Phonearl Good start, but then it gets ruined

Raymond Sierra The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Phillipa Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

Stauffdante *SPOILERS throughout*Given that this film has more alternative titles than lead actors, I'd recommend that it be treated as an appropriately mish-mashed production. It's a pity that it misleads the viewer - nowhere are there the haunted houses or stained saws as the DVD box shows, and nor is it actually about a hotel, hostel, or house. The plot is more complex than the initial setup has us believe: Michael Dare, a cab-driver (Polk) is sent out to a fare that seemingly doesn't exist...and is beset by a homeless man who mumbles gibberish at him whilst beating himself up. Having successfully framed Dare for the attack, it's put to the prosecution team that Dare is suffering from a rage disorder, and needs clinical treatment. Fortunately,the Straun Institute is offering free clinical trials...Through woefully subtle (and often missed) shadowing, we see that the whole setup is aimed to ensure that GenTech, the company that Michael's whistleblowing father betrayed, is implicated throughout in his incarceration at the hands of Dr. Straun. It's here that the movie shows off its best cameos - John Kassir (best known as the voice of the Cryptkeeper from Tales from the Crypt) and Andrew Divoff (The genie from Wishmaster I & II). Kassir camps it up as Moe Moebius, a kind of modern- day Igor to Divoff's evil genius, Straun. Both play their roles well, but are hampered by poor direction, and a total lack of tension within the plot. The lack of horrific enough props (Dare is at one point menaced by an umbrella dotted with sponges) gives the clinic a total lack of menace. Even the 'gritty realism' of a warehouse setting doesn't lend anything to the overall hokey tone of the film. The scenes between Dare and Dr. Verger, a pretty young scientist, are possibly the only redeeming aspects of the film. Sex is a seller, so obviously 'enraged' sex is a bigger seller...right? The violence is minimal, and serves to underline the lack of dramatic tension. Though she may be sweet and geeky, Duff's character leaves the viewer almost as cold as Polk's does, lacking any depth. The obligatory horrific scenes at the end of the film are no revelation. In fact, the resolution of the film simply kills off a set of characters in one go, robbing the viewer of any chance to actually make any sense out of the film's premise. The special effects aren't overused, but given how unspectacular the film is, you might forgive them overloading on blood and gore. There is the obligatory mad science laboratory, filled with glowing ingredients and body parts. The 'monster in the cellar' is possibly the only valid claim for a SFX budget, and DiTillio labours on under layers of latex, grunting madly and gurning his way through the film. 'Monsters' aside, the overall effect is of a drama that somehow tried to stray into the territory of Creepshow (1982) and the like - but lacking the plot to let Divoff and Kassir inject a little horror into the plot and leave us rooting for the wishy-washy hero and heroine.

BloodTheTelepathicDog I have viewed a number of horror films produced by The Asylum and all have been duds. I actually bought this film because it boasts three stellar horror actors; Andrew Divoff, Denice Duff and John Kassir, but director Jeff Broadstreet lacks talent.The back of the DVD case is very inviting for horror fans such as myself. It states that this flick "creates a new level of gruesome, beyond that of Cronenberg's The Fly and Gordon's Re-Animator." It also has a bold WARNING stating that this film contains "scenes of graphic horror, violence and nudity." Well, the fact of the matter is that this film is closer to Curse 2 and Sreaming Dead than it is to the two legendary horror flicks it claims to resemble. As for the horror, violence and nudity... you get plenty more of that stuff by watching Cops on television.Much like the brilliant marketers of that awful smelling deodorant "Tag" the marketers here are the best part to this film. They give us juicy tidbits on the DVD case that lure us in to watching this garbage and ultimately slap us in the face and smile at us while they do it. Bastards! VIOLENCE: $$ (By no means "graphic" the violence and gore is quite tame. The gore you devoured in Re-Animator is not to be found here).NUDITY: $ (This does not fall into the "graphic" territory either. There are two sex scenes where we see next to nothing of the actors; i.e. all the naughty bits covered up. There is one decent scene of Duff's flawless contours but she is strategically placed to keep the moment from being a "graphic" display of nudity).STORY: $ (Wow! What an awful screenplay! Stephen Polk, writer and star, obviously used this screenplay as a ploy to get a little action with the lovely Denice Duff. The story begins interestingly enough but when Polk gets assigned to the hospital, where the story should elevate, it descends into mind-numbing territory. Polk has no business writing anything).ACTING: $$ (Divoff steals the show but Polk's amateurish writing abilities fail to flesh out an interesting character. Polk also writes Denice Duff's role as one dimensional, using her character simply as somebody for him to sleep with. Kassir, better known as the voice of the Crypt Keeper also does a fine job in his orderly role, but Polk, much like his writing skills, is a rudimentary actor at best. His "talents" coupled with poor direction from Broadstreet make for a wasted 88 minutes).

kleen_edge This review pertains to the "Unrated Directors Cut" Where to begin on a film like this? First of all I have seen many, many horror movies, but never one quite like this. You will notice from the first five minutes that this film isn't exactly a "Hollywood" production, but I tried not to let that taint my review. The film revolves around a taxi-driver who has a bit of a rage problem and instead of facing jail time, decides to do some medical "research" There are a few minor twists and turns that I will leave for you to find out, but the bottom line is this movie never reaches the high expectations shown on its DVD Cover. The special effects are OK, the last five minutes are fair, but the overall mood of the movie never really reaches full effect.If you are a fan of odd, low budget, dialog movies, then you might actually find this one somewhat entertaining. The added sex scene provides at least some sort of excitement to an otherwise dull production.My rating 2 out of 10.

wrlang 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.