Yawn. Poorly Filmed Snooze Fest.

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Heading off for a honeymoon, a couple arrives at a small island getaway where they move into a local house only to soon experience strange accidents and as they come to realize they've been touched by the spirit of those who lived there before tries to stop her before she's completely possessed.While it wasn't that great, it did have a few really good parts. One of the main aspects of this one is the early setup featured here which manages to start this one off on a solid note. The early scenes detailing the history of the island and the different local legends involved with the people who live there manage to give this a solid backstory here with the use of satanic rituals and black magic that gets brought up in here. That allows this one to get a solid base throughout here with the possession scenes taking place here with the ritualized chanting and ceremonial setups that it comes off as a great starting piece to the few accidents that come about from the possession. That also leads into the fun here with the fact that there's a lot of cheesy action to this, especially in the later half which has some really great amounts to it that really push this along. There are some really nice scenes here, including the confrontation with the possessed woman in the bedroom which is a really nice, hard-hitting fight, and along with the final fight that throws everything around the room in another rather decent encounter that really works. All of the cheese that's present in the scene is what's really helpful, from the way the change happens and makes her look with the distorted mouth, darkened eyes, weird facial features and extended claws, and to have the cheesy effect of green lasers shot out of her eyes at victims, blowing up the scenery or forcing them to duck behind furniture makes them look really great and cheesy. Alongside the look of the house, these are what help the film out as there's not a whole lot to this one. The biggest one to this is the fact that the film is way too short on action and accounts for most of the film's problems. There are only a few action scenes that add any sort of excitement into the film, and the rest of the time is taken up with the dull and sleep-inducing banter including all the different conversations that are done with the different methods of treating the situation. That this one has numerous several-minute long conversations about it is a little much, and tends to take up a lot of time in the film. This is also done with the backstory, which has too many scenes of the ones who know about it telling the ones who don't everything they know, and the repetition hurts the film a lot. That also means that the few action scenes are really short, which is mostly seen in the later half since it picks up the pace somewhat but only just barely has any momentum from them since the film slows it down enough to have the other parts of the film stand out even more. There's also a large amount of cheese to this, from the way the possession takes over to the action and the special effects quality, which may not sit well with all out there. These here are the main flaws to this.Rated R: Violence and Graphic Language.

Architect Larry Andrews (the always reliable John Saxon) and his new bride Barbara (nicely played by the lovely Lynda Day George) move into a swanky palatial colonial mansion that's haunted by the lethal spirit of evil and vengeful witch Alma Martin (an effectively wicked portrayal by the ravishing Janice Lynde), who not surprisingly possesses Barbara's body so she can reenter our dimension. Director/co-writer Herb Freed manages to create a suitably spooky atmosphere and stages the sporadic supernatural murder set pieces with a reasonable amount of flair (the occasional use of slow motion is especially nifty), but alas the meandering script takes too long to get right down to business, the moderate sprinkling of gore is regrettably tepid stuff, the editing tends to be slapdash, the narrative is sometimes very muddled and incoherent, and , worst of all, the hopelessly cheap and cheesy (far from) special effects are often downright laughable in their jaw-dropping Day-Glo dimestore tackiness. The cast do their best with the blah material: Saxon and George make for appealing and attractive leads, with sturdy support from Michael Dante as smooth heel Del Giorgio, Mario Milano as suave physician Dr. Frank Albanos, and David Opatoshu as helpful faith healer Dr. Solomon. Ken Plotin's pretty cinematography offers several sumptuous shots of the gorgeously scenic sylvan locations. Pino Donaggio provides a supremely eerie and elegant score which gives this rather shoddy picture some much-needed class. A merely passable timewaster.

