Sanitarium

I had no idea this was an anthology, before I watched it, but it makes sense. It's also very obvious, after the first segment is over 30 minutes into the movie. Although I was wondering right before that end, where the "movie" was going to go ... the story of seemed over, so I was kind of intrigued. Turns out that particular story was over.

The segments themselves are pretty decent, with a lot of star power behind them (or at least actors some might recognize). Not sure if Lou Diamond Phillips is on anyones radar the past decade or so. It's nice seeing him and other faces though and they're doing a good job, which is needed to keep this from falling apart. Apart from the main location (it's in the title), you could make another connection between the segments ... it's a bit of a "conspiracy" so to speak, but if you connect the dots ...

Do not be fooled by the name Malcolm McDowell in the credits, as he is hardly even in this bore fest. His role is more of a Rod Serling of the Twilight Zone guide to each of the three episodes. None of them work very well, as they just drag on. First up is John Glover as an eccentric artist who makes morbid looking dolls and is considered a genius. He thinks the dolls are real and they give him messages about his sponsors. Of course, it ends badly. The second story concerns an eight year-old boy who sees a grim reaper type of figure following him around. He had an abusive father and a pretty and concerned teacher who tries to help. Another sad ending here. Number three is the worst as Lou Diamond Phillips is a college professor who is waiting for the end of the world as predicted by the Mayan calendar. It flashes back and forth between his underground bunker and what leads up to it. It just does not work on any level. Go back to A Clockwork Orange to watch McDowell at his nastiest best.

I loved this movie. When I read reviews here about people spilling wine on themselves while watching this because it was too "boring" and made them fall asleep, I just laugh and am grateful that I am not like them. If you are drinking alcohol during a movie, you are already going to be more tired. It is a slow movie, that is true. Slow doesn't mean bad though. However, if you are watching this movie and then want to judge it because it didn't meet YOUR expectations, then please don't write a review about it and give it 2 stars. Every movie has its own intention. Give it 2 stars if it doesn't make any sense at all or if the acting is just embarrassingly bad, but not when it clearly achieves its goal.

Sanitarium's intention was not to be a horror flick, it was to give us a perspective of the human mind when it is ill. You see, if you even cared 1% about what it's like for people who are mentally sick, then this movie provided you with answers better than any documentary, book or some other movie regarding the same subject.

The fact is that when you are mentally ill, you won't see the world around you the same as those who are healthy.

I highly recommend this movie and if you decide to watch it, don't watch it to be entertained, but instead to be educated.

The direction/writing was really good but the acting was even better. If I had any complaint it would have to be about the production design which seemed to be pretty basic in some spots, but it was a minor issue. But again, the acting was great and the direction were really good. Contrary to the other reviews, this is NOT a PG-13 movie, it is R scary despite the lack of blood. Remember these stories (except for one) occur in the minds of the people and therefore does not NEED a lot of blood. The scariness is in the old-fashioned suspense and in trying to figure out what is real or not and in good old-fashioned acting. I hope they make another one someday. But I doubt it. It certainly showed the acting talents of seldom used actors like Lacey Chabert and Lou Diamond Philips.

OK, Malcolm McDowell is just here as a "name", he's merely the narrator. Moreover, his comments are not particularly welcome, particularly after the second scenario.

That aside, this is a very good horror movie, a trilogy of tales in classic fashion. The cast is fine, the photography is excellent, the soundtrack lush and properly climatic. It's as good as any other horror/macabre movie out there right now, certainly on a par with "The Purge" for example, but fewer than five votes here? Zero critical reviews on R/T or linked here? I don't understand that at all, my first instinct was that this must be some crapola indie film, and I'd expect maybe two 9 or 10 star reviews comparing it to the best of Hitchcock (by people who had never posted any other reviews until they were hired to work on the film). But it's not, it's a well made, mainstream film with real actors and professional craftsmanship. By all means check it out.