Benutzerrezensionen

Stuart Gordon's "Castle Freak" was shlocky but entertaining and low-key charming horror romp of the 90's that got a 6/10 from adult me, and it also possesses a considerable amount of personal nostalgia as it was one of the first horror movies I ever saw, peeking through the doors when dad was watching it on VHS. I also happen to be an admirer of H. P. Lovecraft and his ever-reaching influence on the genre, but let me tell you, I believe that both Lovecraft and Gordon would have a lot to say on this here "bold reimagining", may the old ones bless their souls.

There are two prominent, noticeable changes between both "Castle Freak" movies, firstly, the remake/reimagining has added even more gore, gorified perversion and simplistic, cheap vulgarity with lack of any real atmosphere. Eventually, if not for the Lovecraft angle, it feels like yet another cheap "Wrong Turn" installment. Personally, a horror which deliberately prioritizes being offensive - overuse the shock factor - doesn't work nearly as well as those with more investment in story/characters and atmosphere, that use violence as a spice, an added value, and to a much bigger effect. Filmmakers behind "Castle Freak" most definitely knew what they were doing, so at least that's good. Did I already mention all the needlessly inserted soft-core porn scenes? Secondly, there's a lot more Lovecraft in the remake. And it's not good - hear me out though. Before getting to watch "Castle Freak", I had gathered that it will have more story, more Lovecraft lore, Cthulhu mythos, and that people like it. I was definitely excited, for Lovecraft cinema is slowly picking up pace, thanks to successful and awesome adaptations like "The Color Out of Space". When the 100 minutes went by and the credits started rolling, as a fan of all things Lovecraft, I was truly disappointed and almost frustrated. Did it have more lore? Yes. Was it completely void of cosmic horror vibe, lovecraftian atmosphere or anything even remotely spiritually similar to Lovecraft's style and nature? Yes. Did the lore feel forced in, because of the dissimilar modernized b-shlock horror background, and the mere sketch of a character cheese that "The Professor" was? Consequently, did some themes felt disrespected and infused with unintentional humor? Also yes.

As You can see, I'm not too happy. Having said all that, "Castle Freak", for the general viewer, is a potentially fun horror flick, provided you're into gore (practical) and perversion, the usual typical melodrama, and lots of subpar comedy, the intentional or unintentional nature of which is not always readable. All-around a low-budget feature, but decent and fluid enough when it comes to cinematography, production design, locations and such. Crisper, more colorful and, well, modern, of course, but I can't say it provides serious competition for Stuart Gordon's 1995 "Castle Freak", even in the technical fields. Like most elements of "Castle Freak", acting is also an inconsistent wave, with the highlight reasonably belonging to Rebecca Whateley played by Clair Catherine, to whom it's the first leading role, from just two credits on IMDb. I was looking forward to see Jake Horowitz whose performance in "The Vast of Night" blew me away a little, and perhaps it was the passive aggressive antagonistic nature of his character, or the fact that "Castle Freak" was likely filmed earlier, but I didn't particularly enjoy his presence this time around.

They are selling it as "A bold reimagining of a horror classic", I guess perhaps they are defending what came out of it all. Bold it may be, but via cheap (and I don't mean literally) methods and loss of spirit. It's a primitively entertaining movie with very little heart. Guaranteed fun for lovers of the 80's, gore, B flicks, shlock/trash cinema etc. My rating: 4/10.

This movie has one of the most awesome filming locations you can hope for, a legit massive castle. The scenery is absolutely fantastic if you like that sort of thing, I wonder how they got the license to shoot in this place.

Unfortunately the movie just isn't good. The acting is below average, the plot is very thin, and they try to throw in a Lovecraft theme at the end that doesn't really make sense. Really none of the plot makes sense...because there isn't much of a plot at all.

There is boobs though for those that are interested. And they are very nice boobs. They add absolutely nothing to the plot but they are there for those who are interested. The FX is actually quite good as is the film quality, but unfortunately it's just not that great of a movie. I realize I didn't discuss the actual plot...that's because there really isn't is one and anything I said would be a spoiler. Other than the nice boobs it was a meh.

Nothing happens for at least an hour twenty minutes in. Very boring. I don't think they thought this one out. Maybe something will happen in the last 19 minutes

If you have low expectations, are you allowed to be disappointed? On the plus side locations scout is incredible! Hats off to you sir.

