Circus of the Dead

If you've seen all of the Terrifier films but still haven't had your fill of sadistic killer clowns, then Circus of the Dead might do the trick. The psychotic circus performers in this film don't have Art the clown's style and wicked sense of humour, but they do deliver when it comes to killing people in extremely nasty ways.

The latest victims of Papa Corn (Bill Oberst Jr.) and his gang of creepy clowns are the Johnson family - Donald (Parrish Randall), his adulterous wife Tiffany (Chanel Ryan) and his two daughters - who rue the day the decided to go to the circus. This film's sole purpose is to shock with its violence and in that it succeeds: the acting is a bit off, the sound quality isn't great and certain plot points take some swallowing, but the gory nastiness is definitely eye-opening, with one scene involving a pregnant woman being particularly disturbing.

Yes, some of the 10/10 reviews are most likely fake, but all of the 1/10 and 2/10 reviews can be dismissed just as easily: no, Circus of the dead isn't the greatest horror film ever made, but it's far from the worst - gore hounds should find plenty to enjoy about this sick puppy.

I couldn't even make it 20 minutes in. The best acting is from the little girl playing the younger daughter. Pets can act better than the cast. Terrible dialogue writing. Painful to watch. I had to turn it off.

People who are critical of Billy Pon's film, "Circus of the Dead", usually say the film is poorly shot, or that the story makes no sense, or that the acting is abysmal. They don't site any example to these claims, but expect the reader to simply believe their opinion. They disregard any positive review, stating the positive reviews of the film must only come from friends/family of Billy Pon, or friends/family of the actors/actresses of the film. As the critical reviewer sees it, how could anyone like "Circus of the Dead". Their disdain for the film isn't because it is poorly made film, but because of the subject matter (which disgusts them). These are the same people who would go see a film about Ted Bundy and complain about the senseless violence. What did you expect from a film about a serial killer? Same principle here. "Circus of the Dead" film description pretty much spells it out for the viewer, and if the didn't read the film's description, the first five minutes of the film gives the viewer a slap-in-the-face hint about what kind of film it is. If violence and depravity on film isn't you cup of tea, then move on. Don't sit through the film, only to whine about it later.

People have always been attracted to the grotesque. It has been presented as a form of entertainment since the days of Shakespeare, topping its popularity between 1890 to 1940 with the Grand Guignol of Paris. And as they say, it isn't called "Show Art", but called "Show Business". Theater of the Grotesque can be cheaply produced, and if done correctly, can fill the seats with paying customers. That's the reality.

Billy Pon's "Circus of the Dead" is more than a splatter-filled indie horror film - it's a contemporary resurrection of Grand Guignol, dragged screaming out of the Parisian backstreets and thrust into the neon-stained hellscape of modern Texas. Like the infamous Théâtre du Grand-Guignol that once shocked and thrilled turn-of-the-century Parisians with its grotesque stage plays, Pon's film serves as a deliberate, depraved spectacle designed to provoke, unsettle, and mesmerize. "Circus of the Dead" is, by all accounts, a grindhouse film (which the critics of this film seem to have forgotten).

Back in its heyday, the Grand Guignol packed in audiences eager for staged beheadings, eye gouging, and bloody eviscerations - a cultural phenomenon so intense that some theatergoers reportedly fainted mid-show. Pon doesn't just echo that tradition - he retools it, weaponizes it, and douses it in gasoline.

At the center of this cinematic freakshow is Papa Corn - a sadistic clown, philosopher of pain, and pure embodiment of moral decay. Bill Oberst Jr. Delivers a performance so committed and electrifying it feels theatrical in the best way - as if he could've stepped out from the Grand Guignol stage itself. He's captivating, charismatic, and completely unhinged - the kind of villain that transcends the screen and leaves claw marks on your mind.

The narrative is simple, but like the best stage horror of old, it's a vehicle for escalating depravity and moral collapse. A regular man is pulled into the orbit of a traveling troupe of psychopathic clowns, and what follows is less a story than a descent - a freak show baptism in blood and nihilism. And like the Grand Guignol, Circus of the Dead refuses to offer comfort or redemption. It wants you to squirm.

But what makes Pon's film special isn't just the brutality - it's the intelligence behind the chaos. The film is deeply aware of what it's doing: blending classic theater horror tropes with grindhouse cinema grit, all while lacing every frame with jet-black satire and a twisted sense of humor.

Just as the Grand Guignol once shocked the bougie elite of Paris and became a must-see underground attraction, Circus of the Dead has earned its place as a cult sensation among modern horror fans who crave something raw, unfiltered, and absolutely fearless.

There are faults in Billy Pon's film. The majority of the actors/actresses seem to be at the level of a high school drama club. Unfortuantely, most low-budget films suffer from this. You get what you paid for. The cast do their best to be believable characters, but with the exception of Bill Oberst Jr. As Papa Corn, the actors and actresses don't make their mark. This is to be expected, though. It is, as stated before, a grindhouse film.

Billy Pon isn't just making horror - he's reviving a lost art of transgressive theater through film. In another century, his name would be on a playbill in Montmartre. Today, it belongs in every horror fan's library.

Critique the film, but not it's subject matter.

For most of the movie it is just a bunch of clowns killing people in disgusting ways. No good qualities in the entire movie. No motive for the clowns killing people other than to kill people. Where is the plot? Where is the suspense? Where is the good acting? Just torture, screaming, torture, spurting blood, etc. Etc. Etc. I did watch the whole movie with the last hour of the movie with the volume turned down really low while doing something else as I couldn't stomach all the torture, screaming etc. I always try to watch a movie to the end in case it gets better. With this movie it did not, terrible in the beginning, terrible in the middle and terrible in the end. I would not recommend this movie for anyone who enjoys a good horror movie that is actually scary, has a plot, has good acting and has good direction. I would give this movie a zero if I could.

A bunch of circus clowns kidnap a guy, kill his wife, and hold his children hostage to ensure his compliance as they bring him along on a killing spree.

First, the good stuff. Technical work is proficient. No notable problems with editing or sound. Lighting is dark, but most likely was intentional. It was nice to learn about the existence of the strange arcade game, Gals Panic.

Second, the bad stuff. The movie doesn't have that much in way of plot or development of anything. It's one violent encounter into the next. It's mostly an exercise in testing the viewer limits. I don't have resistance to that in particular - after all, I was able to watch this without issue.

But there seems to be a breakdown in understanding what makes thing scary. We should care about the captive, and his children. Without time spent developing him and giving him character, the movie amounts to a big shrug.

The budget limitations are mostly apparent with the lack of any other acts at the "circus". There are extras for an audience, but there only seems to be a ringmaster.

There are a handful of movies that seem to be influences. In particular, Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Devil's Rejects. And for some reason, I'm reminded of Bloodsucking Freaks.

By the end of this, the viewer is left wondering where the story was. For a movie that runs over an hour and a half, with the lack of development, the whole thing could have been trimmed down to about 30-40 minutes without much loss to how effective it is.

Why am I bothering to write this review? Because the 5.9 on iMDB right now is seriously misleading. Even for fans of pushing horror to extremes would be disappointed.