Linda Blair is this film's main draw today, but Lee Purcell is the real star of the show: at first I wasn't too sure about her, but she has the mysteriously seductive presence that her role calls for, and her performance literally gets better by the minute. This may be a Wes Craven movie, but it is also a TV movie, so it is rather tame in terms of sexuality and violence; there are few real surprises and few real thrills until the last 15 minutes and the (long awaited) catfight between Blair and Purcell. With its "evil stranger is disrupting the life of a normal happy family" plot, you could say that this film was ahead of its time; thrillers of this type didn't become popular until the early 90's, with "The Hand That Rocks The Cradle" and others like it. But one look at Linda's hair will convince you that it was NOT ahead of its time in other areas. In short, rent it but don't buy it. (**)
55 Reviews
Cheesy but entertaining '70s TV movie starring Scream Queen Linda Blair
Leofwine_draca26 April 2015
SUMMER OF FEAR started out as a 1978 made-for-TV movie, directed by LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT's Wes Craven and starring THE EXORCIST actress Linda Blair. Noting that it had performed surprisingly well in the schedules, the producers repackaged it as a theatrical movie, retitled it SUMMER OF FEAR, and released it in Europe.
How much you enjoy this one depends on your preference for American TV movies of the 1970s. I consider myself a huge fan, so I enjoyed this one, although the histrionic acting and cheesily dated nature of the production may be offputting to some; they were positives for me. The storyline is a straightforward 'cuckoo in the nest' type one, in which spoilt rich girl Linda Blair is put out of joint when her cousin joins the family after her parents are killed in a car accident.
It soon transpires that said cousin has been dabbling in witchcraft, something confirmed by a put-upon college professor (a welcome role for SHADOW OF A DOUBT's Macdonald Carey). It's one of those films where nobody believes Blair's character, forcing her to take matters into her own hands. You can hardly blame them: dressing in the frumpiest clothes imaginable and saddled with an appalling 'Afro' haircut, the Blair looks like an eyesore here and her character's a real whiner.
The supernatural elements of the narrative are limited, but there's some good stuff with spooked horses and an action-packed climax that involves car chases and cat-fights, all well handled on a low budget. The twist ending was inevitable after the release of CARRIE. Watch out for some SALEM'S LOT-style effects involving cool contact lenses. SUMMER OF FEAR may not be a great film but it sure is a fun one.
How much you enjoy this one depends on your preference for American TV movies of the 1970s. I consider myself a huge fan, so I enjoyed this one, although the histrionic acting and cheesily dated nature of the production may be offputting to some; they were positives for me. The storyline is a straightforward 'cuckoo in the nest' type one, in which spoilt rich girl Linda Blair is put out of joint when her cousin joins the family after her parents are killed in a car accident.
It soon transpires that said cousin has been dabbling in witchcraft, something confirmed by a put-upon college professor (a welcome role for SHADOW OF A DOUBT's Macdonald Carey). It's one of those films where nobody believes Blair's character, forcing her to take matters into her own hands. You can hardly blame them: dressing in the frumpiest clothes imaginable and saddled with an appalling 'Afro' haircut, the Blair looks like an eyesore here and her character's a real whiner.
The supernatural elements of the narrative are limited, but there's some good stuff with spooked horses and an action-packed climax that involves car chases and cat-fights, all well handled on a low budget. The twist ending was inevitable after the release of CARRIE. Watch out for some SALEM'S LOT-style effects involving cool contact lenses. SUMMER OF FEAR may not be a great film but it sure is a fun one.
People Aren't Always Who They Seem
gwnightscream12 June 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Wes Craven's 1978 horror film stars Linda Blair and Lee Purcell based on the novel, "Summer of Fear." Blair (The Exorcist) plays Rachel, a teen who has a
good life with her family, boyfriend and friends. Soon, things take a turn when her cousin, Julia (Purcell) comes to stay due to her parents dying in an auto wreck. Julia starts to win over everyone and though Rachel gets a bit jealous, she discovers that Julia is not who she seems because she's a witch. This isn't bad, Blair is great as usual and Purcell does a decent job too. If you're into supernatural horror or thrillers, give this a view.
"She's Performing Some Sort Of Black Magic, Right In My Bedroom!"...
azathothpwiggins10 March 2019
SUMMER OF FEAR opens with a literal bang, as an out of control car crashes and burns! Rachel Bryant (Linda Blair) has just lost her aunt and uncle in that explosion. When her mum and dad return from the funeral, they bring Rachel's country cousin, Julia (Lee Purcell) back with them. At first, it all goes swimmingly.
However, things take a bizarre turn when Julia and Rachel's friend, Carolyn (Fran Drescher) are attacked by Rachel's horse! Perhaps he was set off by Julia's new vest and hot pants ensemble with matching, mod hairdo! In no time, Julia has ingratiated herself with the family, and only Rachel seems to suspect that something might be amiss with their houseguest.
Oh no!
The "big dance" is imminent, and Rachel's face breaks out in what look like pepperonis! This allows Julia to go to the dance with Rachel's 12' tall boyfriend. In addition, Rachel's horse takes a terminal tumble!
