Dr. Rage

There were two good things about this movie. It ended, and I didn't buy it.

The dialog was silly, the sets were thrift store rejects, the director was just one step above renting a barn and putting on a show, the lead character was stiff, and his nose moves with his upper lip. Karen Black should be ashamed. I guess you could tell its not one of my favorites I must say, that if they had intended to make a parody of a 1950's horror movie, they could have promoted it for laughs. There are a few giggles. If only the girl had sprained her ankle while running in heels up the stairs with the monster right behind her.

I bought the DVD of this simply because of the cover stating the movie was full of gore, sex and was totally gruesome. It is a blatant lie and they shouldn't be allowed to get away with it.

Gore. This is as tame as hell. A little bit of special effects near the end but gory? Not in the least.

Sex. A couple of scenes that aren't sexy at all. The woman is a hottie but everything is covered up here.

Gruesome. Not at all especially if you expect something like 'Hostel.

So basically this movie is built on lies BUT there are some moments to enjoy and I did manage to sit through all of it. I would never watch it again though and have learnt a lesson here. Don't always believe the DVD hype and this is one example where action should be taken under the trade descriptions act.

Let me describe the UK cover for this movie, it's called Nightmare Hostel and is apparently an Unrated Directors Cut. Despite being Unrated it actually carries an 18 certificate and comes with the following warning - "contains scenes of graphic horror and violence & nudity", furthermore the bottom of the cover has the following - "creates a new level of gruesome, beyond that of Roth's Hostel and Gordon's Re-Animator" I think they got the wrong movie!

Violence & Horror? very, very little.

Nudity? None.

Avoid it at all costs, it's complete s**t!

I think that the cover said it was based on a true story, but I didn't see it. This is a C or D level horror film with little going for it. An angry man is sentenced to work with a mad doctor to control his rage. The doctor enhances the rage to extract the rage through the sweat glands ala the funky Gatorade commercial colored sweat. The only thing that saved this film from being a total washout was the relatively good acting by the experienced cast. I wonder why they took this job? It couldn't have paid very well. Only two good things about this movie, the sex scene between Duff and Polk and the last 8 minutes with some surprise special effects. Dialog was crummy, camera work was crummy. Scenery was crummy. They even had a setup for a sequel.

A friend of mine put this on as he had bought it for £1, personally after seeing it the film was not worth it. The acting was poor the story was very formulaic and quite dull and there were no scares. The actress Denice Duff playing Dr Verger was reasonably sexy and there were a couple of reasonably steamy scenes with her in (she looked a little like Carla Gugino who I saw in Nic Cage vehicle "Snake Eyes") The lead actor Stephen Polk reminded me of John Glover most well known as the father of Lex Luthor in Smallville. Andrew Divoff who I have seen in a few low budget flicks was easily the best actor in this as Dr Straun a crippled psycho who likes to watch his patients treatments and reactions on CCTV in a straight Jacket. Even the most devoted horror fans would have little to enjoy here. 1.5/10