Greenes Please don't spend money on this.

Dotbankey A lot of fun.

WillSushyMedia This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

Roman Sampson One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

arfdawg-1 The Plot.An evil, sadistic count lives in a waterfront castle with his insane family members. One day the survivor of a shipwreck washes ashore near the castle and finds himself a captive there.OMG. How anyone gave this more than one star is beyond me. It's really worse than the worst of any Ed Wood movie. The acting does not exist and there is no directing either.The dialog is idiotic.The only good thing is that it's in color but now prints are so messed up it's in one color -- red.This really is the worst garbage I have ever seen. It's not even funny bad.Bats and spiders are rubber and dialog gets repeated over and over.OMG this sucks.

Coventry "Dungeon of Harrow contains sequences so degrading that they surpass your worst nightmares"… Ha ha, right! Behold some of the lies and nonsense they dare to put on DVD boxes in order to lure unsuspecting horror fans. The only things "Dungeon of Harrow" contains are dreadfully overlong and boring sequences, practically inaudible dialogs, semi- processed sub plots and a budget so small the crew probably couldn't even afford cream in their coffees! This is seriously one of the most infuriatingly dull and incompetent movies I've seen in a large number of years, but for some incomprehensible reason, it still appears to have a modest cult-following. This is mainly because its writer/director Pat Boyette was also a comic book artist. I'm not familiar with his work, but I sure hope it's better than his filmmaking skills. The film opens with two men, an obnoxious aristocrat and a sea captain, washing ashore an island as sole survivors after their ship got wrecked in a storm. The island belongs to the utterly bonkers Count Lorente de Sade, who has overlong conversations with his evil persona whilst his wife is rotting away from leprosy in the basement. De Sade also has a couple of loyal servants, including a large black man with white hair and a cute brunette. The voluptuous blond illustrated on the DVD-cover naturally doesn't appear at all. Anyway, the castaways naturally run into conflict with the crazed count and end up in the torture dungeon. Sounds very exciting and all, but we actually don't get to witness any torture. Worse, in fact, the entire movie doesn't even feature a moment of suspense or a glimpse of morbidity. The only nice touch is the leprosy sub plot, but Pat Boyette doesn't even have the courage to properly exploit that controversial theme. The cast is an assembly of amateurish volunteers. The guy depicting Count de Sade shows a resemblance to Boris Karloff in that period, which is probably why he got the part. c

FilmFatale This weird movie from Texas is about Fallon, a dilettante rich boy in the late 1800s (although he looks like a 60s C&W singer with greasy hair and sideburns) whose ship wrecks on an island owned by Count DeSade (pronounced de-sayd) with his captain. The count is afraid of pirates and tortures a young girl who was once a pirate hostage and also tortures the captain. Meanwhile, creepy former nurse Cassandra tells Fallon the secrets of the castle. The Countess has leprosy and went mad! Fallon is trapped but brings supplies. The captain is killed by a racist-caricature slave. Fallon is thrown in the dungeon with the leper, who always thinks it's her wedding day. The leper bride is horny, bu Cassandra kills her. Fallon and Cassandra escape the castle, but the Count and his slave chase them with dogs. DeSade kills the slave and Fallon kills DeSade. Fallon and Cassandra fall in love over the course of the next year, but when the supply ship comes, the crew refuses to take our lovers because they're both lepers now. They live for years in the castle...Fallon's hair turns gray and Cassandra goes bonkers. Fallon puts her in the dungeon. Our tale of love and leprosy ends.So bizarre it's watchable, and you can smell the drive-in popcorn.

lemon_magic My bad film guru (and the president of the Exposed Film Society) sprang this one on us last week. There was no denying the demented gleam in his eye as he pulled it out of its brown paper bag and announced what he had in store for us: "The Most Dangerous Game", filmed on a budget of about $2.95.Of course, $2.95 went a lot further back in 1962, but still...Anyway, there is certainly a lot to dislike about this film. It abounds with serious technical gaffes (my favorite was the 'repeating musket' that fired twice in two minutes without benefit of a reload). The hero is a wuss who stands by while his wounded friend fights the henchman and gets killed. More? OK -The plot is a shambles with no continuity to speak of. The movie wastes five minutes with a 'special guest star' who serves as the physical embodiment of the villain's madness and paranoia, but never shows him again. The hero is choked unconscious by the henchman but makes no mention of it when he wakes up and first meets his host. The mute servant girl is captured, put on the rack...and then the movie (and the hero, who put her in this predicament) just sort of "forgets" about her. More? Well, the sets are cheap, and the special effects are cheaper (the makeup is an exception to this). Much of the plot is carried by the narrator's droning, monotonic voice-over, which carries less dramatic impact than the menu recital at Denny's. Most of the dialog is simply ridiculous and stilted , as if it was translated from Japanese. ("I demand that our conversation be pleasant!!!") And the color values tended to shift violently from shot to shot, as if cheap film stock and problematic lighting equipment were the order of the day. (Note - this last may have been the fault of a bad print, rather than the camera crew). But there were a couple of nice moments here and there. The makeup effects were startlingly good in contrast to the rest of the film, the actors were LOOKED interesting, especially the mute servant girl and the Countess. And in spite of everything, there was a definite creepy atmosphere to be found, very nasty and disturbing.So what was the deal with this movie? I thought about it a bit, and realized that director/writer Pat Boyette basically tried to put a story from of the old "EC" horror comics on film. That would account for the stilted dialog, the sketchy character development (in a comic, physiognomy = character even more than in film), the loopy interior logic of the story ("EC" horror stories went out of their way to include a nasty "shock" ending and weren't big on psychological realism), the over reliance on the narrative voice (which belongs in captions over the panels), and the interesting makeup effects that mimicked the grisly pictures that the old EC artists did so well.In fact, I'd be willing to bet that when Boyette saw his leading man during casting, he instantly saw that the fellow was as close to being the equivalent of the lanky, shambling figures and caved in faces that artists like Johnny Craig and Jack Davis drew as an actual human could be and still exist in the real world.. He used costumes and lighting to emphasize the cartoony aspect of the visuals and turned everyone into living EC comics characters. (See: the leading lady's blank beauty, the Count's strong bony features, oddly bronze skin and sharp chin, the platinum 'do on the tall, bony black henchman, etc.) This would explain the movie's failings. Boyette knew how to 'frame' things, but he didn't know how to deal with three dimensions and moving bodies. Boyette knew how to tell a creepy story within the confines of a comics page, but the nuances of film and live actors escaped him. He wouldn't be the first person with this problem of course - look at what Joel Schumacher did to "Batman". But he didn't have a big budget to hide behind.In any case, I'm imagine that Boyette walked away from this train wreck and probably spent less time thinking about "Dungeon of Harrow"than the folks who post on this film's message boards. He did, within certainly vague boundaries, what he set out to do, and you have to respect him for it...even if you don't care for "Harrow".