Coincidence? Hmmm.
Now, with her towering boyfriend in the arms of Julia, and her horse reduced to dog chow, Julia is convinced that some genuine, Ozark mountain hoodoo might be going on. Luckily, an expert on the occult lives next door.
What are the odds? Hmmm.
Said expert helps Rachel prepare for a final showdown, when everything hits the fan! Can she possibly defeat her wretched relative?
This slab of made-for-TV cheddar is your basic supernatural yarn (cheeeze yarn?). Blair is great -as always- at being the wronged innocent, as is Purcell in her wicked role. Director Wes Craven did his best to make things suspenseful within the constraints of 1970's network television. Vintage fun for fans of tele-terror...
However, things take a bizarre turn when Julia and Rachel's friend, Carolyn (Fran Drescher) are attacked by Rachel's horse! Perhaps he was set off by Julia's new vest and hot pants ensemble with matching, mod hairdo! In no time, Julia has ingratiated herself with the family, and only Rachel seems to suspect that something might be amiss with their houseguest.
Oh no!
The "big dance" is imminent, and Rachel's face breaks out in what look like pepperonis! This allows Julia to go to the dance with Rachel's 12' tall boyfriend. In addition, Rachel's horse takes a terminal tumble!
Coincidence? Hmmm.
Now, with her towering boyfriend in the arms of Julia, and her horse reduced to dog chow, Julia is convinced that some genuine, Ozark mountain hoodoo might be going on. Luckily, an expert on the occult lives next door.
What are the odds? Hmmm.
Said expert helps Rachel prepare for a final showdown, when everything hits the fan! Can she possibly defeat her wretched relative?
This slab of made-for-TV cheddar is your basic supernatural yarn (cheeeze yarn?). Blair is great -as always- at being the wronged innocent, as is Purcell in her wicked role. Director Wes Craven did his best to make things suspenseful within the constraints of 1970's network television. Vintage fun for fans of tele-terror...
Atypical Craven, and a fun television horror flick at that
drownsoda901 July 2006
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.
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.
FEAR--NOT!
mmthos14 August 2020
Warning: Spoilers
I don't usually review TV movies, but this is too much fun.
Rachel (Linda Blair in her best Stevie Nicks wig) is hosting her mysterious long-lost cousin Julia (Lee Purcell, dead ringer for Molly Ringworm) after her parents have been violently killed in a suspicious car crash.
There are dumb scripts and then there are dumb scripts. TV tend to be dumber, and this one rates pretty low on the IQ scale:
Upon arrival, Julia asks what Rachel's parents do. Boy, she was REALLY long lost if she doesn't know what her aunt and uncle do!
Rachel replies that they're stockbrokers, "but they probably told you all that!"
Aren't you listening Rachel? She just asked what they do, so obviously no, they didn't tell her "all that"
Then she tells Julia "You can take my bed, it's more comfortable."
A couple of stockbrokers can't afford a decent guest bed?!
and so on.
Isn't it great when weird things start happening, there's always some "authority" on "the occult" conveniently on hand, just across the street, in this instance.
This authority is a professor of anthropology who just happens to have done field work in the Ozarks, where Julia's from, A weird and wonderful place, hotbed of the occult , where Julia says they had a housekeeper that practiced voodoo, which is probably where she picked it up. The professor says she has that ""distinctive" Ozark "look;"."same features, same eyes.". I hope Rachel didn't feel slighted, as she comes from half the same gene pool, but never lived in the Ozarks, which apparently changes one's physiognomy.
Miss Purcell is best in the showiest role, especially after she trades in her Amish dress for a smokin' hot pants ensemble, and in a Single White Female move par excellence, gets herself her own Stevie wig! The transformation's more than just physical, as it turns a shy introverted stranger into a seductive maneater, working her witcherly wiles on every man in sight, from Rachel's boyfriend to her brother and father--mind you, those are Julia's own cousin and uncle, respectively.
As with the script, the TV effects are not special. When Rachel locks her in a room Julia screams and throws a lot of stuff around, but nothing at the door. Apparently 'she was just throwing a tantrum, as she then simply summons her magical powers to bust out the door without breaking a sweat.
Apparently witches, like vampires in a mirror, can't be photographed, and luckily Rachel's rich parents have conveniently provided her with a darkroom to develop the proof.
Best of all is Lee Purcell with Linda Blair's "Exorcist" eyes, the most amusing thing in a generally unintendedly hilarious but thoroughly enjoyable hour and a half.
Wes Craven Made-for-TV
gavin69428 September 2015
A teenage girl (Linda Blair)'s life is turned upside down after her cousin (Lee Purcell) moves into her house, and as time goes by, she begins to suspect that she may be a practitioner of witchcraft.
One has to go into this film with the right mindset. The idea of Linda Blair being directed by Wes Craven is enticing, but do not put your hopes too high. This is the brainchild of Max A. Keller, who wrote the script, produced it, and put his daughter Nicole in the cast. Being made for TV, Craven was shackled by producers, the network and a very limited budget.
