As mass hysteria breaks-out over an alleged demonic possession in an Indiana home, referred to as a “Portal to Hell,” Ghost Adventures host and paranormal investigator Zak Bagans buys the house, sight unseen, over the phone. He and his crew then become the next victims of the most documented case of demonic possession in US history… the “house of 200 demons.
Advertised as a documentary, this movie follows TV personality Zak Bagans (Ghost Adventures) on his supposed three-year journey of filming events surrounding a “haunted” house he purchased. Everything in the documentary is perpetuated to be true despite glaring evidence to the contrary. Before I get into this, it should be known that I didn’t start watching the movie with the mindset of tearing it apart; I absolutely watched this with an open and clear mind. However, I also am not some weak-minded sheep that believes everything everyone says is true. There are DOZENS of fake reviews for this movie on IMDb that rate this a 10/10, but even with the fake reviews it only merits a 6/10 overall (due to the honest reviews being so low). Rest assured this review is going to be honest and truthful. The truth is always plain and simple, and the easiest explanation is often the correct one. With that out of the way, let us rip open the garbage bag and see what smelly shit falls out.
Before watching this movie, I had no idea who Zak Bagans was. I’ve never seen his ‘Ghost Adventures’ show but it was still clear he was a TV personality of some sort from the way he carried himself, narrated the movie, and wore that stupid fauxhawk. You’re right, I’m sorry; I said I was going into this with an open mind. It’s just hard to take the main character – er, I mean the narrator of the documentary – seriously when he looks like a frat boy and talks like he has a learning disability. Credibility slowly faded away with every line he spoke and what didn’t help was the introductory reenactment of the “goat man” walking down the stairs. Alas, I stuck with it and told myself that maybe he just wanted to instill some kind of tone for the rest of the documentary, and just didn’t have experience with that outside of his definitely-real-and-in-no-way-faked ghost TV show. I stuck with it and braved onward with the movie.
Let’s talk about the “events” that all occurred during the course of filming for this movie. While Zak and his crew begin spending a lot of time in this “haunted” house, Zak begins acting strangely and starts to become ill and at times violent. Of course he does, he’s the main character – er, narrator – sorry, don’t know why I keep doing that. At one point they spend 10 minutes trying to convince us that the camera man’s finder at the edge of the frame was not his finger but in fact a demon. I’m not kidding. They bring on a “film specialist” to identify his finger as a demon. Then, as if that’s not enough to convince us, they say the demon must have possessed the cameraman and show footage of him acting crazy at the hotel in which they are staying, because there’s no way that whole scene was fake, right?
I understand wanting your documentary about possession and demons to be scary, but when you fake things for the sake of suspense it not only hurts your credibility but leaves your audience in disappointment. The final straw was near the end of the movie when the camera goes out of focus just as a supposed “dark figure” walks across the screen and disappears. I mean come on, it’s one thing to include something like that in a movie where you expect things to happen to build suspense just at the perfect moment, but that was obviously – painfully obviously – staged to bring some sort of “final confrontation” moment between Zak and the goat man he’s been talking about the whole time. I desperately hope people don’t believe that was just coincidence, and if they do then I hope they’re not allowed to operate heavy machinery.
He bought this house and realized he had nothing to film so he decided to fake a bunch of stuff to sell a movie. I’m not surprised but I am disappointed. I’m disappointed in him and I’m disappointed for him, because if in fact the house was haunted, I’m sure this would have made for a far more interesting documentary. It’s a shame he was left with an empty house and had to fabricate scenes in hotel rooms and ended up just tearing the house down in the end. Some of the interviews are unsettling but the reenactments are cheesy and the narration is flat. My advice: Next time, if you buy something you think is haunted and turn up empty handed, just face the situation and let it go. Don’t waste our time.
This movie is…
Only an idiot would believe this bullshit.
Cheers and goodnight.