Horror

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.

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)

Okay, I first want to state that I had seen Dante's first effort "Desecration" and thought that it sucked. Of course it didn't totally suck, but it fails on the same level that "Horror" failed on - its beautiful crap.

I really wanted to love both films after hearing that this filmmaker was a Godsend to horror fanatics everywhere – so me being the huge horror fan I am was excited. My excitement was lessened after seeing "Desecration," and even more so after "Horror." "Horror" has so many flaws it would be impossible to name them all off, but I'll try. At the beginning of the film the audience is introduced to a group of stoners escaping rehab and venture off to Rev. Salo's house of horror, unaware that horror is what awaits them. Then one kid turns blue, pukes, and then never seen of heard from again after the camera cuts as all the blue guy's friends are trying to help him! What the hell? We as an audience are introduced to a character only to forget about? Why was he there in the first place? Dumb.

The editing is also done poorly. We as an audience haven't the slightest clue as to what the hell is happening - usually that would be effective, but in order for it to be effective the audience must feel for the characters, so it didn't help too much that the actors were on and off – but mostly off – and the delivery of the dialogue is bad... maybe because the dialogue given was god-awful. So, in terms of the effective "what the hell is going on?" scenario, I really couldn't care less.

It doesn't help when the ending makes no sense and is cheesy as hell.

Oddly, the set design and cinematography are unbelievably gorgeous, and the camera-work is terrific. The landscape of a snowy wilderness is both haunting and beautifully Gothic. The use of Christmas lights and ornaments is the perfect contrast to the eerie going-ons (I will admit, some of the more macabre moments are deliciously effective, just most are just plain stupid) and the lonesome, haunted look of some of the homes. The use of the POV shots, ala "The Evil Dead," are very cool… and the goat is creepy. More of the goat would have been more than welcome.

Sadly, overall "Horror" was just a perfect example of what we all hate in the genre some of us hold dear. I have noticed a lot of people, as well as critics, have loved this movie and admired its strangeness, but as much I love horror and generally strange surreal rides, I couldn't like this movie. It's still worth a look for its look, but (at least for me) there is nothing else beneath its beautiful, Gothic surface.

Hopefully Dante's next effort – "Satan's Playground" – will be more of a departure of what "Desecration" and "Horror" were: beautiful trash.

3 out of 10

That movie is really CRAP. Nothing in it except very bad casting. Very bad shooting . The worst effects & make up . I guess there was no editor in the movie!

It takes you from the beginning with those guys escaping from Rehab in a van passing by terrible (supposed to be) spooky moments & ending in an unknown aim.

Flying Evil Pumpkin heads like those used in horror movies in the 50's & 60's . Stupid zombies who have no role in the movie & finally no meaning to the whole plot.

An advice to say: If you are a horror fan , never watch this film by any means. I give it 1 out of 10 .

Fool me twice, shame on me. I watched HORROR without associating the name Dante Tomaselli to that home movie horror film DESECRATION. So as I sat there, falling asleep and wondering if I had laundry to do, it dawned on me that I'd seen this mish-mash of confusing non-plot and "disturbing" imagery before somewhere, then I remembered. I almost turned the movie off right there, but I believe in giving every film I begin a chance to turn around and improve before it ends. No such luck.

Bad acting from C-grade horror celebs and amateurishly directed and edited. From the other posts I've read here, at least Mr. Tomaselli is entertaining his friends, family and colleagues.