That being said, this is actually a rather decent story. Some plot elements are a tad confusing. As revelations come out in the second half, not all of them make complete sense. And even the idea of a professor who specializes in witchcraft is strange, not to mention his living across the street.
But overall this is alright for what it is. Definitely worth checking out, especially for Craven completists. It may not be his best work, but I can safely say it is not his worst.
One has to go into this film with the right mindset. The idea of Linda Blair being directed by Wes Craven is enticing, but do not put your hopes too high. This is the brainchild of Max A. Keller, who wrote the script, produced it, and put his daughter Nicole in the cast. Being made for TV, Craven was shackled by producers, the network and a very limited budget.
That being said, this is actually a rather decent story. Some plot elements are a tad confusing. As revelations come out in the second half, not all of them make complete sense. And even the idea of a professor who specializes in witchcraft is strange, not to mention his living across the street.
But overall this is alright for what it is. Definitely worth checking out, especially for Craven completists. It may not be his best work, but I can safely say it is not his worst.
Don't be fooled.
veganflimgeek12 March 2004
I am surprised that Artisan went ahead and re-released this film. I rented this from the library and honestly I am glad there was no money spent. It's BAAAAAD I mean Craven has made some bad movies like shocker and deadly friend but this movie is funny bad. Dialogue like `this is professor Jarvis our neighborhood occult expert' is actually one of the highlights.
Craven either had no ability to stage actors to seem natural or more likely he just didn't care. Linda Blair ok the woman is vegan now so I have sympathy but got she is terrible. Fran dresher has a small cameo that is noteable only that it's werid.
Wes Craven has made a few brilliant films and wrote a great novel but he just doesn't seem to care much about how his name is abused.
I want my hour and half back.
Craven either had no ability to stage actors to seem natural or more likely he just didn't care. Linda Blair ok the woman is vegan now so I have sympathy but got she is terrible. Fran dresher has a small cameo that is noteable only that it's werid.
Wes Craven has made a few brilliant films and wrote a great novel but he just doesn't seem to care much about how his name is abused.
I want my hour and half back.
Campy, Kooky Made-For-TV Fun
slasherstudios7 December 2011
After Wes Craven made the groundbreaking "Last House on the Left" and "Hills Have Eyes", he fell into a bit of a rut before finally finding his footing again with the 1984 classic "A Nightmare on Elm Street". "Summer of Fear", the film I will be looking at today, is Wes Craven's third directorial effort. It's an ambitious effort to say the least but how well does a made for TV horror movie stand up 30 years last?
The story is about a girl, Rachel Bryant (Linda Blair), who lives with her wealthy family in a nice house in the hills of Northern California. After her mother's sister, brother-in-law, and housekeeper die in a horrible car crash, the couple's daughter, Julia (Lee Purcell) comes to live with them. Julia seems a little shy if anything, but as time goes on, she begins to put an alluring spell over everyone she meets, pulling all of Rachel's family and friends away from her. After finding some odd things that belong to Julia (including a human tooth and burnt hair from Rachel's dog Trickle (for the movie the dog was changed to a horse due to Blair's love of horses and the name of the horse was Sundance instead of Trickle), Rachel begins to suspect that her cousin may be a practitioner of witchcraft, and she's hell-bent on turning Rachel's life upside down. Her open disbelieved suspicions caused her to become an outcast in front of her family.
Ahh..."Summer of Fear," what a strange movie. Wes directed this voodoo/jealously movie for ABC in the summer of 1978. Well, like I said it's a very, very weird movie. The plot has something to do with this evil girl from the south that is sent to live with Linda Blair and her family after her parents die in a car accident. Of course, she's the "cousin" that no one in the family has seen in years and that no one really seems to remember. I know, I know...predictable...but try to follow me. After she is sent to live with Linda, all hell breaks loose as this evil girl tries to take over Linda's body or something (this is never really made clear). The special effects are corny, the editing choppy, and the acting is mediocre at best (wait till you see Fran "The Nanny" Dresher as Linda Blair's nasally best friend) and yet I still kinda enjoyed this picture. It's solid, fun, campy horror that never takes itself seriously. Go into it expecting a run-of-the-mill teenage made-for-TV movie and I think you may be pleasantly surprised.
The story is about a girl, Rachel Bryant (Linda Blair), who lives with her wealthy family in a nice house in the hills of Northern California. After her mother's sister, brother-in-law, and housekeeper die in a horrible car crash, the couple's daughter, Julia (Lee Purcell) comes to live with them. Julia seems a little shy if anything, but as time goes on, she begins to put an alluring spell over everyone she meets, pulling all of Rachel's family and friends away from her. After finding some odd things that belong to Julia (including a human tooth and burnt hair from Rachel's dog Trickle (for the movie the dog was changed to a horse due to Blair's love of horses and the name of the horse was Sundance instead of Trickle), Rachel begins to suspect that her cousin may be a practitioner of witchcraft, and she's hell-bent on turning Rachel's life upside down. Her open disbelieved suspicions caused her to become an outcast in front of her family.
