Too much about the plot just didn't add up, the writing was bad, some of the scenes were cringey and awkward,

While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

Blistering performances.

I liked this film - it's got the idea of a spooky haunted house, the occult incantations and a ghoul that has been resurrected. The idea of a film crew in a place supposedly haunted is nothing new to the 1970s - take a look at Boris Karloff's "Frankenstein 1970 (1958 film)". But both movies are different just the film crew and the fact both are horror films are the only similarities between them. Speaking of ghouls and Boris Karloff, check out Karloff's "The Ghoul (1933)".This film, "House of Seven Corpses", is not all that bad of a film - if you like the 1970s style of horror and films that pay homage to (or throwbacks to) the earlier films. Sure this film is a bit slow, that I will admit, but it does build to a pretty good last 25 minutes. The one disappointment with the ending is they do not give us a final scene where things are sorta summoned up and explained a bit more to the viewer, otherwise it's just a pretty good silly horror film - nonsense to enjoy.7/10

For Horror Completest only, this is not an awful attempt at making a low-budget Horror Movie about the making of a low-budget Horror Movie. But it is too confusing in Plot development and is an erratic and disjointed delivery of an incoherent Storyline.This does have a few ironic Scenes but the Movie within the Movie contains the best Violent and disturbing Horror Movie turns and since it is known that these are being filmed there is a total lack of scariness.There are elements of a good First-Draft Script here that seems abandon and rushed. The layers are thin and the in-comprehensiveness is just too much to make this an enjoyable Entertainment. Not enough incompetence to make it a Good Bad Movie and not enough Professionalism to make it anything more than a lifeless look inside the backside of B-Movie Making.

Ostensibly this is a Z-grade DTV horror film.But with lines like :"It's easy to die, I have, many times"and"Why are you reading that book ?" "Because it makes the plot more interesting"and"You made your way in here, now you can make your way out again !" (after he leads a man into the basement)(and take a listen to what they chant)it's not that clear what this film, made in the era known for post-structuralism, is actually about, or whether its just bad film-making. The acting is atrocious, but some actors I know, so are they hamming it up ?An old house, cut obviously with a contemporary dwelling, is the site of murders. A (bad) film is made in the grounds and the story replays again.

A director and his crew head out to the isolated Beal mansion, to make a low-budget horror film about the seven mysterious deaths of the Beal family that have occurred there in the last century. Even with warnings by the caretaker, the director pays no attention to the supposedly cursed house. One of the crew find a book titled Tibetan Book of the Dead, and use some of the passages from it for their script. But in doing so, when red they raise a ghoul from its grave.Boring, confusing and tacky all rolled up into one, equals this penniless midnight horror production. What feels like an eternity, it just never seems to get going or demonstrate anything effective from somewhat decent ideas. Even though director Paul Harrison's clunky, tensionless direction did construct a couple eerie, moody and atmospheric set-pieces. But laziness did set it early. The whole film within a film structure takes up most of the movie and in this time little to nothing happens of great interest. Nor is it fun. Think of Bob Clark's "Children Shouldn't Play with Dead Things (1972)", and now we've got older actors in the part. However I found "Seven Corpses" to be inferior. The script early on has some cutting wit abound, before it ends up being drab, predictable and left with many unfulfilled possibilities. The cheap foundation involving limited sets didn't help matters either, but the mansion's dreary, dark appearance had a creepy air to it. Performances from a recognizable b-cast is mainly rigid. John Carradine in small part mainly lurks about. John Ireland plays a hot-headed director, Faith Domergue's washed-up actress demands attention and Charles Macaulay hams it up. The slow grinding premise is crossed between "Ten Little Indians" and your usual zombie set-up. However its not all that engaging, even with its occult and supernatural edge. Hell they even throw in some graveyard action, with no prevail. When the rotting ghoul makes its appearance… finally, but a bit late. It does get a little better, if very baffling. Just like the inspired opening, the ending is deliciously downbeat. To bad in between, it constantly drags. Continuity in many scenes comes across non-existent, and the death scenes are more exciting and bloodier (but indeed poorly executed) in the movie they're making, then what actually happens to them when the zombie appears. The generic music score flounders on with its shuddery, but frank Gothic cues, and the camera-work is blandly staged with a lack of imagination. Shoot and frame. Shoot and frame. Job done. That's a wrap.