Horror (2003)

SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

After this film's godawful, multi-coloured opening credits I really didn't think that matters could get much worse, but they do: Dante Tomaselli's Horror is quite possibly the most incoherent piece of garbage I have ever seen, the story veering erratically from one scene to another with absolutely no attempt at narrative cohesion, the acting uniformly terrible, and the 'special effects' laughable. I have a pretty high tolerance for bad movies, but Horror had my finger hovering over the off button more than most.To give you an idea of how bad this film is, a goat gives by far the best performance in the film, and probably would have done a better job at directing had it been given the chance. There's a moment when a guy turns blue with cold—I've seen better face painting at a kid's party. To be honest, I didn't understand what the hell what going on, but I really didn't care enough to try.If you're determined to give this film a go, I suggest trying my drinking game to help make the experience a little less painful: take a shot every time the goat appears and whenever a door swings shut by itself, but don't be surprised that, even when totally s**t-faced, this film proves to be a complete and utter bore.

I'm no horror connoisseur but I've seen a lot from all kinds of time periods and genres. This one is just a head shaker. Soooo much wrong with it. The story and the plot do not make sense. And if the ending is trying to make you go "oh NOW I understand!" it doesn't work! Someone criticized the acting. I actually thought it was pretty decent. I mean when you have a REALLY weak script and even weaker dialogue as an actor what are you going to do (besides not take the role ;) ) ? I really could go on and on about how many flaws there were - so many big and little things including the gun shot sounds, the moments when you were suppose to be afraid, the motivation of the characters, the anti-climactic end of each of the characters, the horrible horrible dialogue that seems like it was just slapped together at the last minute. But anyway, I didn't give it a one star because the special effects were generally good (except for the pumpkin heads... but then again, there's only so much you can do when the script calls for "diabolical pumpkin heads" or whatever) and I did really love The Amazing Kreskin.

Tomaselli has essentially made every horror movie he has ever wanted to make by making HORROR (duh... I think the title says it all). Pretty darn good for a rookie director. But just like Lynch.... C'mon man don't make me watch the movie more than twice! It has now been viewed in my house 3 times, and guess what? THERE IS NO MEANING!!!!!! JUST FUN! YOU MUST SEE SUICIDE CIRCLE... YEAH YOU

I was glad to get a hold of the DVD of this movie and now own it. Although the dialogues in this film are very thin nevertheless the story was solid and it's very much like an experimental Stephen King type film. The stories take place at different times when some youngsters escape from a rehab and their guilt kills them all. Interesting seeing the Amazing Kreskin in his first acting role and a nice performance by Christie Sanford as the crazy Mrs. Salo who very much resembles a cross between Linda Blair and Karen Black. Oh and of course a great and effective cameo by Miss Felissa Rose as the Art Therapist and it was one of the most effective roles she had throughout the film and I couldn't see anyone else playing her role and it goes to show that no matter how small the role is you can easily leave an impression in the film and Rose received alot of exposure for her character.