I first had the pleasure of seeing this rather elegant horror movie on my beloved Horror Channel and I immediately appreciated it's subtle approach and slow but steady build up of fear, and how you could feel that fear without truly seeing anything. No ghostly figures, no dark rushing shadows, just a rather great oppressive atmosphere of rising dread, and a series of unfortunate events...:2: I thought that before I reviewed the movie I would read the book it's based on. I did and I was very disappointed. It was way too depressing, not to mention long-winded, boring, and very weak. There was also an endless blatant and challenging snobbish arrogance to the entire thing that I didn't like either. I ultimately found it to be a better film than a book...:3: The tone and feel of the book was pretty much just like the movie, except for the following differences: Anita Sheehan doesn't kill herself, and is instead shocked into a permanent coma. Suzanna Greene doesn't just shoot her husband. First she shoots him, then her daughter(!), then herself. And possibly the biggest change, at the end, instead of blowing up the house with Kim the possibly demonic architect still inside, Walter and Col, after figuring out that is is somehow Kim causing the dire events, and not the house, quietly murder him and take his body to the basement of the house and then set the place on fire. Then the two of them, believing the house will not let them destroy it and live, sit and wait to see what will happen next. It sounds creepy, but it was a weak end to a weak book written by a snob, I thought...:4: I quite liked Lara Flynn's performance. She kind of makes the movie, in my book. So much better than her turn in Men in Black 2! And, consequently, the lips WERE pretty damn big...:5: I thought Noam Jenkins was just awesome as the anal, arrogant, and deliciously odious Mr Norman Greene. (that's Greene with an "E" and don't you forget it!)He's not quite as monstrous as the book version of the character. I found the guy so funny to watch with his uppity, almost camp delivery, appearance and overall demeanour. And that thing he said! I mean, when you've got a grown man repeatedly uttering the phrase: "What is wrong with this picture? What is wrong, tell me sister?!" It's a little silly, especially coming from this guy. To me a very intense and scary scene is when the long-suffering Anita Sheehan, very movingly played by Julie Stewart, sees the moment of her son's fiery death on a TV screen in high definition. It's a very serious scene, but I find it hard not to laugh at the poor woman's crazy reflection on the screen as she does look very funny! It makes for a very weird contrast! I also laugh at the bit where Mark Paul Gosselar gets kicked in the head!:6: I thought the theme of the malignant house of creeping evil thing was very well done. But uh, I personally just can't find a house scary to look upon. That house wasn't scary, it didn't look ominous, or magical, or anything remotely weird to me. It just looked like one of those ultra-modern, cold and ugly houses. No more frightening than a car, a closet, a pair of shoes, or a refrigerator! (Mr King!) Don't get me anywhere near a wicker basket, though! This is a little mild, a little cheap, and a little TV, it's still very enjoyable despite all that. Not a bad movie at all. Do you have the equipment to deal with it?

I read Anne Rivers Siddons's excellent book some years ago. Stephen King, in his essay DANSE MACABRE, refers to the novel as one of the best haunted house stories ever written, and he is correct. Unfortunately, in translation from the printed page to the small screen, quite a bit is lost.The basic plot remains intact, happily: a young, hot-shot architect (Mark-Paul Gosselaar) builds a new, contemporary house on a vacant lot next door to the Kennedys, Col and her husband Walker, who frame the story and serve as the narrators (Here is where the inexplicable differences begin: in the novel, Col was Colquitt and Walker was Walter, and the book is told in first-person by Colquitt). During the course of the next year and a half or so, three couples occupy the house, and each of them suffers terrible tragedy, leading Col to the conclusion that there is something malevolent about the house.She's right, but some of the terror has been diluted by two things: the choice to make this a television movie, and the choice to update it by nearly thirty years (the novel was published in 1978). Had it been made as a feature film set in the Atlanta suburb of the original late-Seventies novel, perhaps they could have captured the indescribable creepiness of the book.The cast isn't much help, either. Lara Flynn Boyle leads the proceedings as Col, but she seems miscast (To be fair to Boyle, Siddons never actually gives a physical description of Colquitt in the novel, but Boyle is not what I myself pictured), and worse, she underplays the role so severely that she often appears comatose. And the massive amounts of collagen plumping up her lips on one side don't help matters any either; in some scenes her mouth is such a distraction it is easy to miss what is going on. Still, there are moments when her dreamy, almost-hypnotized stare does send a chill through you as you realize what the house next door might be doing to her, never mind the neighbors. And Colin Ferguson is just about right as her husband; he wisely plays his role at the same emotional level so as not to upstage her or make Walker seem foolish.Unfortunately, the rest of the cast is not worth talking about. In the novel, the effect of the malevolent house was felt by eight of the neighbors on the street, and each, especially the women, reacted in his/her own way. The supporting cast in this telefilm is so homogeneous that unless Boyle says their names it is hard to tell them apart. A pity, because Siddons described them quite vividly.Mark-Paul Gosselaar as the architect was probably cast to pull in the young girls, but he is probably the worst choice of all. For starters, he still can't act. He couldn't as a kid on "Saved by the Bell;" he couldn't on "NYPD Blue;" and he still can't. All he can do is pose and look pretty. Which he does very well, except that the role does not call for it. The architect wasn't unattractive in the novel, but he certainly wasn't a pretty boy like Gosselaar.I can't say I hated it. I loved the novel, and there's still enough of the novel left to make this worth sitting through on a rainy afternoon if you've nothing better to do. But I'd sooner recommend reading the novel; you'll get all the shivers that way, and you won't think Stephen King has terrible taste in horror stories.

It would help to know why it took so long for a book as movie-ready' as "The House Next Door" to be adapted for film or television. The book was copyrighted in 1978. One reason could be problems designing 'the house'. The house in this Lifetime film is really so ugly that I can't imagine anyone buying it. In fact it's so ugly that someone would probably have come and destroyed it as soon as it was built.I'm not crazy about horror genre books, but this one was hard to put down when I came across it around ten years ago. The main characters are not the kind of people to look for anything occult in life, and this is one of the book's strengths. They are not people who would conclude that the architect was some type of demon..(or the devil personified) without witnessing and analyzing the events described so well in the book. However, it is a downbeat book for the most part, and I don't think that appeals to the people who run Lifetime. Maybe someone will come up with another version of the book in years to come. A better house..better music..a better screenplay and darker lighting...would certainly help.

I read the book a long time back and don't specifically remember the plot but do remember that I enjoyed it. Since I'm home sick on the couch it seemed like a good idea and Hey !! It is a Lifetime movie.The movie is populated with grade B actors and actresses.The female cast is right out of Desperate Housewives. I've never seen the show but there are lots of commercials for the show and I get the gist. Is there nothing original anymore? Sure, but not on Lifetime.The male cast are all fairly effeminate looking and acting but the girls need to have husbands I suppose.In one scene a female is struggling with a male, for her life, and what does she do??? Kicks him in the testicles. What else? Women love that but let me tell you girls something... It's not as easy as it's always made to look.It wasn't all bad. I did get the chills a time or two so I have to credit someone with that.