Ahh..."Summer of Fear," what a strange movie. Wes directed this voodoo/jealously movie for ABC in the summer of 1978. Well, like I said it's a very, very weird movie. The plot has something to do with this evil girl from the south that is sent to live with Linda Blair and her family after her parents die in a car accident. Of course, she's the "cousin" that no one in the family has seen in years and that no one really seems to remember. I know, I know...predictable...but try to follow me. After she is sent to live with Linda, all hell breaks loose as this evil girl tries to take over Linda's body or something (this is never really made clear). The special effects are corny, the editing choppy, and the acting is mediocre at best (wait till you see Fran "The Nanny" Dresher as Linda Blair's nasally best friend) and yet I still kinda enjoyed this picture. It's solid, fun, campy horror that never takes itself seriously. Go into it expecting a run-of-the-mill teenage made-for-TV movie and I think you may be pleasantly surprised.
The first dud in Wes Craven's inconsistent horror career.
BA_Harrison10 September 2017
Wes Craven's directorial career was erratic, to say the least. After the success of low-budget shockers The Last House on The Left and The Hills Have Eyes, Craven opted to pay the bills by working on this made-for-TV chiller starring a podgy Linda Blair. Bound by broadcasting regulations, the result is a tepid and predictable affair, lacking the imagination and visceral impact of the director's previous horror films.
Blair stars as teenager Rachel Bryant, whose idyllic life gradually turns into a nightmare after her pretty cousin Julia (Lee Purcell) moves into her home, her own parents having accidentally driven off the edge of a cliff. It's not long before Julia has stolen Rachel's boyfriend Mike (Jeff McCracken), who is happy to trade up, and causes further trouble by flirting with Rachel's dad (Jeremy Slate). To add insult to injury, Julia also starts to hang out with Rachel's best friend Carolyn (Fran Drescher). So when Rachel discovers that Julia might be a witch and voices her suspicions, everyone assumes it's just a case of petty jealousy. How wrong can they be?
As things unfold exactly as you imagine they will, Craven delivers a few scenes of 'mild peril' but nothing truly scary (although Blair's huge hair, the sight of the dumpy actress crammed into a nasty pink dress, and Fran Drescher's voice are somewhat disturbing). Purcell steals the show with her 'good girl/bad girl' routine, looking lovely throughout, and going full-on evil at the end with a maniacal grin and devilish contact lenses. As if all that had gone before wasn't predictable enough, the film closes with one of those silly endings that shows that the nightmare isn't over yet. Yawn.
Blair stars as teenager Rachel Bryant, whose idyllic life gradually turns into a nightmare after her pretty cousin Julia (Lee Purcell) moves into her home, her own parents having accidentally driven off the edge of a cliff. It's not long before Julia has stolen Rachel's boyfriend Mike (Jeff McCracken), who is happy to trade up, and causes further trouble by flirting with Rachel's dad (Jeremy Slate). To add insult to injury, Julia also starts to hang out with Rachel's best friend Carolyn (Fran Drescher). So when Rachel discovers that Julia might be a witch and voices her suspicions, everyone assumes it's just a case of petty jealousy. How wrong can they be?
As things unfold exactly as you imagine they will, Craven delivers a few scenes of 'mild peril' but nothing truly scary (although Blair's huge hair, the sight of the dumpy actress crammed into a nasty pink dress, and Fran Drescher's voice are somewhat disturbing). Purcell steals the show with her 'good girl/bad girl' routine, looking lovely throughout, and going full-on evil at the end with a maniacal grin and devilish contact lenses. As if all that had gone before wasn't predictable enough, the film closes with one of those silly endings that shows that the nightmare isn't over yet. Yawn.
Terrific TV thriller...
moonspinner555 February 2006
Lois Duncan's young-adult mystery novel "Summer of Fear" gets a fine, if low-budget, television treatment, capably directed by Wes Craven. Intriguing story features an appealing Linda Blair playing popular young woman and horse-rider whose family takes in her orphaned cousin--a perplexing girl who harbors secret evil powers. Craven's pacing is careful and sneaky, drawing the viewer in while mounting Blair's suspicions with just the right touch of creepy delicacy. Lee Purcell is excellent as cousin Julia, pulling off a showy role without lapsing into camp (although the make-up and special effects near the finish are somewhat cartoonish by today's standards). A compact thriller, very well done, and Blair--as always--is charming and makes her character easily identifiable to viewers.
Not bad for a 25 yr old movie.
bagman6893 December 2003
I just bought this on DVD ,under the title "Summer of Fear", for Halloween and I definetly think it was worth the $10 bucks I paid. It was the first time I'd jumped while watching a horror movie in a long time. I definetly would recommend it.
Ok movie with little suspense
lthseldy14 September 2001
I remember seeing this movie years ago and at the time liked it. Now that I rented it years later..... I don't. This movie is about a girl who's "cousin" came to live with her after her mother died in a car wreck. They start living in the same house and as time goes by strange things start to happen to the girl (Blair) and Blair soon finds out that her cousin is a witch and is out to make Blair's life a living hell by takeing away her boyfriend as well as stealing affection away from her family. There are parts in the film that I didn't understand but you have to watch the film towards the end in order to fully comprehend it all because the ending is what the whole film is about. At times the movie is slow and Blair acts her typical horror movie role as if she does not have any other movies to star in but horror movies. What really stands out about her is the wild perm in her hair that does nothing for her character. I'm sure she looks at this now and laughs. This movie could have been better if the characters were more lively.
