Horror (2003) User Reviews

Horror

[michael-740 · 3/10 · 29 December 2004]

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

Nice visuals, weak story.

[pinkeye · 5/10 · 22 June 2003]

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.

Oddly Charming Nonsense

[conedust · 4/10 · 23 April 2008]

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)

Nothing at all But Silliness

[IBRAHIMEX · 19 January 2004]

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 .

Beautiful crap is still CRAP

[malfunction-1 · 3/10 · 23 March 2007]

First of all I must say that this is definitely NO HORROR movie, and it's not an art-house movie either... so what is it?

If this was a student's high school film project I would be impressed, but this is supposed to be the work of a "indie-maestro" director??? Oh my...

The "story", if you can find one, has absolutely no coherence and is really totally confusing. And in this case that is NOT a good thing! You do not WANT to think (or care) about what is going on in this senseless mess. If you are into weird confusing plots that make you think - go Lynch!

Can't say a good word about the "acting" either, i totally agree with one reviewer who said that the best actor was the goat! LOL

The visuals... OK let's give him some points in that area. The cinematography is quite well done, there are some quite nice shots and it is really obvious that the director is into "eye-candy". But he's far too hard TRYING to be surreal and artistic, and ends up only RIDICULOUS. If you're into psychedelic visuals and surreal/symbolic Horror - go Argento or Ken Russel.

There are also a lot of references to genre classics, which are really dilettantish or blatantly stolen.

Unfortunately I also cannot agree to any comedy value, but i have to admit that i was laughing when the Jack-O'-Lantern "Demons" first appeared - unbelievable that this was meant serious!! Oh my...

According to the director the movie is about eternal damnation, it's meant to be a nightmare that never ends - its not true - it ends when this shitty movie is finally OVER - thank god!!!

This is just a "wannabe" pretentious NOTHING...

I also suppose the very obvious correlation to massive drug abuse means you have to be in the same state to "understand" or really appreciate the director's visions...

I rather would NOT, thank you!

Confusing bunch of scenes do not make a horror

[DubVersion · 2/10 · 3 April 2004]

Rating: 3/10

*** POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHAEAD ****

I'm not sure if this is the kind of movie that you have to see a couple of times before it starts to make sense. Although the camera work is not bad at all and there is suspense in it, it totally lacks a story line or interesting characters. The worst is that none of the characters are portrayed in some more depth so it starts to make sense; as a viewer you're just thrown from one scene into another. This movie is reminiscent of movies like Mulholland Drive, Pie and Lost Highway. Some scenes are not that bad, but although it's only a 1:10 movie, it gets boring quick. It hints to Italian horrors a la Fulci pay homage, but lacks depth and script.

If you like psychedelic movies as the ones mentioned above, i'd say go watch this one. But if you're looking for a solid story and at least one actor you can connect to, leave this one in the video store. It does try hard to be original, but originality is not a synonym for watchable or decent.

Greetings

Dub

Bunk for billy goats

[macabro357 · 1/10 · 29 June 2003]

Starring the Amazing Kreskin and a whole bunch of 20-something headbangers that I've never heard of before, this discombobulated mess was recommended to me by a friend. After seeing this nonsense, I'm not so sure I want to be friends with her anymore. (laughs)

Is it trying to be arty or is it in serious need of editing ?? Gawd only knows... They either had:

a.) a moron for an editor or...

b.) no editor at all

It's just a bunch of scenes strung together with little or no coherence or planning, without even taking the viewing audience into account. In fact, it looks like an amateur film disguised as a professional film, disguised as an amateur film. (laughing) Thank Christ, it's only 75 minutes long.

If I was a film school teacher, I'd give it a F for being incomplete, but since I'm only one of many lowly reviewers around here, I'll give it a 1 out of 10 for being incomplete.