This is one of those films were right away you know it's not going to be good. Mostly it's about a blind girl wandering around a castle (we know she's blind because she wears sunglasses all the time). I saw review that called this a "reimagining" and I only imagine it's what I would create if I wanted a horrible movie. Don't waste your time move on to something else.

That's what I get from this movie, even a freak need sex, omg. Low quality content of this totally.

I didn't like the original as i felt sorry for the freak n ther isn't any tension, suspense, scare factor or bodycount in it. I enjoyed this remake cos it has some body count n this time they gave the true demonic/evil angle to the freak. This one too is devoid of tension n suspense but has beautiful boobs of beautiful babes. It has that sleazy 80s horror vibe. The other actors r just added for the bodycount effect. The freak having sex will remind viewers of the segment Jennifer from Masters of Horror.

The beautiful college kids, the tough guy, the black guy, the glamorous bimbos, and the guy that is the nerd with the huge joke glasses to depict he is the one with education! as they narrate the storyline throughout in monotone dialogue to ensure we can keep with this oh so intricate yarn (not) and then low and behold the Albanian accents from actors from west los angeles! special effects created kids in a school science lab in their lunch breaks, a script that is hilarious but isnt meant to be. and a cardboard castle straight from the set of "a man with two brains" I dare say, other than soft core pornography or toothpaste commercials we will never need to endure the hammy acting from these beautiful talentless buffoons again. H P Lovecraft would be extremely angered by such a mock up of his work.

i watched this, now you do not have to.

I know that I am probably well in the minority on this one, but I ADORED Tate Steinsiek's reimagining/remake/reboot/whatever of CASTLE FREAK. It trades out the familial drama of Stuart Gordon's original in favour of slow burn erotic grotesquerie, and therefor it's pretty much the most delightfully putrid monster film you'll find this year. Shave off maybe 15 minutes from the runtime and there's a real gem in there for those who have similar tastes as I do.

For any negative reviews, I gotta ask... Did you forget B movies from the late 80s.to early 90s? Barbara Crampton didn't, and thats why she produced this...This is a love letter to exploitation film from that era. The Lovecraft references alone are worth their weight in gold. Thanks for expanding an already classic (in my book)

Had its moments where I thought it was going to be a good horror movie and then we had gross sex scenes and a terrible ending. I'm giving it a 2 for the make up on the elder monster. I'm usually an easy 6 or higher on horror so that's how bad this was. You want a great necronomicon based movie watch the evil dead!!!

A mix of classic Lovecraft elements, combined with characters that you could care less about, in an overlong movie where everyone makes stupid decisions leading to dire consequences: equals another remake that failed overall. Watch the original instead.

One of the worst films I've ever seen. Painful, Terrible SFX. Some of the most amateur makeup and prosthetics ever committed to celluloid. Do not waste your time or energy.

The production was peppered with scandals, a producer was charged With assault another producer Justin Martell harassed a critic, But that leaves no excuse for this utter garbage. Everyone involved should be embarrassed - avoid anything by these "filmmakers" in the future. Terrible.

Total senseless and dumb movie. Time wastage. If you want to make horror movie why you have to put nude scenes totally bad acting by all actor except the lead actress. Rest direction awful. Story is totally bizarre.

Really hard to sit through something I will never do again.

Initially I was not particularly thrilled to learn about this 2020 remake of a classic 1995 horror movie based on a H.P. Lovecraft story. Why? Well, let's just face it, fact is that the majority of Hollywood remakes tend to be abominable results.

But still, I sat down to watch the 2020 remake from writer Kathy Charles and director Tate Steinsiek, fearing the worst, but hoping for the best. Even when the movie didn't have neither Jeffrey Combs or Barbara Crampton on the cast list.

Turns out that the 2020 movie "Castle Freak" was actually surprisingly good for a remake. Heck, I would go as far as saying even if you aren't familiar with the 1995 movie or the H.P. Lovecraft story, then "Castle Freak" is a rather enjoyable and entertaining horror movie.

