Scott Amundsen 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.

wsmith-26 This is not an entirely bad movie. The plot (new house built next door seems to be haunted) is not bad, the mood is creepy enough, and the acting is okay. The big problem I had is that, being familiar with Lara Flynn Boyle (from Twin Peaks and other shows), I couldn't get over how different she looks with her apparently new, big lips. I kept staring at them. They look so out of place on her face! They make her look completely different (and not better).Mark-Paul Gosselaar, the actor who plays Kim the architect who designs and pours his heart and soul into the house, does a fine job. And Lara (as Col) is also quite good (but those lips!) as the owner of the house next door. Her husband, Walker (Colin Ferguson) is appropriately wooden. The various characters who live in the house were also fine. I particularly liked Pie (Charlotte Sullivan) and her husband, Buddy (Stephen Amell), the first people to move into the house. The attempt to involve us in the overall neighborhood vibe fails, unfortunately, as the other neighbors are not particularly likable.For some reason the director was unable to make the "haunted" house particularly ominous. Other movies (such as Amityville Horror, The Legend of Hell House) manage to achieve that spooky feel, but it just doesn't happen here. The closest is when Col paints a depiction of the house.Another thing that didn't work for me is the plot twist that occurs with Kim, the architect. Initially, he appears to be a victim of the house like the others (it has sucked him dry of inspiration), but later he seems to have joined forces with it in evil.Overall, not a bad movie for horror fans if you can take your eyes off those big lips!

debkie Not that I was really surprised....movies are never as good as the books that they originated from. I was looking forward to seeing this movie because this is one of my favorite books, even though I knew it would probably suck. I was hoping to be pleasantly surprised. However, they strayed from the book's storyline too much, and the movie version did not convey how horrible this house really was. Ending was different too. Lara Flynn Boyle looked terrible due to some really bad cosmetic surgery. The acting was unremarkable at best. Perhaps if a theatrical version was made so that they wouldn't have to stay so much in Lifetime's "made for TV movie" box, it would be a better flick. If you saw this movie I highly encourage you to track down the book and read it. I doubt you'll be disappointed and hope you enjoy it as much as I do every time I read it.

moviegoingcat 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.