Watch Stranger in Our House For Free

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

Blistering performances.

Rachel was the funniest part. She looked funny, talked funny, sometimes became intolerable. But it didn't make me laugh. It made me yawn.Considering the film is made in 1978, that is forgivable. Clearly Hollywood wasn't what it is today all the way back then. They gave it a try, they made something.Julia - who was meant to be the witch, had some grace in her character. Rachel behaved like a disturbing teeny, which she is - in the film. The most interesting part in the film is, a witch can't be photographed. This was what drawn me towards it. Julia's photos wasn't showing her, and that was the best thing to happen in the whole film.The film is boring, but it made me search about the author. Lois Duncan did write quite a few good stories, at least that's what it sounds like from her wiki.It should have a remake I think. Today's directors would make a good commercial out of it.The 1978 attempt failed.

Stranger in Our House (1978) ** (out of 4) Made-for-TV horror film about teenager Rachel Bryant (Linda Blair) whose life turns upside down when her cousin Julia (Lee Purcell) comes to live with her family after the death of her parents. At first everything seems okay but soon all sorts of strange things start to happen and soon Rachel begins to think that her cousin is a witch.Wes Craven made this shortly after THE HILLS HAVE EYES and it should go without saying that this here isn't in the same league as that terrifying thriller. This film's biggest problem is the fact that we've seen it countless times before and there's really nothing original done here. Even worse is the fact that the movie clocks in at 98 minutes, which is way too long. Had this made-for-TV movie been made five or six years earlier then it would have clocked in at maybe 72 minutes at the most. Needing to fill up a two hour slot, the film just keeps going and going without much actually happening.Again, the screenplay is clearly the problem with this picture because it offers up every cliché that it can find. The Julia character is obviously evil but no one sees it except for Rachel. Rachel, on the other hand, is the sweet girl but everyone really thinks she's losing her mind. We get countless scenes where the two fight and where Rachel begs for people to believe what she's saying. It's one thing for this to happen two or three times in a movie but it happens at least seven or eight times, which is way too long. Even worse is that the TV trappings don't allow for any suspense.Purcell is certainly the best thing about the movie. She is completely believable playing the "good" girl and I thought she did a fantastic job at letting that "evil" side of her character slip through. She's just a certain look in her eye that just helps sell her character. Blair is good as well, although there are times where she comes across as a whiny brat. Jeremy Slate, Carol Lawrence and Macdonald Carey are all good in their supporting roles.STRANGER IN OUR HOUSE is a pretty bland and boring movie that doesn't have too much going for it.

Any horror movie starring Fran Drescher sounds petrifying to me, I don't care whether she stars as the supreme witch of a coven or simply appears in an insignificant supportive role. Growing up with a sister who insisted on watching that stupid show "The Nanny" over and over again, I've come to dread this unholy woman's quacking voice more than I dread all the serial killers in the entire world. My main motivation to watch "Summer of Fear" actually was the devilish bit of hope to witness Drescher die painfully on screen, but alas, this is a TV-movie so there's really not that much suffering going on. "Summer of Fear" is a modest, well-intended and remotely atmospheric little thriller, but it's far too tame to satisfy real horror fans and it honestly would have ended up in oblivion long time ago already if it weren't for the names of Wes Craven and Linda Blair parading the DVD-cover. Craven had already built up a solid reputation with the genuine 70's shockers "Last House on the Left" and "The Hills Have Eyes", and Linda Blair was undeniably one of the genre's best-selling faces since her unforgettable role in "The Exorcist". These three titles definitely qualify as rough and mature horror movies unsuitable for squeamish viewers, but here Craven and Blair team up for a "soft" story about a teenage girl who's the only one to realize her enchanting niece is really a deceptive and malignant sorceress. Sounds macabre enough, but the script actually spends most attention to the daily struggles of a prototypic teenage girl dealing with jealousy, (boy)friends, parents, sport competition, strict parents and flamboyant 70's hairstyles. The happy happy joy joy Bryant family welcomes an unexpected guest when cherubic niece Julia moves in after the sudden death of her parents in a tragic car accident. Rachel quickly suspects Julia of practicing witchcraft, but the rest of family thinks she's just jealous because Julia filched her lover and best friend and because Julia's butt isn't too fat to fit in a homemade dress. The competitive and notably hostile on screen chemistry between Linda Blair and Lee Purcell keeps the wholesome endurable – and even a bit entertaining – but "Summer of Fear" is overlong and unexciting. The conclusive 15 minutes or so are surprisingly effective (even including a bit of an unexpected twist) and suspenseful, but still they don't compensate enough for the disappointing foregoing. The infamous Fran Drescher stars as Rachel's (and subsequently Julia's) best friend Carolyn and, just in case you're wondering, that hyper-irritating nasal voice sound has been there since the late 70's already.

Seeing that this was from legendary horror director Wes Craven, and starring Linda Blair (who served as the demon-possessed girl, Regan, in "The Exorcist"), I decided to give "Summer of Fear" a chance. I wasn't expecting a TV movie (which was titled "Stranger In Our House" during it's television run), but I actually ended up enjoying it.The film centers around a teenage girl named Rachel. Rachel lives on a semi-secluded family farm in Northern California with her wealthy parents and siblings. When her mother's sister and brother-in-law die in a horrible car crash, their daughter, Julia, comes to live with them permanently. Julia seems somewhat normal, if not a little bit shy and withdrawn, but as time progresses, she puts an alluring spell over everyone she meets, and pulls all of Rachel's family and friends away from her. She begins getting close with Rachel's friends and her family, even stealing Rachel's boyfriend. After finding some strange items around the house (including burnt matches and a human tooth), Rachel discovers that Julia may be a practitioner of black magic. Now she must stop the evil witch before she launches her final assault.Okay, okay. I have to admit, some things in this movie were a bit laughable, mostly Linda Blair's poofy, frizzed out hairdo. The acting was alright, not great, but you can't expect a whole lot from it. Linda Blair's performance was decent, if not a little whiny at times, Lee Purcell pulled off the 'mysterious cousin' archetype, and Fran Drescher even had a small role as one of Rachel's friends. The film isn't scary at all, but I will say the finale was pretty well done, although by today's standards the effects may seem a bit cartoonish. I found it interesting to see Craven directing a film of this nature in his earlier years, considering he had just done brutal horror films such as "The Hills Have Eyes" and "Last House on the Left".To sum things up, I have to give "Summer of Fear" some credit— being a campy TV movie from the '70s, it has some chops. Although it lacked any substantial shocks or scares (except near the ending), I still found it to be a fun little piece of '70s nostalgia. Give it a look if you enjoy campy '70s horror, or if you want to see some of Craven's earlier work, because it is quite different from the films that he is most known for. All around good television terror. 7/10.