Dante's Miscarriage

[Falconeer · 3/10 · 5 December 2008]

First off, I am a fan of Dante Tomaselli's work, ever since seeing the creepy and bizarre "Desecration," with it's disturbing visuals and obscure dark/erotic overtones. (A film featuring zombie nuns from Hell cannot fail IMO.) His other film, "Satan's Playground" I liked immensely as well, and found it a fun, atmospheric classic of low budget horror. So what happened here, i wonder? "Horror" is a disaster, and seems like it might have been his first film. While the eye catching cinematography is there, the style, the weird atmosphere etc, this one is sabotaged by the most laughable makeup effects since Ed Wood was making films. The "ghouls" here look like the kids on Halloween after being made up by their mothers with food coloring and cookie dough! Props meant to be scary look like plastic decorations you would find on any suburban front yard around the holidays. None of the "actors" could land a part as a bush in a high school play, and Kreskin is more zombie-like than the laughable zombies who appear halfway through the film (for no reason whatsoever.) What a wasted opportunity, as there are good things about this film, like the beautiful cinematography, the seeds of a fascinating story, and an ending that is actually the best thing about the whole thing. I like actor Danny Lopes, who appears in all of Tomaselli's films so far. He was good as the teen loner in Desecration, and believable as the autistic boy in 'Satan's Playground," and has a definite screen presence. "Horror" also suffers from going the sellout route of using the tired "teens in a haunted house" setup. A few good scenes drown in a sea of underwhelming tripe, "Horror" is perhaps the only film in history where the most interesting character was a billie goat...

Why was this trash made?

[grub-2 · 3/10 · 29 September 2003]

I like horror movies. Don't let the title mislead you, this was not horror it was CRAP. A van full of losers escape from rehab and end up being pursued by bad visions, some evil folks and a Big Black Goat That Is Supposed To Scare You.

Slamming doors, horrible done "evil" pumpkin heads and an entire cast of characters you won't have a shred of empathy for.

I've seen worse, but not much.

Not usually an art-house fan, but...

[joshmorgan · 6/10 · 8 February 2005]

I enjoyed this film for the most part. It was a decent surprise.

Was nice to see Felissa Rose in a film with a decent budget again (although her part here was beyond limited).

The visuals would be the main factor in recommending this flick. The atmosphere is moody and surreal, and the sets interesting enough to keep your attention.

I guess my main problem with this film, and so many like it, is the fact that it drips with pretension. Too often filmmakers (usually on the independent scene) confuse a pretext with a story, and try to force their point of view through visuals instead of coherency. While the director's next film was more thoroughly watchable (and easier to comprehend), this picture is still a nice change of pace for folks who are tired of mainstream cinema. It looks nice, just seems a little bogged down in it's own pretension.

this movie is BAAAAAAAd

[movieman_kev · 3/10 · 14 June 2005]

Reverand Salo Jr. invites five teenage druggies who escape from rehab to come to his secluded house on a promise of salvation. Salo Jr. and his wife's daughter, Grace, is very unhappy, but keeps getting dreams and visions of her grand-father, Salo Sr. (Kreskin, whom I refuse to call him 'Amazing'). Some of the teens have adverse effects to the drug that Salo Jr. had given them prior to them breaking out of rehab. Both the plot lines will entangle before long. OK, about this film. Weird & obtuse does NOT automatically equate to scariness and Kreskin is not a good actor bring the whole movie down. Is it a bad film? That's debatable. Is it a good horror movie? hell no it isn't.

My Grade: D

DVD Extras: Director's Commentary; 9 and a half minute Behind the scenes featurette; on the set with Kreskin; Photo Gallery; "Desecration" video short; Extended Horror Trailer; and Trailer for "Desecration"

superior, dread-driven followup to DESECRATION

[littlemes · 9/10 · 28 May 2003]

Director Dante Tomaselli tops himself for atmosphere, mystery,and simply putting an audience into an unsafe space where nothing and nobody can be trusted. This is what horror films USED to do, before the PC police infected the planet... Several standout performances, including Lizzy Mahon as Grace (who you actually care about, rare in a horror flick), and returning players Vincent Lamberti, Christie Sanford, and Danny Lopes as Luck, irony noted. Incredibly creepy and quite suspensful at times, HORROR is a confident nightmarish near-sequel to Tomaselli's first film with the best cinematography I've seen in a film of its budget. And I'm never going near a goat for the rest of my life.

