Horror

First of all, this is a low, low budget film. A basement film. A film clearly made by a gang of enthusiastic amateurs rather than a Hollywood production studio. The acting is basically what you'd expect from a movie starring your stoner friends. The sets are what you might find around town, or what a relative might lend you for the weekend. The camera-work, editing and cinematography, while occasionally inventive, are far from professional. Hell, even the special effects are rudimentary (when they're not flat-out laughable).

But I kinda liked it. I didn't love it, and I'm not even really recommending it, but it's definitely the most unique and troo-kvlt horror flick I've seen in quite a while. Basically, what you have is a bifurcated storyline in which two distinct threads unfold and eventually merge. In the first, a young girl struggles to understand her relationship to her spooky parents and the creepy old house she's seemingly trapped in. In the second thread, an escaped gang of teenage rehab patients finds themselves drawn into the same spooky house. Presiding over all this is the young girl's grandfather, a mysterious figure named Reverend Salo (played, for no good reason, by The Amazing Kreskin).

The plot of this movie, however, is inconsequential. Horror is almost entirely senseless. Like Suspiria (which it resembles but can't begin to compete with), Horror cares more about building atmosphere and presenting disturbing visuals than about telling any kind of coherent story. While one might hazard a theory this way or that about why the events of the film unfold the way they do, it hardly matters. I listened to enough to DVD commentary to realize that director Danta Thomaselli's explanation is far less enlightening than what the average viewer might come up with on their own. "This is a movie that challenges all reality," he says. Uhhhhh, yeah. Take it to the man, Dante.

Again, in spite of all that, I did like this movie. Its heart is in the right place, even if it doesn't have a brain in its head. The visuals are imaginative, unsettling and clearly tied to a personal sense of what horror is all about. And, at 77 minutes, it never gets a chance to wear out its welcome.

6/10 (though I get the feeling I'm being waaaaay too generous)

Reverand Salo Jr. invites five teenage druggies who escape from rehab to come to his secluded house on a promise of salvation. Salo Jr. and his wife's daughter, Grace, is very unhappy, but keeps getting dreams and visions of her grand-father, Salo Sr. (Kreskin, whom I refuse to call him 'Amazing'). Some of the teens have adverse effects to the drug that Salo Jr. had given them prior to them breaking out of rehab. Both the plot lines will entangle before long. OK, about this film. Weird & obtuse does NOT automatically equate to scariness and Kreskin is not a good actor bring the whole movie down. Is it a bad film? That's debatable. Is it a good horror movie? hell no it isn't.

My Grade: D

DVD Extras: Director's Commentary; 9 and a half minute Behind the scenes featurette; on the set with Kreskin; Photo Gallery; "Desecration" video short; Extended Horror Trailer; and Trailer for "Desecration"

I was very impressed by Desecration...it had some of the creepier images I have seen in some time and the story held me...Unfortunately that was not the case with HORROR. Yes it had some great images and atmosphere but that is not enough to make a good horror film. No the story doesn't have to be amazing, but this film's story was weak...the dialogue was weak and the acting was weak...I am a firm believer that even the lowest budget horror films can and should have strong acting...strong actors are what actually sell the fright side of any horror film...This would have made a really good 10 minute short, or if it has a strong script and good actors, could have been a really great horror film.

HORROR is meant to be disjointed, disorienting, and disturbing. It succeeds at being all three. Like any nightmare, things jump around in chronology, or mutate into something completely different. The images -the goat, the jack-o-lanterns, etc.- are all part of Director Dante Tomaselli's dream / fun house approach to filmmaking. He prefers things off-kilter and gloomy.

The film's main character, Grace Salo (Lizzy Mahon) is at the mercy of her malevolent parents (Christie Sanford and Vincent Lamberti), who keep her drugged and imprisoned. Enter a trio of mushroom-eating teens, who arrive at the Salo place for a party. Due to the combination of drugs, the constant dream state, and the dark forces in play, the story twists around like a non-linear pretzel!

Since time and space cease to have much relevance, HORROR only makes sense on its own bizarre terms. Critics seem to take it far too seriously, as if the world may end after viewing it. Rabid fans take the opposite stance, as if this were the greatest horror movie ever filmed. Neither side is correct. In actuality, it's a decent little low-low-budget movie that gets high marks for heavy atmosphere and an overall sense of inescapable doom...

First of all I must say that this is definitely NO HORROR movie, and it's not an art-house movie either... so what is it?

If this was a student's high school film project I would be impressed, but this is supposed to be the work of a "indie-maestro" director??? Oh my...

The "story", if you can find one, has absolutely no coherence and is really totally confusing. And in this case that is NOT a good thing! You do not WANT to think (or care) about what is going on in this senseless mess. If you are into weird confusing plots that make you think - go Lynch!

Can't say a good word about the "acting" either, i totally agree with one reviewer who said that the best actor was the goat! LOL

The visuals... OK let's give him some points in that area. The cinematography is quite well done, there are some quite nice shots and it is really obvious that the director is into "eye-candy". But he's far too hard TRYING to be surreal and artistic, and ends up only RIDICULOUS. If you're into psychedelic visuals and surreal/symbolic Horror - go Argento or Ken Russel.

There are also a lot of references to genre classics, which are really dilettantish or blatantly stolen.

Unfortunately I also cannot agree to any comedy value, but i have to admit that i was laughing when the Jack-O'-Lantern "Demons" first appeared - unbelievable that this was meant serious!! Oh my...

According to the director the movie is about eternal damnation, it's meant to be a nightmare that never ends - its not true - it ends when this shitty movie is finally OVER - thank god!!!

This is just a "wannabe" pretentious NOTHING...

I also suppose the very obvious correlation to massive drug abuse means you have to be in the same state to "understand" or really appreciate the director's visions...

I rather would NOT, thank you!