cells, and were not above kidnapping relatives and people they just didn't like.Frentzen, here a first-time director who also co-wrote and edited, had helped produce several low budget direct to video genre flicks with German expatriate filmmaker Ulli Lommel between 2005 and 2008 (with title such as KILLER NURSE, DIARY OF A CANNIBAL and GREEN RIVER KILLER). Superficially, HOUSE ON THE HILL is reminiscent of these earlier productions by virtue of also having been shot on HD cam under what could charitably be called tough, small crew conditions in claustrophobic rooms. Unlike most found footage disasters, this movie's low-end video look actually complements the grainy testimonial footage of Leonard Lake. The reportedly extreme sexual violence was toned down for U.K. and U.S. release..HOUSE ON THE HILL is fairly well directed by Frentzen, who constructs gruesome set pieces, such as the drawn out killing of Crystal Nelson, Laura Leigh's death by baseball bat, and the murder of an entire family. Although the movie occasionally drifts into the same territory as John McNaughton's HENRY PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER, the disjointed flashback format sadly keeps characterization to a minimum. As soon as we start to know the victims they are dispatched. The concept of showing the two murderers as incompetents that try but cannot seem to make a profit from their killing spree is a different approach for a serial killer flick.Though ultimately done in by low production values, a grating music score but offset by decent acting from a small cast of unknowns, HOUSE ON THE HILL shows off a solid directorial debut and proves once and for all that serial killers should choose their victims carefully if they expect to make any money from their exploits.

Are just some of the words I can say about this movie! others would be! Bone chilling, nerve shattering, terror trip into insanity, and make you disbelieve that you just seen what you have seen. This movie really did leave me feeling totally disturbed to my wick. Yes I know I gave it a 10* this is how I reached the rating, 64 % Direction, 10% sound track, 23% production & cinematography & 3% acting. so overall is a 10*.weather or not I would watch again? I think not! if disturbing movies that push all boundary's leaving you wanting to stay awake is your bag? then OK give the movie a go! If not avoid personally the movie should never have been made. But overall other than that I cant find fault in any level