SPOILER!!! Lynch, Romero, and Argento's love child Tomaselli makes a horror salad!

[chris-1463 · 7/10 · 21 October 2003]

Tomaselli has essentially made every horror movie he has ever wanted to make by making HORROR (duh... I think the title says it all). Pretty darn good for a rookie director. But just like Lynch.... C'mon man don't make me watch the movie more than twice! It has now been viewed in my house 3 times, and guess what? THERE IS NO MEANING!!!!!! JUST FUN! YOU MUST SEE SUICIDE CIRCLE... YEAH YOU

Patience Testing

[davidkennedy-91087 · 5/10 · 25 May 2019]

I'd call myself a patient film watcher, but Horror did try me. It tried me a few times. There's a germ of a great idea in here. Horror tries to approximate a nightmare and it comes super close to hitting the mark. Unfortunately, like all nightmares there are parts that are a little dull and the writer/director has decided to keep those parts in as well. I'll give him credit for a realistic nightmarish experience, but it doesn't always make for the most exciting viewing experience.

There are some cool flourishes here and there, but it might be better viewed in clips or with your finger pressed firmly on the fast forward button. Horror isn't a complete disaster, but it's a few fries short of a Happy Meal.

Fool me once, shame on you...

[doctor13 · 3 December 2003]

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.

Horror by name, horrible by nature.

[BA_Harrison · 1/10 · 21 July 2012]

After this film's godawful, multi-coloured opening credits I really didn't think that matters could get much worse, but they do: Dante Tomaselli's Horror is quite possibly the most incoherent piece of garbage I have ever seen, the story veering erratically from one scene to another with absolutely no attempt at narrative cohesion, the acting uniformly terrible, and the 'special effects' laughable. I have a pretty high tolerance for bad movies, but Horror had my finger hovering over the off button more than most.

To give you an idea of how bad this film is, a goat gives by far the best performance in the film, and probably would have done a better job at directing had it been given the chance. There's a moment when a guy turns blue with cold—I've seen better face painting at a kid's party. To be honest, I didn't understand what the hell what going on, but I really didn't care enough to try.

If you're determined to give this film a go, I suggest trying my drinking game to help make the experience a little less painful: take a shot every time the goat appears and whenever a door swings shut by itself, but don't be surprised that, even when totally s**t-faced, this film proves to be a complete and utter bore.

Just not right

[bk913 · 3/10 · 4 June 2012]

I'm no horror connoisseur but I've seen a lot from all kinds of time periods and genres. This one is just a head shaker. Soooo much wrong with it. The story and the plot do not make sense. And if the ending is trying to make you go "oh NOW I understand!" it doesn't work! Someone criticized the acting. I actually thought it was pretty decent. I mean when you have a REALLY weak script and even weaker dialogue as an actor what are you going to do (besides not take the role ;) ) ? I really could go on and on about how many flaws there were - so many big and little things including the gun shot sounds, the moments when you were suppose to be afraid, the motivation of the characters, the anti-climactic end of each of the characters, the horrible horrible dialogue that seems like it was just slapped together at the last minute. But anyway, I didn't give it a one star because the special effects were generally good (except for the pumpkin heads... but then again, there's only so much you can do when the script calls for "diabolical pumpkin heads" or whatever) and I did really love The Amazing Kreskin.

A Mess to Say the Least

[lovecraft231 · 1/10 · 16 July 2010]

Sometimes, horror fans and websites tend to hype directors as the next coming. While there have been times when this felt true (Neil Marshall and Ti West for example), there have also been many times in which said praise feels a bit unwarranted. Case in point: Dante Tomaselli. Here's a director who I want to like-he's got a gift for visuals, and clearly has some interesting themes going on, but he just doesn't know how to make a good horror movie yet. Case in point: his unimaginatively titled 2002 film "Horror."

The plot goes like this: A group of teens escape a rehab center to find some kind of questionable promise of salvation from a psychopathic preacher (is there any other kind in horror) named Reverend Salo Jr (Vincent Lamberti-his father played by magician The Amazing Kreskin.) Well, it turns out that Salo has enslaved his daughter Grace (Lizzy Mahon), and she keeps seeing visions of her late grandfather. Long story short, the leader of the escapees, named Luck (Danny Lopes) kills Reverend Salo and his wife, and the next thing you know a satanic goat, zombies and more come into play.