Embarrassingly dull
davidmvining24 June 2022
Wes Craven moved from New York to Los Angeles and got offered this made for television movie project starring Linda Blair based on some minor novel by Lois Duncan. Working with a real crew and real equipment, Craven made the first film in his limited body of work that feels distinctly cinematic. It's also horribly boring and awful. I'm not the biggest fan of his first two films, but at least that grungy aesthetic was in service to some effort to entertain. This feels like the most by-the-numbers approach to adapting a distinctly uncinematic novel to the screen I've ever seen, with no effort at the script stage to actually make it work as a film.
Reading a bit about the film after it was over, I found out that Craven had in mind the earlier works of Roman Polanski, like Repulsion, when he started working on this. The idea was to create a similar sense of unbearable domestic tension around small things. Well, he failed miserably at that. I think the issue at hand is that there's nothing that the film is really building up to. For a long stretch, it just feels like a girl complaining that another girl stole her boyfriend. The sense of the witchcraft is poorly handled while there seems to be no goal in place for either of the two girls at the film's center. Things just kind of happen for ninety minutes until there's a silly horror-tinged climax.
Rachel (Linda Blair) is the daughter of stockbroker Tom (Jeremy Slate) and photographer Leslie (Carol Lawrence). She has an older brother Peter (Jeff East) and a younger brother Bobby (James Jarnigan) as well as her boyfriend and horse-riding teacher Mike (Jeff McCracken). She's a quality rider and lives comfortably on the family's small ranch in California where she's generally just pretty happy with life. Into this comes Julia (Lee Purcell), her cousin after her aunt and uncle are killed in a fiery car crash that also claimed their live-in housekeeper. Things seem wrong from the start when Rachel rides up to greet her cousin on the back of her horse Sundance, but Sundance is obviously agitated by something. Now, this introductory scene where Sundance moves back and forth in Julia's presence feels wrong and awkward. Rachel rides the horse right up to the car door and seemingly makes no effort to pull Sundance back, allowing the horse to simply clop right in front of the obviously frightened Julia. It's both too obvious and too weirdly filmed while also taking too long. This is Craven telegraphing at the beginning that something isn't right with Julia. Instead of building any kind of suspense, it deflates a fair bit.
Rachel tries to ingratiate Julia into her small circle of friends, but when she suddenly breaks out into hives the day before a big community dance, Rachel has to let Mike take Julia in her place. At the dance, Mike and Julia become an item instantly, ending the romance between Rachel and her boyfriend, all while Julia continues to sleep in Rachel's bed in her own room. Things go even worse when Sundance goes nuts at a competition and breaks his leg, necessitating putting it down, much to Rachel's lament. It seems like Julia is stealing Rachel's whole life, but the movie doesn't even really seem to notice it. That's the core fault of the film, I think.
Rachel is watching her whole life fall apart in front of her eyes. This new girl takes over her room, steals her boyfriend, becomes the favorite of her parents, and possibly even does witchcraft to kill her horse. And the movie either keeps it super, super subtle or simply does not notice that this is what's happening to this girl. I think this might be a gender perception issue. The original novel was written by a woman, but the script was written by two men and the film was directed by a man. I firmly believe that it shouldn't be any kind barrier, but the inability of the film to embrace this concept of a young woman losing her life to a female competitor is a major failing.
And that would be the tension. Is she just jealous because this prettier, nicer girl is invading her life while she just makes up stuff about Julia being a witch to make herself feel better? Or is the witchcraft real? The film never embraces any kind of ambiguity around it, though. Yes, Julia is a witch. It's not really questioned in any degree. It's just brought up and then dropped a few times, again making it feel like there's no narrative momentum. There's no build up to a reveal or a threat. It just goes on long enough to the point where the full reveal just happens, and it's silly to look at.
The explosion of action that fills the final ten minutes of the film just feels like complete nonsense. It's loud and borderline incoherent, and then it's over where we get an awkward explanation by a sheriff we've never seen before who irons out the details just in case someone lost interest an hour before and didn't realize what was going on.
Really, this is kind of embarrassing. Linda Blair is okay in it, and I think she might be the highlight of the film. That's kind of sad. I don't dislike Blair at all, but she was pretty much sleepwalking through this. And she's the highlight. Sad.
Reading a bit about the film after it was over, I found out that Craven had in mind the earlier works of Roman Polanski, like Repulsion, when he started working on this. The idea was to create a similar sense of unbearable domestic tension around small things. Well, he failed miserably at that. I think the issue at hand is that there's nothing that the film is really building up to. For a long stretch, it just feels like a girl complaining that another girl stole her boyfriend. The sense of the witchcraft is poorly handled while there seems to be no goal in place for either of the two girls at the film's center. Things just kind of happen for ninety minutes until there's a silly horror-tinged climax.
