ChikPapa Very disappointed :(

mraculeated The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

Stephanie There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

gavin6942 A murdered couple return from the beyond to care for their two young children, as well as seek revenge against their killer, accept their children's step parents, and try to prevent their house from being sold.So, Lucio Fulci made two television films around 1989. "House of Clocks" is the other one, and sad to say it is the superior one. This film lacks the gore, the horror and the things we typically associate with Fulci. While it tries to build a fantasy world around the children ,it never seems fully successful (though I confess part of my problem was the bad dubbing on the kids).Given the framework Fulci was working in, it is not a bad film, but it is not one of his more memorable and comes off as fairly bland. I would not call this his worst film, but it clearly is not among his best.

Leofwine_draca Lucio Fulci directed plenty of memorable horror films in his time but sadly this isn't one of them. Made in the late '80s, when Italian genre cinema was pretty much going to the dogs/on its last legs, this is one in a series of four television films centred around haunted houses, and is the worst of the four. It's a shame because it starts off on a good footing, with Fulci at his gory best as he delivers a pair of gory murders that are definitely not for the squeamish: one poor guy has his head caved in while a woman has her eyes popped out with a knife.Weirdly, the film then changes tack entirely and becomes a kid's film! We follow two children as they communicate with their ghostly parents, who are represented by a couple of flying flames superimposed over the screen – effects so bad that similar ones in SPIRITUAL KUNG FU, a Jackie Chan film made a full ten years previously to this, were far superior! Somehow the horror is forgotten about except in a couple of brief moments and instead we're treated to an annoying kiddie fantasy flick, with laboured comedy and no reason to watch.I kept hoping that things would pick up, but aside from a fairly nasty road accident and the hilarious intervention of an exorcist, they don't. Lowlights include a possessed excavator and the worst child acting in movie history (worse than TROLL 2), made even worse by the fact that the English dub has female adults dubbing the voices of the boy and girl actors! Speaking of which, the cast is a diabolical bunch of unfamiliars, aside from the reliable Lino Salemme (the cocaine goon in DEMONS) and Vernon Dobtcheff's engaging exorcist. There really is no reason to watch this non-event of a film, which promises so much and delivers nothing at all. Even in the company of the just-okay other films in the series it falls flat, and I would tell anyone to avoid this boring trash.

Sandy Petersen Let me establish my credits. I am by no means anti-Fulci. I adore the man, and I love his films. Even his lesser trash like House of Clocks and Aenigma appeal to me. I sorely regret his premature death from diabetes.That said, there is truth in the statement that "In Fulci's movies, the scenes that are unwatchable for being too gory are separated by scenes that are unwatchable for being too artsy." The problem with the awesomely named "Sweet House of Horror" is that it includes Fulci's "artsy" bent (though without his usual skill) but leaves entirely off his "gory" tendencies (admittedly, in a TV movie he was probably shackled to some extent).M. R. James once explained that for a ghost story to be good, it had to include three things. First, the story had to take place somewhere reasonable, so the reader could imagine himself present. Second, the story should not use the psychic jargon of the moment, which spoils horror and turns it into technical chat. Third, the ghost should be malign - a friendly ghost doesn't frighten.Sweet House of Horrors fails on all three counts. First, the tale is in a huge old mansion inhabited by two of those cute Italian blond children hampered only by a congenital inability to act. What is it with Italian directors? Can they not tell when a kid can't act? And why are they almost always blondies? I know for a fact that Italy has some brunettes. The kids' evil aunt and uncle plot to murder them to seize the family inheritance for their own. The plot makes no real sense, because the aunt and uncle are the kids' guardians, so presumably they have access to the money already. Plus, as guardians, how hard would it be to pull off a boat accident or whatever? But no other Italian film-maker worth his salt cared about logic, so let's move on.The second topic - don't mess with psychic jargon, is violated again and again. We get all sorts of "rules" and "vibrations" and scenes of the parents appearing. But here the Italian tendency to ignore logic serves the movie well, since the jargon conflicts with itself and is impossible to make heads or tails of, so it really doesn't violate James' rule all that strongly.The third topic is where the movie really falls down. The ghosts are the kids' parents, whose only goal is to protect them from the evil relatives. We learn this very early in the movie, and from then on we are completely without any terror at any moment. When the ghosts appear, we know it is only to pick on the evil aunt and uncle, whom we hate already. The only moments of tension are when auntie (or uncle) try to harm the kids, in a normal, physical fashion (like poisoning them). But these moments aren't too bad, because we know the ghosts will save the kids, and the move has no gore or strong scenes anyway.This last is especially appalling given Fulci's previous track record in being perfectly willing to endanger or even kill kids - this added a lot of suspense, shock, and horror to his previous movies. Remember the zombie girl in The Beyond? Or the threatened little boys in House by the Cemetery or City of the Walking Dead? Hell, Fulci wiped out a whole passel of kids in Don't Torture A Duckling. Those films were solid, scary, masterworks. But the limpwristed Hollywood sensibility in Sweet House of Horror keeps us from being scared, just as we know in any Hollywood movie that no kid is ever going to be harmed, we know it here.The movie is also not saved by Fulci's normal knack for scene-setting. His skill in putting together an image displayed in Massacre Time or Zombi is just completely absent. The movie has a pallid washed-out fuzzy look that just enervates every single moment. It is tedious to get through.I literally would recommend EVERY other Fulci movie above this one. Even such turds as Demonia and Conquest. At least those movies had a couple of good moments. Sweet House of Horror has none.

Gunnar_Runar_Ingibjargarson A couple, Charles and Marcia, adopt two tragically orphaned children. The new family moves into the dead parents' beautiful old home and is haunted by strange sounds. Soon, the couple is forced to sell the place and take the kids away, but the house is dead against letting them leave. Learn the blood-curdling truth about the parents' deaths and the shocking secret behind the possessed "Sweet House of Horrors". Direct by horror maestro Lucio Fulci, this one is really not good one, but you can check it out if you are a true Fulci's fun. About a two children which after they're parents are brutally murder have to go to fosters parents. Story is really not bad but somehow it doesn't work this time for Mr. Fulci.