As you can guess, this really doesn't make any sense. And that's okay, I'm used to horror movies not making a lot of sense-the films of Dario Argento and Lucio Fulci usually didn't make much sense, but those movies were still great. It's clear that Tomaselli is influenced by those directors, but he just doesn't have what it takes to make the movie work. Guys like the aforementioned Italian masters understood the importance of dread and atmosphere, as well as build up and how to make set pieces work. Tomaselli doesn't seem to know how to make that work, though he sure does try. The film is essentially a series of off kilter images and random events that not only don't make any sense, but don't offer much to captivate the viewer's attention. It's as if the director thought "hey, this would look cool" or "Hey, I should throw in a Felicia Rose cameo", but in the process forgot he was directing a movie.

Another huge problem is that there are clearly some interesting themes here, but he doesn't know what to do with them. Themes of religious mania and drug induced paranoia run rampant, yet Tomaselli doesn't exploit these themes as much as he should. Instead, the character of Reverend Salo becomes yet another religious maniac cliché, and the whole thing involving drug induced hallucinations and random events ends up resembling an amateur level imitation of surreal Italian horror.

Granted, there are some nice visuals here and there, but that's not enough to make a good horror movie. It's a shame, because again, I want to like the director. He clearly has a lot of potential, and one day he could do a good horror movie-maybe even a great one. Too bad this one is an attempt and nothing more.

It's baaad.

[nogodnomasters · 4/10 · 17 January 2018]

Five kids and Grace eat mushrooms and "Hot Tamale" candy and hallucinate. In one scene a person is dead, the next they are not. It is our job to figure out what is going on, what is real and what is a hallucination, and what is the chronological order of the scene in relation to the other scenes.

While attempting to figure things out, similar things happen such as the appearance of a goat and pizza melting faces in the mirror as well as zombies. I really don't see the appeal of this production unless you're sitting in the dorm at Christmas time with a few 'shrooms trying to kill some time with some brain dead individuals.

Guide: F-bomb. No sex or nudity.

The Amazing Kreskin

[furvus-Ahto4353 · 6/10 · 28 June 2006]

I Googled "Kreskin", and it said somewhere that although born George Kresge, his legal name is now really The Amazing Kreskin. His credit cards say T.A.Kreskin. *lol* Such cheek! And he really is a stage magician by trade, not an actor. Maybe that explains his stilted performance in "Horror", which is his only film. He's just doing part of his stage show on film.

Oh yes, I found the site. It's just a review of his show so I don't know how trustworthy that trivia is. Anyway, it says so here: http://www.neilslade.com/Papers/kreskin.html

T.A. seems to have impressed that particular reviewer (Neil Slade), or maybe he was just drunk. According to him about 98% of the audience were beer-drinking young adults, as the show was sponsored by a rock radio station. But he couldn't have been, he was with his mom...???

This was really just some fun trivia on The Amazing Kreskin (Rev.Salo), but I didn't know how to put it in the trivia section.

Some Of The Best Horror Imagery I've Ever Seen

[danthewrestlingmanorigin · 9/10 · 26 January 2007]

Dante Tomaselli's Horror is an unbelievable achievement. The man has an eye for the surreal, and creepy, as Horror features some of the coolest shots since the original Suspiria. Renowned real life hypnotist The amazing Kreskin does a surprisingly good job, and if you believe the gentleman, the actors were actually under his hypnotic influence during his scenes. Also this film delivers arguably the greatest animal performance of all time, from the goat type creature on the box. The eyes on that animal, are creepy as hell. Horror is a difficult film to summarize, but if you enjoy the works of Dario Argento, and David Lynch, I think you will definitely enjoy this. Current up and coming scream queen Raine Brown makes her first major horror appearance in this, and Felissa Rose of Sleepaway Camp fame also has a cameo.

