Some of life’s scariest presents come in the prettiest packages, and the proof is in 616 Wilford Lane. Does a house remember the past? Can former horrors resurrect themselves to wreak havoc on new, naive unsuspecting tenants? Well in horror films the answer is ALWAYS yes, and 616 Wilford Lane is no different in that regard. However, the film claims its unique space in the horror house landscape with its original ending and overall decent storyline (despite its painful shortcomings). 

Jim Van Patten (John Littlefield) is grieving the loss of his wife and the solution (naturally) is to relocate his two teenage daughters Randy (Jessica Chancellor) and Staci (Alyson Gorske) to quaint Auburn, California to start anew. They move into an opulent home to forget their woes, but the woes of the previous owners linger and are resurfacing to turn this devastated family’s chance at a new dream into an inescapable nightmare. 

In general, this is an overplayed cliche: a family looking to make a change comes to some small town and picks the one haunted house in the neighborhood, and shortly after moving in, supernatural horrors begin to take place. Where 616 Wilford Lane departs from the norm, is its original story arc and ending. The standard story fodder exists (creepy neighbors, rebellious/promiscuous teenagers, and a seemingly incompetent police force), but the final 10 minutes of the film give all these customary storylines a new spin. I will say now the spin may be polarizing, some may derive a lot of joy and relief (since it answers many of the gripes/questions raised I raised), and some may consider it a cheap way to explain the story. Either way, it can’t be argued that 616 Wilford Lane was a new take on a genre worn thin with repeats. 

Though 616 Wilford Lane’s triumph is in its originality, its failings lie in awkward dialogue and shaky plot points. Some of the dialogue is cheesy and forced, and I would like to point out that the dialogue between Randy and Staci and their father was especially unbelievable. The family archetypes of wild rebellious daughters and the distraught single parent are a bit overplayed here and the dialogue between the two parties was unbelievable to the point that it became occasionally distracting. And certain plot points seem shaky at best and at worst make no sense at all. For example, Jim is in the market for a $250,000 home and is upgraded to a $2,500,000 home. I’m no mathemetician but if your budget is a quarter of a million dollars, a home that is literally 900% higher than your original budget seems astronomically out of the question. 

Overall 616 Wilford Lane was an entertaining 86 minutes. There are chuckle-worthy moments, a couple of good scares, and a fairly interesting story. Its shortcomings are present, but a little suspension of disbelief goes a long way. 616 Wilford Lane will be available On Demand on May 18th. 

6 out of 10