Rachel (Linda Blair) is the daughter of stockbroker Tom (Jeremy Slate) and photographer Leslie (Carol Lawrence). She has an older brother Peter (Jeff East) and a younger brother Bobby (James Jarnigan) as well as her boyfriend and horse-riding teacher Mike (Jeff McCracken). She's a quality rider and lives comfortably on the family's small ranch in California where she's generally just pretty happy with life. Into this comes Julia (Lee Purcell), her cousin after her aunt and uncle are killed in a fiery car crash that also claimed their live-in housekeeper. Things seem wrong from the start when Rachel rides up to greet her cousin on the back of her horse Sundance, but Sundance is obviously agitated by something. Now, this introductory scene where Sundance moves back and forth in Julia's presence feels wrong and awkward. Rachel rides the horse right up to the car door and seemingly makes no effort to pull Sundance back, allowing the horse to simply clop right in front of the obviously frightened Julia. It's both too obvious and too weirdly filmed while also taking too long. This is Craven telegraphing at the beginning that something isn't right with Julia. Instead of building any kind of suspense, it deflates a fair bit.
Rachel tries to ingratiate Julia into her small circle of friends, but when she suddenly breaks out into hives the day before a big community dance, Rachel has to let Mike take Julia in her place. At the dance, Mike and Julia become an item instantly, ending the romance between Rachel and her boyfriend, all while Julia continues to sleep in Rachel's bed in her own room. Things go even worse when Sundance goes nuts at a competition and breaks his leg, necessitating putting it down, much to Rachel's lament. It seems like Julia is stealing Rachel's whole life, but the movie doesn't even really seem to notice it. That's the core fault of the film, I think.
Rachel is watching her whole life fall apart in front of her eyes. This new girl takes over her room, steals her boyfriend, becomes the favorite of her parents, and possibly even does witchcraft to kill her horse. And the movie either keeps it super, super subtle or simply does not notice that this is what's happening to this girl. I think this might be a gender perception issue. The original novel was written by a woman, but the script was written by two men and the film was directed by a man. I firmly believe that it shouldn't be any kind barrier, but the inability of the film to embrace this concept of a young woman losing her life to a female competitor is a major failing.
And that would be the tension. Is she just jealous because this prettier, nicer girl is invading her life while she just makes up stuff about Julia being a witch to make herself feel better? Or is the witchcraft real? The film never embraces any kind of ambiguity around it, though. Yes, Julia is a witch. It's not really questioned in any degree. It's just brought up and then dropped a few times, again making it feel like there's no narrative momentum. There's no build up to a reveal or a threat. It just goes on long enough to the point where the full reveal just happens, and it's silly to look at.
The explosion of action that fills the final ten minutes of the film just feels like complete nonsense. It's loud and borderline incoherent, and then it's over where we get an awkward explanation by a sheriff we've never seen before who irons out the details just in case someone lost interest an hour before and didn't realize what was going on.
Really, this is kind of embarrassing. Linda Blair is okay in it, and I think she might be the highlight of the film. That's kind of sad. I don't dislike Blair at all, but she was pretty much sleepwalking through this. And she's the highlight. Sad.
Shopping for the right family
I'll take it.
lost-in-limbo19 December 2006
Rachael Bryant's cousin, Julia comes to live with her family at the country farm, after her parents where killed in a car accident. Though during her stay, strange things begin to happen, like the horse seems to lose it around Julia and men in the Rachael's life seem to fall under her spell. She tries to convince her family and friends that there's something not quite right about Julia, but she gets dismissed as nothing more but jealously.
I was quite impressed for what is was and Craven's low-budget TV feature (after such brutally raw efforts as "The Last House on the Left" and "The Hills Have Eyes") is an earnest curio, despite its timid treatment for a wider audience. This version is the international extended cut of American TV movie "Stranger in The House" and was adapted from the novel of Lois Duncan. The seductively adorable Lee Purcell definitely casts a spell over you in her hypnotic performance as the sweetly venomous cousin Julia. In the words of Cliff Richards, "She's just a devil woman. With evil on her mind. Beware the devil woman. She's gonna get you." An engrossingly likable doll face Linda Blair (who has one puffy hairdo!) is the main attraction (five years after her demonic role in "The Exorcist") and is tailor made for the part. While, it starts off slowly and the material sticks to a fundamental pattern. Craven manages to keep it interesting by drawing you in. He rallies up the ominous tension sufficiently and feed us to some black humour, but it does seem to lose that edge created earlier on by falling into predictability and nonsensical actions (plenty of rash decisions) that creep into the latter half. This is when it also finally picks up the pace and adds the (somewhat cheesy) thrills and chills to the mixture. The laughable special effects also kick in too. The way they approach the camera-work is glaringly workable and the overwhelming music score sticks to the same close-circuit cues. And throw in one of those endings. Yeah, one of those! The performances from the rest of the cast are simply okay and an early appearance by Fran Drescher wasn't too annoying. Good lord! Maybe it was because she didn't get enough screen time to provide her irritating twang.