An almost perfect 70s-style chiller

[sinistre1111 · 7/10 · 25 June 2003]

Dante Tomaselli's Horror is very much in the tradition of great 1970s horror films, when chills and thrills were created by nuance and subtle imagery that was stimulating both consciously and subconsciously. Story exposition was neither literal nor was it fully complete in these classics - it was assumed that the viewer had some intelligence and a decent imagination and attention span.

Horror is very much a film in the language of great European directors like Bava, Argento and Fulci, as well as American geniuses like Bob Clark and George Romero. This is not to say that it doesn't achieve its own identity; Horror is far from pure homage, with a creepy atmosphere all its own. My one complaint is that 1 or 2 sequences go beyond 'homage' into blatant recreation (a 'Night of the Living Dead'-type scene in particular). Without these scenes, Horror still would have been a great film.

At 73 minutes, Horror is one fat-free, tightly edited, continuous hallucination, constantly chilling and engaging.

Dante Tomaselli has made New Jersey proud!

Weird Trippy Horror

[spacemonkey_fg · 8 March 2005]

Writer and Director: Dante Tomaselli

Released: 2001

Stars: The Amazing Kreskin, Lizzy Mahon, Danny Lopes, Vincent Lamberdi, Christie Sanford

Rated: R

Id been asking around about Dante Tomasellis "Horror". Since many people have been talking about Dante Tomasellis films around a lot, I got curious and finally decided to see what all the hoopla was about. The responses I got from people where mixed. They were somewhere along the lines of "I was disappointed" and that it was "Dreamlike" or to "not try to figure this one out".

Well I went in knowing that this was gonna be an unconventional type of horror film, not what we are used to seeing on an every day basis, and in the end this helped me in the viewing of the film, and in understanding what Tomaselli was trying to achieve (and ultimately did achieve) with his film "Horror".

The story is about a lot of characters, but mainly about the Salo family. A family composed of Reverend Salo Jr. his wife and his daughter Grace Salo who is constantly suffering from abuse from their freaky zealot parents who only care about their "religion". Not only that but they drug her so she is constantly hallucinating with horrific images that plage her. She thinks she speaks with her dead grandpa and so forth. Through out the film she decides to unravel the mystery of her dead grandfather and she finds out a lot more then she bargained for. At the same time, a bunch of kids escape a drug rehabilitation clinic and end up at the Salo home and end up experiencing a lot of surreal paranormal activity. Thats the set up. The rest of the movie is...nothing less then sheer psychological, trippy, drug induced, surreal terror.

First off we got to try and remember that this is an independently produced horror movie (Read:low-budget)so its strength wont be in its special fx, or its balls to the wall action. Its more quiet in nature, and more cerebral then your typical horror film. It seems that Dante Tomaselli was obviously shooting for a more psychological film that would scare you not from what you saw...but by what you didn't. What your mind could conjure up. Lets face it, whos scared of goats? But when you know that goat represents evil, possibly Satan himself, well, then things turn scary.

In my opinion Horror is a genuinely spooky and creepy film. Its filled with haunting visuals that include flying Halloween pumpkins, melting wax dolls, zombies, and evil demonic goats, all stemming from some really good direction. Unlike many horror films that we see today, which are really just action films with a little bit of horror sprinkled in, this one is above all else a Horror film. That's what it wants to do, scare the pants off of you. And I think it achieves it.

AS far as the story being a bit hard to grasp, well, the way I see it this was done deliberately by Tomaselli, to create a nightmare like feel to the movie, we feel that we are watching these kids nightmares or hallucinations, a flashback or drug induced trip. Either way this flick was genuinely eerie with its images and I gotta give Kudos to Tomaselli for going out of his way to create such gloomy atmosphere on such a meger budget.

OK now lets get down to one of the most captivating parts of this film...Reverend Salo played by The Amazing Kreskin, a real life "mentalist". The scenes where he "hypnotizes" some people inside of a Church, that was scary in a real sort of way. Specially when you find out that it was all really done on camera. Those actors and extras that were hypnotized on the movie, were hypnotized for real. It is creepy to hear them talking about their experience in the DVD extras.

