Halloween Night (2006)

The greatest movie ever!

Highly Overrated But Still Good

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

For The Asylum Halloween Night is not too bad, they have certainly done much worse. Even with that taken into account, Halloween Night is still not a good movie. There are some things that are done reasonably, some of the daylight scenes are shot nicely, the music is a good mix of jaunty and eerie, Scot Nery does bravely as the one character that we come close to rooting for and there are some gory and imaginative slasher death scenes(honourable mention must go to the hanger death which is just hilarious). There have been worse-looking movies from The Asylum, but the special effects are poorly rendered, the editing is sloppy for much of the movie and some scenes especially the first 10-15 minutes are really amateurishly shot. Chris Vale's make-up is appropriately hideous considering what happens to him, but he looks too much of a zombie and some have already said. The acting is pretty dire from almost everybody, Nery is the best of the lot but then we have Rebekah Kochan overacts her rather shallow character and Derek Osedach mumbles his way through his lines and not much else. The characters are exceedingly annoying and shallow with non-existent character development, the one exception is Chris Vale but he is not much different from similar characters from similar movies. The dialogue is dumb and just painful to listen to, making something like the worst Disney Channel movie seem like Casablanca comparatively. The story is even more of a problem, that it's mind-numbingly ridiculous, painfully predictable and deathly dull is one thing but we also have a complete lack of tension, thrills sense of horror/terror(mainly because of the characters' interactions and expressions being so blank) and suspense, situations and interactions are really contrived and implausible, and there is a heavy reliance on drawn-out done-to-death clichés that are marred even further by being played far too straight. The ending is inept in every way, and if you're finding it difficult to buy or swallow don't blame yourself, you won't be the only one. In conclusion, could have been worse but rather mediocre, not the terrifying story that the cover advertised. 4/10 Bethany Cox

It's too bad that the makers of "Halloween Night" didn't submit the cover art to their DVD to IMDb. It's awesome: an evil looking jack-o-lantern has a hand gripping a butcher knife coming out of the top of it. The hand is covered with pumpkin guts which, if you look closely, has the bodies of the killer's victims blended into it. It is far and away the best thing about the movie.But now, if you will, consider the rest of the DVD box. It claims to be based on a true story. The plot has a young boy see his mom raped and murdered in 1982. He is horribly burned in the attack, but ten years later he escapes from an asylum and returns to his home, where a huge Halloween party is going on, steals a costume from a victim, and infiltrates the party. Because the party involves a huge prank, no one realizes he's actually a killer, even as he goes around murdering partygoers.So...based on a true story, huh? Apparently one of the producers used to throw Halloween parties involving pranks, and once someone escaped from an asylum while one of his parties was going on. But the escapee never came it to the party and no one was actually killed, making the 'based on a true story' claim even more meaningless than usual. It's kind of like me making a movie where I marry Sarah Michelle Gellar and say it's based on a true story because we were both alive at the same time. Sub-moronic.The cover art also says, "In 1982, Christopher Vail was sent away after his family was brutally murdered...10 years later, on Halloween night, he returned". The back cover elaborates: "Based on the terrifying true story that started it all! Based on the actual events on Halloween night, 1982, an inmate of a maximum security medical facility escapes after brutally murdering two guards. Upon returning to the house when he was born, he goes on a killing spree that will make him Southern California's greatest mass murderer".And let's break it down. The true story that started what all, exactly? If the events occurred in 1982 or 1992, that's still years after such films as "Halloween" or "Friday The 13th" used similar story lines, so I doubt it inspired them. And again, nothing like this ever actually happened, so how is he Southern California's greatest mass murderer? And why limit it just to Southern Cali; why not just say California since the whole thing is a lie anyway?Most confusing is the fact that the film, according to everything the cover art claims, takes place in 1992. Yet everyone drives modern cars and uses cell phones and laptops of models which were not around in 1992. There's a lame reference to Melissa Etheridge when two lesbians take the screen; the singer didn't actually come out until after the release of 1993's 'Yes I Am' album.Some other things:The killer (supposedly burned, clearly wearing a bad mask) stuffs a rag into a girl's mouth but doesn't tape over it, yet the girl is unable to easily push it out with her tongue.A body is hidden in a closet; someone then boards over the door frame and covers it with what appears to be contact paper. Despite the fact it doesn't match the pattern of the rest of the wall, sticks out a good three inches from the rest of the wall, and has a smelly, decomposing corpse in it, no one notices it for ten years. I would assume, since two people were murdered there, a cop might have noticed it at some point.When a girl taking a bath has her throat slit, blood dribbles out of a make-up appliance on her neck which doesn't even match her natural skin tone. Yet two seconds later, the tub is filled with blood.A blonde bimbo is somehow able to disarm a cop and shoot at someone over his shoulder before he can react. In addition, most of the gunshots leave exit wounds that splatter the walls but have no entry wounds.The cops set up roadblocks and have photos of the escaped killer, but never think to check his old house to see if he might be there.As for the rest of the film? It was filmed pretty well and had a couple of decent effects shots. But there is zero suspense, the acting is simply atrocious (I'm talking sub-porn level here, which makes sense because I'm guessing most of the actresses came straight from that industry), and the film's tone veers between boring and improbable (my favorite scene has one the lesbians, while naked, kicking the killer's ass). Asylum Home Entertainment is quickly becoming to go-to company for really bad, cheap rip-offs of better movies, and "Halloween Night" shows why.

As I cruised thought the video store seeking entertainment on a dull night I happened upon Halloween Night. Not being a big fan of b movies I almost passed it by(and now wished I did) after reading it's plot summary and thought how similar it sounded to the plot of Halloween. But it's sell point to me was that it was based on true events. Well after seeing the documentary of what those "true events" were a party a prank and an escaped mental patient who actually never was a guest at the party. That being the case most movies should use the caption of based on true events for example sitting down or talking with friends or renting a bad (and I use this term loosely for this "film") horror film to make a film. The makers of this film must have known it was bad to use that term to try and sell the film. The acting bad. The girlfriend looked like a reject from a bad porn flick. Appenently a prank was pulled on anyone who watched this. I felt cheated. Maybe Asylum should go into making lesbian porn flicks which seems to be what they are dare I say good at.

I have to agree. The guy who plays "David" in this movie is one of the worse actors I have ever seen. The effects were good, the storyline was OK, but the acting really sucked for this guy. Even the killer, Chris Vale, did a better acting job than this David character and he didn't even have any dialog in the movie. Shows how bad of an actor this David character really was. I have noticed that the guy who plays David has directed a few B-movies. I think this guy should just stick to directing and leave the acting to the professionals because he totally get a thumbs down for me. The other characters in the movie did an OK job. Now, the woman who plays David's girlfriend, Shannon, her acting was OK, up to the part where she gets tied up and starts squealing like a pig. That was the annoying part of the movie. But everyone else in this movie did pretty fair as actors.