A compellingly solid offering without being too daring or surprising, but its Purcell and Blair's performances that makes this general item passable. Just move right in!
I was quite impressed for what is was and Craven's low-budget TV feature (after such brutally raw efforts as "The Last House on the Left" and "The Hills Have Eyes") is an earnest curio, despite its timid treatment for a wider audience. This version is the international extended cut of American TV movie "Stranger in The House" and was adapted from the novel of Lois Duncan. The seductively adorable Lee Purcell definitely casts a spell over you in her hypnotic performance as the sweetly venomous cousin Julia. In the words of Cliff Richards, "She's just a devil woman. With evil on her mind. Beware the devil woman. She's gonna get you." An engrossingly likable doll face Linda Blair (who has one puffy hairdo!) is the main attraction (five years after her demonic role in "The Exorcist") and is tailor made for the part. While, it starts off slowly and the material sticks to a fundamental pattern. Craven manages to keep it interesting by drawing you in. He rallies up the ominous tension sufficiently and feed us to some black humour, but it does seem to lose that edge created earlier on by falling into predictability and nonsensical actions (plenty of rash decisions) that creep into the latter half. This is when it also finally picks up the pace and adds the (somewhat cheesy) thrills and chills to the mixture. The laughable special effects also kick in too. The way they approach the camera-work is glaringly workable and the overwhelming music score sticks to the same close-circuit cues. And throw in one of those endings. Yeah, one of those! The performances from the rest of the cast are simply okay and an early appearance by Fran Drescher wasn't too annoying. Good lord! Maybe it was because she didn't get enough screen time to provide her irritating twang.
A compellingly solid offering without being too daring or surprising, but its Purcell and Blair's performances that makes this general item passable. Just move right in!
It became Funny, instead of spooky
tamosoeka5 September 2017
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.
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.
Read the book first
Mark-1294 May 2000
Stranger in Our house is a pretty good film as TV movies go. The script takes some of the best elements from Lois Duncan's great book, Summer of Fear. Linda Blair shines as the heroine, but Lee Purcell is terribly miscast as the suspicious Stranger in the House. Jenna Otrga would have been the perfect choice in a modern adaption. As stated before, the script follows the story, but loses much of the subtle shades of horror present in the novel that would have been great on screen in a better adaption with location work more in line with the novel.
Aaargh, it's Fran Drescher!! Kill it! Kill it!
Coventry23 April 2008
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.
Linda Blair as a teen at a ranch in Southern Cal suspects her cousin of being a witch
Wuchakk28 February 2022
A tragically orphaned cousin from the Ozarks (Lee Purcel) comes to live with the wealthy Bryant family at a small ranch in SoCal. The teen daughter (Linda Blair) starts to discern something sinister about her. Havoc ensues.
"Summer of Fear" (1978), aka "Stranger in Our House," is a drama/thriller with elements of horror. Although a TV production, it was directed by Wes Craven and is highlighted by winsome Blair, who was 18 during shooting in 1977. The plot is similar to the future "Poison Ivy" (1992), but with the witchcraft angle.
In the 70s, films like this took the low-key approach and were the better for it. When supernatural elements finally break out, it's actually shocking because up to that point the audience is lulled into a rather relaxed state due to the mundane drama. The original version of "Carrie" is a good example; compare the 1976 version to the 2013 version: the telekinesis in the latter is so amped up it's almost a parody.
Fran Drescher is notable in a peripheral role in one of her earliest works; she was 20 at the time of shooting.
The movie runs around 1 hour, 39 minutes, and was shot at Hidden Hills, California, which is about 20 miles west of Hollywood and just north of the Santa Monica Mountains.
GRADE: B.
"Summer of Fear" (1978), aka "Stranger in Our House," is a drama/thriller with elements of horror. Although a TV production, it was directed by Wes Craven and is highlighted by winsome Blair, who was 18 during shooting in 1977. The plot is similar to the future "Poison Ivy" (1992), but with the witchcraft angle.
In the 70s, films like this took the low-key approach and were the better for it. When supernatural elements finally break out, it's actually shocking because up to that point the audience is lulled into a rather relaxed state due to the mundane drama. The original version of "Carrie" is a good example; compare the 1976 version to the 2013 version: the telekinesis in the latter is so amped up it's almost a parody.
Fran Drescher is notable in a peripheral role in one of her earliest works; she was 20 at the time of shooting.
The movie runs around 1 hour, 39 minutes, and was shot at Hidden Hills, California, which is about 20 miles west of Hollywood and just north of the Santa Monica Mountains.
GRADE: B.
Re-discover Wes Craven in his earlier work!
MarieGabrielle25 March 2006
In the 70's and 80's this film was shown a multitude of times for late-night TV. I had seen it several times, and am amused that it has now been re-packaged, to dupe a whole new generation. Yet, it is not a bad movie, if you can get past the special effects.
Yes, Linda Blair has that weird perm-thing going on; she is the daughter who suspects something is amiss with her cousin, played by Lee Purcell. The happy family as well as Ms. Blair's horse become haunted by something demonic- something unsettling. Carol Lawrence plays Blair's mother, and there is an amusing scene where Purcell flirts with Jeff East, Ms. Blair's father.