Reverend Salo and Salo Jr. (two religious leaders of a strange cult) were the creepiest parts of the film, though I must admit that I wished they had explored them a bit more, or maybe dedicated more of the film to them. In my opinion it would have been cool to give us more insight on this crazy family of religious fanatics. They are interesting characters, and it would have been cool to know more about them, but I guess NOT knowing about them that much, just adds to the mystery of the characters. They become enigmatic...and what we don't know, we fear.

In the end this films is more towards the Psychological/horror sub-genre, and it's a bit more demanding then your usual film. It stears more towards the artsy horror film, something that is not at all bad and that in my opinion we need a more of. But of course its an artsy film that doesn't forgets that it is first and foremost a horror film. I cant wait to see what other Horrrors Dante Tomaselli has in store for us.

Rating: 4 out of 5

Rather creepy and atmospheric low-budget horror film.

[HumanoidOfFlesh · 7/10 · 29 October 2004]

"Horror" by Dante Tomaselli is far from being a perfect film.The acting is sometimes amateurish and there is not enough gore for my liking,but it certainly provides plenty of eerie atmosphere.Watching "Horror" reminded me of an acid trip.The film is wonderfully surreal and the atmosphere of dread and fear is well captured.It includes occult overtones,stoned teens,demonic possession,zombies,cultists and a creepy black goat.The story of "Horror" is non-linear and may be confusing for some viewers,but we are watching a dream with no coherent plot.Overall,I enjoyed this little horror flick and you should too,if you like weird and surreal horror cinema.8 out of 10.

Eerie atmosphere and mysterious sounds

[radyaw · 10/10 · 3 November 2002]

I caught this movie at the NYC Horror Film Festival in Tribeca Film Center last week. Luckily, I bought tickets ahead of time, because the NY Premiere screening was completely sold-out! I can safely say that creative "art" horror movies are back and it looks like Dante Tomaselli has cornered the market. The packed audience seemed to love this film - I know I did. Being a fan of the director's first, DESECRATION, I traveled 120 miles to see it. There's no way I can describe the plot to you, in fact, I don't even remember it, but HORROR builds up a brooding atmosphere of dread and tension like no other movie out there (something about a group of inmates who escape from a drug rehab and flee to the house of a preacher, who abuses his own daughter and drugs her). It's all about the eerie atmosphere and the mysterious sounds. This film is gorgeous to watch and it's like you're completely transported to another world. The imagery is macabre and always visually striking as if Mario Bava came back from the dead. (Trivia: Did you know director Tomaselli is the cousin of Alfred Sole, director of Alice Sweet Alice?) . If anything, HORROR reminded me of David Lynch's Mullholand Drive. You have absolutely NO IDEA where it's going. It's an eye-candy film that has a lot to offer though it's completely confusing as you're watching it. The virginal girl on the torture rack, the bad boy with drug problems, the mirror that distorts. It's left very vague. Why is it all happening? It may seem to not add up -- but it does in the end, somehow it does. HORROR is like one never-ending nightmare. The film's low budget doesn't show at all. I went to the official site and found this movie cost only $200, 000 to make -- that's amazing! Speaking of amazing, The Amazing Kreskin plays an insane preacher (I didn't know he could act) and you can't take your eyes of him for one-second. At first he seems to be a kindly understanding Grandfather then eventually, you see his hidden side - and it's perverse...PURE EVIL! The doomy synth-driven soundtrack was OUTSTANDING! And it never ever stops. That's a lot of this movie's appeal -- the sound. Sometimes the sound was more chilling than the film itself. I found myself being put into a trance from the very beginning. HORROR has freaky, glowing visuals (note: entire movie looks and feels like an acid trip) and cold-wintery landscapes. Did I mention the colors? Not since Argento, has a director so beautifully crafted a film into a full-fledged hallucinatory nightmare. Drugs? You won't need them, just watch this movie! I spoke to one of the festival organizers at the premiere and she said she thought it should be coming out on DVD very soon. I can't wait. I'm also anxiously awaiting the director's third film, Satan's Playground, which is supposed to be about the legend of the Jersey Devil. Bring it on!