I am a sincere horror movie fan. As such, I am extremely forgiving—indeed, my friends would argue I have no standards at all. To shake up this dynamic even more, there is a class of film that forgiving fans feel compelled to huddle around and protect because these "works of art" are so obviously vulnerable to attack—mostly because they suck in every way imaginable. Remember Robert Culp crazily running around naked in "A Name for Evil?" (Whoever says anything nice about "A Name for Evil?") Remember a coiffed Richard Moll attempting to navigate the discontinuity in "The Nightmare Never Ends?" (What dozen or so people ever bothered watching "The Nightmare Never Ends" in its entirety?) How about Trish Van Devere flitting about the badly lit sets in her housecoat in "The Hearse?" Technically, these films are inconceivably bad, plain and simple. They never really gel; they don't scare; the characters are flat or unconvincing; the lighting is poor; the sound is cacophonous; the plot convoluted. These movies always seem to be a collection of medium-range shots pasted haphazardly together—not an interesting angle or lighting effect to be found. These films don't even fall into the clichéd "so bad they're good" class of films.In my mind, films like "A Name for Evil" are "TV quality" films (if we are talking TV quality of about 30 years ago, of course). In fact, the most effective way to turn me off from wanting to watch any film is by telling me it is of average TV quality. To me, that means artless, white-washed, vanilla, predictable, flat. I'm immediately disinterested.Having said that, films like "The Hearse" and "Nightmare Never Ends" and even "A Name for Evil" almost supernaturally, are imbued with something greater than the sum of their parts. In the minds and hearts of truly forgiving horror movie fans, these films hold a place that they do not deserve; there's something about the "idea" of the movie—not borne out by the reality of the film itself—that exerts an inexplicable power. I guess what I'm saying is that these movies are never as good as the ideas behind them; but for some reason I, as viewer, seem to remember and connect with the idea, rather than the movie. Call me insane, but it is almost as if the movie doesn't matter. For example, when I spy the DVD cover of "Horror Planet" on my shelf, I think of the "idea" of the film fondly—even though I never really want to watch the film a second time because it is so poorly executed. I imbue it with a power it doesn't really have. And I'm fascinated by that interaction. Maybe I'm just nuts.Now, having said all that, I'm not sure "Beyond Evil" quite makes it into that mysterious class of films. The ideas in this film (not the film itself) try damn hard to work their way into my subconscious…but ultimately the flick fails in that regard. The acting is adequate, even adequately inspired at times. The music by Donaggio is adequate. The plot is okay. But when it comes right down to it, I think there are three specific things that ultimately do this movie in—things that are so completely distracting, I can't even love the idea of this film, let alone the film itself: 1. Could You Repeat That Please: The film takes place in a large mansion, mostly. Here we get the "one Radio Shack mic placed in the middle of the cacophonous room" effect—often with more than one person speaking at the same time. Remember the award-winning audio in films like "The Ghosts of Hanley House?" Terribly distracting. As someone else also said, this movie is evidence why filming in front of an airport is not such a good idea—did you catch that dialog? I didn't. Planes are loud and noisy. Someone tell the director.2. The Editor Fell Asleep at the Cutting Wheel: Something bizarre happens in the last 15 minutes of this movie (referring to the UK PAL R2 DVD). Suddenly parts of the film disappear—there are plot elements you KNOW occurred, you'd bet your paycheck on it, but they've been sliced to the point where the narrative starts to literally come apart at the seams. Once again, I am a forgiving fan here and can even appreciate discontinuity on some artful level. But this isn't epileptic enough to be interesting or keep me off balance. No, it's just that somebody let the scissors slip a few times, and the film falls apart—literally—in the last few frames. Why oh why? 3. Attack of the Special Effects: The effects in this movie, as other reviewers have adequately illustrated, are atrocious. Remember, I am a forgiving fan—probably much more forgiving than you are. But when you see something so low--that you start to think you might actually have standards of some kind—you know you've hit rock bottom. The effects are really at rock bottom. They are so bad, they chew into the narrative. While watching, I was having a conversation with myself (as the movie progressed) about how the ghost of the former owner of the mansion could have been presented so much better, and so much more simply. Glowing green laser beam eyeballs. Awful, awful, awful. The silly superimposition of the ghost character that suddenly blinks into life on a dark space in the picture's frame. Awful, awful, awful. I think of all the scary movies I've seen where ghosts were presented simply and interestingly and frighteningly without a special effect to be found. Why would adequate-director-Herb-Freed make such a bad, bad decision? So there you have it. An unforgivable "TV Quality" movie where ultimately the ideas don't even float to the top. Too bad, too bad.

Totally boring movie about a man and his wife who move into a house or villa and soon his wife becomes possessed with the spirit of an evil one who once dwelled within its walls. As the possession takes hold more people and friends of theirs begin to die, many in rather unintentional humorous ways. So her husband (John Saxon) wants her back and consults a local "spiritual healer" to help defeat the evil one. After confrontation he gets his wife back. This movie is a waste of time unless your looking for some laughs. Truly bad and stupid with special effects that are poor even for the time. Some notable funny moments the eye lasers, mans car falls apart then explodes (laughable), man gets crushed with pile of junk, and a rather fake looking devil doll that tries to possess his wife. Saxon is cool and works with what he has, but that's not much leading to a typical turkey that belongs where i saw it... in the middle of the night. 2 out of 10 stars avoid this bore.