As this story was written by Lois Duncan, upon whose stories "I Know What You Did Last Summer" as well as "Killing Mr. Griffin" were turned into film, one can at least enjoy the story; and Wes Craven does an interesting job of directing this. I was never a huge fan, (I must admit that "Candyman" is a guilty pleasure) but recently saw "The Hills Have Eyes", and he does have nuance and depth which deserve mention.
Even if you are not a true horror fan, this film can be categorized as fear/suspense. If you like Wes Craven, you will definitely find this interesting, and the 70's nostalgia is an added plus!.
Yes, Linda Blair has that weird perm-thing going on; she is the daughter who suspects something is amiss with her cousin, played by Lee Purcell. The happy family as well as Ms. Blair's horse become haunted by something demonic- something unsettling. Carol Lawrence plays Blair's mother, and there is an amusing scene where Purcell flirts with Jeff East, Ms. Blair's father.
As this story was written by Lois Duncan, upon whose stories "I Know What You Did Last Summer" as well as "Killing Mr. Griffin" were turned into film, one can at least enjoy the story; and Wes Craven does an interesting job of directing this. I was never a huge fan, (I must admit that "Candyman" is a guilty pleasure) but recently saw "The Hills Have Eyes", and he does have nuance and depth which deserve mention.
Even if you are not a true horror fan, this film can be categorized as fear/suspense. If you like Wes Craven, you will definitely find this interesting, and the 70's nostalgia is an added plus!.
Summer of Fear
Toronto857 July 2013
It's a 'Summer of Fear' for Rachel and her family when cousin Julia comes to live with them. Following the death of her parents, Julia moves to the countryside to stay with her extended family. Almost immediately after moving in, Rachel's life begins to unravel. Her parents begin to favour Julia over her, her beloved horse dies AND her boyfriend falls for her cousin Julia. Instead of chalking these horrible occurrences up to coincidence, Rachel begins to do some investigating. It's then that she discovers that Julia is in fact a witch, and is not her real cousin! With no one believing her, can Rachel save her family and herself from death at the hands of witchcraft?
'Summer of Fear' tells a good story and is enjoyable to watch, but can't get past it's "Made for TV" label. The problem with it is that it drags a bit too much (like a TV movie does), so if you don't have the patience you won't get to the really fun parts (which are at the middle-end frame). I did however think it was a good horror flick. The acting was stellar from Linda Blair as Rachel, and Lee Purcell as the witch Julia. It's frustrating to watch Julia get away with everything and basically take Rachel's place. The movie does a good job of making you root for Rachel, which is good. Sometimes a lead can be annoying, or the villain is so entertaining that you turn on the "good girl". 'Summer of Fear' however really makes you feel bad for Rachel.
I'd recommend this one for sure. It moves a little slow at the start and throughout some bits in the middle, but Blair and Purcell put in good performances and the story is a good one. There are some good location shots and creepy moments once "Julia" completely transforms into the witch she is. Check it out!
6/10
'Summer of Fear' tells a good story and is enjoyable to watch, but can't get past it's "Made for TV" label. The problem with it is that it drags a bit too much (like a TV movie does), so if you don't have the patience you won't get to the really fun parts (which are at the middle-end frame). I did however think it was a good horror flick. The acting was stellar from Linda Blair as Rachel, and Lee Purcell as the witch Julia. It's frustrating to watch Julia get away with everything and basically take Rachel's place. The movie does a good job of making you root for Rachel, which is good. Sometimes a lead can be annoying, or the villain is so entertaining that you turn on the "good girl". 'Summer of Fear' however really makes you feel bad for Rachel.
I'd recommend this one for sure. It moves a little slow at the start and throughout some bits in the middle, but Blair and Purcell put in good performances and the story is a good one. There are some good location shots and creepy moments once "Julia" completely transforms into the witch she is. Check it out!
6/10
Oh Wesley...
barneyrootbeer26 February 2004
What can old Barney say except this film was real bad. It's a TV movie and Craven directs it like one - big long takes of people spouting the most truly hilarious dialogue you can imagine... It is funny to think this was the same guy that made Nightmare on Elmstreet.
The entire film is shot on the brightest of days and this serious doesn't help in building any terror but strangely it does enhance that play on teenage anxiety, jealousy and insecurity and I guess this is what keeps you watching to the end - you can identify with that position of being a teen again and all the terror (and boy oh boy that's real terror) that goes with it - if only the dialogue, plotting and direction (sorry Wes) wasn't so bad. Oh and the acting...don't get me started!
The entire film is shot on the brightest of days and this serious doesn't help in building any terror but strangely it does enhance that play on teenage anxiety, jealousy and insecurity and I guess this is what keeps you watching to the end - you can identify with that position of being a teen again and all the terror (and boy oh boy that's real terror) that goes with it - if only the dialogue, plotting and direction (sorry Wes) wasn't so bad. Oh and the acting...don't get me started!
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
