The other night one of the cable channels was airing Zak Bagan’s “Demon House- Uncut.” I thought what the heck. I’ve heckled him and this project before* so why not catch it.
*For those who do not follow this blog regularly, I’ve called out Zak Bagans for his unprofessional demeanor, which he has acknowledged and apologized for, and his lying and originally his false footage. He’s never admitted to either of those. I’ve also stated in another blog that I found it interesting that he buys a house, films it for money, and then bulldozes it to the ground. Science is nothing without repeat validations of the same experiment under the same conditions.
First, you can tell Zak majored in film. It’s not a poorly executed documentary. I am not a fan of flashback style timelines which alternate throughout the story. I don’t know if it was because he had to reach out to so many different people at so many other times that making it just a straight timeline would throw the movie off but I’m just not a fan. As Morty says, “We should start our stories where they begin, not start them where they get interesting.”
Second, I give Zak credit for working in all the skeptical stuff that other people have said, like it’s a hoax being done for money. In fact, there is a scene where Zak finds out the family he was originally working with has signed a major motion picture deal with some movie company and has their lawyer leave him a nasty voicemail. Zak, however, stands his ground.
However, in typical Zak style he takes the seemingly mundane and works it into some sort of melodramatic proof of the paranormal. A cameraman on crew has a meltdown after allegedly seeing the devil, and claims to be attacked … then his life “goes downhill” as he gets “666” tattoos. Or maybe that’s just something he got into after he got fired from the film.
Several people associated with this case have a string of bad luck after being in the house from snowmobile accidents to internal organ failure. Zak is convinced it’s all related to the house and its demons, but people get old, get sick, have accidents. I’m fairly certain you could make the same claim about several things if you had the right amount of people involved.
As for evidence, he has some and that alone is a good start. Not every location can provide evidence regardless of its reputation. He has testimony from cops and social workers. He has a black mass, mysterious eyes, and random noises like dogs barking and women talking. You may also have seen the “exorcism” tape that was leaked a few years ago as well. I’m not gonna knock the evidence, as it appears strong, but I am slightly disappointed that based on the reputation that the house can make a child crawl up a wall backwards in front of multiple eye witnesses it’s strange to only have a few things. But I know, hauntings aren’t one trick ponies that can perform on command.
I am not recommending this film as I don’t find it to be anything extraordinary, but if its on and you catch it, I wouldn’t condemn you for it, either.