House of Sin (2011) User Reviews (3)

Sado-Mage-ochism

[NoDakTatum · 4/10 · 6 October 2023]

Break out the leather and lace, writer and film maker Philip Gardiner has a sparse story to tell you. Paul (Nik Spencer) is the handyman at a small hotel in London. The guests there are not your typical travellers, but people society would think of as misfits thanks to their desire to be themselves. The hotel's proprietor, the Mage (John Symes), allows people to do what they want, whether it be self-humiliation, transvestism, voyeurism, or whatnot. The Mage is odd in that he never seems to answer a question directly. He talks in philosophical riddles, with enough charisma to turn even a middle-aged Christian woman into a lesbian with just a conversation. Paul is drawn into this netherworld, despite his lack of understanding about the residents' motivations, until he finds himself buying a small place and starting a refuge of his own, with dire results.

While Gardiner tries to bring back the sadomasochism exploitation genre singlehandedly, he goes about it in a frustrating way. Despite the plot summary, not much happens in the film. Paul is intrigued by the Mage, who controls everyone around him, but the viewer's curiosity about the Mage is never resolved to any satisfaction. Many storylines are dropped, since the film is an excuse to bring on some songs from independent bands and give them some play. Gardiner's directorial technique is rich with camera tricks and effects, which does detract from the odd scenes. Another detraction is the almost constant nudity on display. The female cast are undressed for most of the film, and while they do perform as characters, Gardiner goes for the butt and boob shots over characterization. An entire scene is devoted to a new girl entering the establishment, only to have the character dropped by the very next scene. After Paul opens his new place, what happens to the original Mage's tenants? I was more appreciative of the eye candy than Gardiner's screenplay, as he really could have done something about cult worship and idolatry, but in a sleazy and non-preachy way if need be. The sound quality is terrible, with Paul's narration being twice as loud as the dialogue scenes. The different songs are pretty good, though. "House of Sin" ends up being a film of half-explored ideas, softcore porn, and nude chicks- things you can find online with the press of a button.

FREE AT LAST

[nogodnomasters · 1/10 · 7 May 2019]

Normally I give films like this 5 stars just for the nudity, which they should of just had without all the stupid commentary. The film focuses on a converted hotel where people (young girls) can "find their true selves" by engaging in a sexual fantasy. A guest of the house provides us with his annoying insights. The establishment is run by a man known as "The Mage." He has all the wisdom and belly lard one acquires from playing video games all the time.

The film is about 70 minutes with a 30 minute feature on making the short film. I would imagine if you watched the film for the naked girls, you'll be watching this too, but don't expect a story line or anything that has meaning outside of the circle of people who made this production. It is bad soft core.

Worst of the worst homemade movie

[Leofwine_draca · 1/10 · 24 February 2017]

HOUSE OF SIN is a picture written by directed by Philip Gardiner, the man responsible for putting out a string of very low budgeted documentaries exploring esoteric subjects. He also directs found footage horror films and the like when given the opportunity. The films I've seen of his have been pretty poor, it has to be said, but HOUSE OF SIN is undoubtedly the worst, with the worst non-idea for a film ever.

The story is about an ordinary house that's being run as a brothel by a sleazy middle-aged guy who enjoys spanking women. That's the entire story. The whole thing is a gratuitous exercise to show off as much nudity as possible from the female cast members. The whole cast look like people who've just been grabbed off the average street and thrown into the movie with no discernible talent for, well, anything.

The entire film is devoid of talent, embarrassingly so, with static camera-work and ad-libbed dialogue throughout. There's no narrative structure, nothing worthy at all, just some of the silliest attempts at eroticism you'll ever witness (the cream doughnut eating scene is cringe-worthy as is the later strip scene with the woman on the bed addressing the camera).