Now, a movie based on a H.P. Lovecraft story has some pretty high stakes to live up to, and I will say that director Tate Steinsiek actually rose up to the occasion and delivered a movie that was entertaining, but also at the same time managed to bring to the screen a sense of cosmic dread that H.P. Lovecraft was known for. So in that sense, then the remake is actually a worthy movie of bringing such an iconic horror tale to life on the screen.

The acting in the movie was adequate for most parts. Some of the people, though, felt like they were just wrongly cast for the movie, as it felt like they were out of place in the movie, not really bringing any soul or spirit to the character.

The special effects in "Castle Freak" were good, and there was even enough gore and mayhem to keep a seasoned gorehound like myself entertained.

There were also a lot of nice small details in the scenes and sets of the movie, lots of nods towards the Cthulhu Mythos, which was definitely interesting.

One thing that I didn't really enjoy about the movie, was the sex scenes and nudity. Now, I am not a prude or anything, but it just brought a whole mid-1980s horror feel to the movie, unnecessarily I might add. The movie would have been more impactful and outstanding if director Tate Steinsiek had opted to leave that sleaze out of the movie.

The 2020 remake is a worth addition to the horror genre, just as it is an entertaining horror movie of cosmic dread, and it is a rather enjoyable remake. I am rating it a solid six out of ten stars. And the stars are right...

'Castle Freak' is another tiresome example of why all too many remakes remain such a questionable creative proposition in that they all too frequently tend to subtract from the original's uniqueness, very rarely adding anything worthwhile, which is very much the case with the clumsily 'reimagined' 'Castle Freak', yet another paltry, dully written, wholly unwarranted contemporary upgrade, thereby producing a lacklustre facsimile which has little interest to fans of the evilly atmospheric original cult classic! The major subtraction in this specific instance is in the glaring lack of sympathetic characters, with, perhaps, the exception of poor blind Rebecca (Clair Catherine), whereas one frequently felt enormous empathy for the original's increasingly beleaguered freak-haunted family, thereby giving an extra penetrating frisson of fear to the ill-tempered flesh-flaying castle dweller, whereas in 'Castle Freak' (2020) the entirely welcome slaughter of these irksomely insipid hedonists provide the film's sole satisfaction.

The film's mediocrity resides primarily in the episodic, uninspired screenplay, with its surfeit of disposable, vapid characters, wholly generic dialogue and a frustratingly fright-less climax, with the worthy contributions from maestro Fabio Frizzi's fine score and the remarkably vivid make up FX actively expressing any generosity of artistic spirit. And it takes far more than be-cowled stock B-movie characters monotonously disclaiming 'Yog-Sothoth is the gate!' to invoke genuinely chilling, Lovecraftian discords. Again, why write every character as an asinine, unlikeable imbecile? Unless it was to generate some additional pathos for the poor benighted, bedroom-peeping, catacomb-creeping creature? Perfunctory photography and poor set design failed to engender any tangible eldritch atmosphere, as the over manicured interior looked more like Jimmy Page's nookie parlour than the neglected mildewed nightmare that might suggest the malign presence of some sinisterly spawned wretch!

More and more I find myself disagreeing with IMDb ratings. Maybe everyone had high expectations that this was a remake or something? Very solid Lovecraft based horror movie. Great makeup, acting was good (except the guy with glasses who was meh), and the location was truly spectacular. Definitely enough creep and plot to stay interested the whole time. Recommend you check it out for yourself

I truly don't understand why this remake is currently so undervalued here on IMDb.

Sure the acting is so so at best and there's a massive exposition dump involving the Necronomicon and a dweeb called the Professor. However - and this represents a good thing in my humble optics - the film is also excessively sleazy, filled to the brim with the kind of nudity and bloodshed we as horrorfans took for granted in the noughts, but which sadly have become less and less frequent in todays genre offerings.

So if you like the rough stuff, topped off by a insane, go for broke Lovecraftian climax, I wouldn't hesitate a second to recommend this nasty little throwback to a bygone era.

Hope you enjoy it.

This is just a disgusting, time consuming movie. Don't waste your time on that

The start is bold and good for this type of movie, but it packs no other punches. You'll get bored and stop watching before anything else happens.

Dialogue is typically bad of a modern film (characters looking at the ground and attacking each other for no reason).

The camera angles are sheepish and they're jump cut to add drama, because the film has no natural drama of its own, except for the start. Same as many other modern movies.