jrd_73 Perhaps it takes a certain kind of film viewer to appreciate the charms of A Name for Evil. As has been bemoaned by other reviewers, A Name for Evil has a disjointed story, a hippie orgy, and a full frontal sex scene with past his prime Robert Culp. Yet, for some viewers these eccentricities can be strengths. I have seen A Name for Evil twice now. I was not bored either time. The film kept me watching because, on the first viewing, I did not know what to expect next, and on the second viewing, I admired the film's mixtures of styles as a Gothic horror film is given early swinging seventies treatment, from Penthouse Films no less. According to IMDb, A Name for Evil had a troubled production. It appears to this viewer that certain scenes were not shot, either because of time or because the filmmakers thought certain points were clearer than they were. However, the lack of a linear narrative does lend the film a certain disquieting mood, as the viewer is left almost as confused as Robert Culp's character. There is a certain type of viewer who occasionally tires of professionally told plots and seeks out films not afraid to go off the rails, a viewer who loves when artiness is wedded to exploitation. All my years of watching Euro-horror, where plots did not matter as long as a scene was moody, surprising, or odd, has turned me into such a viewer. A Name for Evil surprises the viewer. From the opening credits over surreal paintings of twisted figures to the abrupt finale, A Name for Evil keeps the viewer off balance. I also think parts of it are well filmed. For instance, unlike one other reviewer, I find the underwater sex scene moody and hypnotic, having some of the off-kilter quality of Let's Scare Jessica to Death (another film I champion). Obviously, I cannot recommend A Name for Evil to most people, yet I will probably watch the film for a third time.

ofumalow The six is not exactly for quality by any normal standard, but for sheer curiosity value--the curiosity of both what's on screen and whatever went on off-screen. Because this is one of those movies that should come annotated with the story of its production history; you get a very strong sense that the money ran out or something before they were finished shooting, necessitating a very awkward patch-up in the editing room that's disjointed and has some very cheesy, even amateurish elements (like the "ghost's" silly voice-over comments) alongside very accomplished and daring ones.Culp plays a man who enrages his brother (heard, but not seen) by quitting whatever their business is. Over the objections of the wife (Eggar) he already has unspecified problems with--for one thing, she's always at his throat--he insists they move into the wrecked house of a late grandfather he knows almost nothing about. We hear the grandfather ("the Major") on the soundtrack say that he wouldn't let the property be changed while he was alive, so why should he while he's dead? He also periodically moans "Go awaaaaaay!" or "She's miiiiine!" (re: Eggar) in a ghostly manner, and is occasionally seen in shadow or in mirrors. Although in the end it seems just as likely that what happens is because Culp is delusional with a history of instability (this is just hinted at), not because of any supernatural interference.What starts out looking like a standard haunted-house thriller with some apparent missing scenes and weird dialogue is flavored a few times early on by some psychedelic nudie stuff in Culp's fevered brain. Then around the 45 minute point he walks out of the house after some coitus interruptus (why, we're not sure, although the wife says "If you don't know why I can't tell you"--?!?!), hops on the mystery white horse sometimes lollying about the grounds, and rides it right into the local barn dance/hippie hootenanny/saloon joint. Soon the square dancing turns more abstract, everybody's clothes come off--it's possible the extras were all in some actual dance troupe--and Robert Culp is eventually starkers, and I do mean undeniably full-frontal for QUITE a while, along with everyone else. The subsequent orgy spills out into the forest, with more interpretive-dance moves incorporated. This fascinatingly bizarre and over-the-top sequence reminded me both of the original "Wicker Man" (cuz this dance-slash-orgy-slash-ritual seems to be some sort of regular local pagan practice, if it's not simply Culp's hallucination) and the famous orgy at the titular place in "Zabriskie Point."Just about everything else in "Name for Evil" is a mess of the type that, as previously mentioned, suggests some production problems that were beyond help in the editing room- -if indeed the editing didn't make things worse. There are movies in which the disjointedness is intentional, to blur reality and fantasy, an approach that would be apt here. But you can tell the awkward assembly and odd gaps aren't part of a plan, but rather a somewhat desperate attempt to weld together a movie whose original plan fell through--for whatever logistical or creative-differences reason. Egger's character just comes off as a stock adversarial-wife "bitch," though moments suggest we're supposed to be wondering whether we're viewing her through clear eyes or Culp's distorto-vision. That idea seems another casualty of whatever untold crises befell the film-making. Culp really lets it all hang out (yeah ha ha, but I don't just mean it literally) as a hero who might or might not be mad--it's a measure of the film's disorganization that it doesn't seem to know, either.This certainly isn't a success as horror movie or anything else straightforward. But if you're fond of WTF-inducing curiosities from the medium's counterculture-influenced years, you-- and probably nobody else--will consider it a real find.

cultofsucktitude Much has been made of this movie's 'plot', or lack of one. The white horse is just not scary! The hippy scenes are dated and unintentionally humorous (I guess hippies love noodles). It could easily qualify for a Mystery Science Theater 3000 feature. But I really enjoyed the first thirty minutes or so of this movie. I liked the intro, and the photography is great. The dilapitated house in what appears to be the middle of nowhere is one of the more interesting settings I've ever seen in a ghost film. I like the fact that the caretakers wanted it to rot away. If they stayed away from the counter-culture movement and focused soley on telling a ghost story it would have been a better film.

lucky_dice_mgt This happened to come on last week late at night and I seriously thought I may have found a unheard of gem..especially by the beginning as it was quite atmospheric and had eerie music/credits rolling..and then the movie started..wow..what a turd.This is 1 stinker and it actually bored me and irritated me at the same time {something only a few movies have managed to do..Salo being one of them}. What on earth was the director smoking to do such a pretentious/erratic/unscary horror flick such as this.These types of film can give the 70s horror generation a bad name all on their own.If you see this on late night T.V...run don't walk away.