Asylum of Fear (2018) User Reviews

Asylum of Fear: Carbon copy

[Platypuschow · 3/10 · 12 January 2018]

My first 2018 released movie, so how did it do?

So get this a bunch of 20 something ghost hunters go into an abandoned asylum and get picked off one by one by the ghosts within! And one of them is one of the doctors who went crazy and killed a bunch of people, original stuff right?

I've just described literally dozens of films, most famously House On Haunted Hill (1959 & 1999). Trouble is most of them did it considerably better than this. It is truly a carbon copy, I can't believe movies with this exact same plot continue to get released.

Asylum Of Fear is not a great start to 2018, 2017 wasn't great so let's hope things improve.

Looks the part, but that's about it.

The Good:

SFX are above par

The Bad:

Its been done before countless times

Things I Learnt From This Movie:

2018 has started on a big ol' low

Enough with the Asylums already unless you're gonna do something new

Not good for a reason

[Gagarr · 4/10 · 2 April 2022]

I judge based on expectations. A low budget horror movie gets lots of breaks, especially when I find out that a producer screwed them out or $$ and equipment.

My only serious criticism of the movie is the pathetic acting of the villain, Dr Pender, played by Matthew Urban. Horror movies are all about the villain not the protagonist. Thus, giving the most crucial role to the worst actor was an egregious mistake. My only guess is the BFA in Acting from U of Michigan, must have fooled someone into thinking he has talent, which he doesn't. I glad he has a Navy pension, because acting isn't going to pay his bills.

Kudos to Maurice Demus, who played Richard, you did the best job and I hope to see you more in the future.

Stop false crew/family member ratings

[cassandra-petersen · 2/10 · 24 June 2021]

Im almost sure the ratings that brought this film in the high 5's in the horror category were from crew members/actors and their family members. This movie is a solid 3, maybe 3.5 at best, giving it a 2 because of the false ratings. The storyline is mediocre, and the acting is 80% cringeworthy.

Kudos to new director's, actors etc in the learning process, but stop with the false ratings to gain views. It doesnt bring you any legitimacy or respect in the film world.

Warning about Asylum of Fear

[claudio_carvalho · 1/10 · 31 January 2018]

"Asylum of Fear" is a movie that makes the viewer think: "Why did I not read a book? Or took a nap? Or went to the gym? Or watch a classic film? Or did nothing?" It is so frustrating watching a mediocre amateurish flick and then think that the viewer has spent 1 h 19 min. of his or her life in front of a television set expecting to see something worthwhile but indeed watching nothing but a forgettable garbage. My vote is one (awful).

Title (Brazil): Not Available

Good Reviews are From Crew

[arfdawg-1 · 1/10 · 9 January 2018]

When a team of paranormal investigators is hired to inspect a soon-to-be demolished mental institution, they discover horrifying clues that reveal the cause of a violent massacre by an insane doctor in the 1960's.

This movie is abysmal and clearly the good swath of reviews come from clowns who worked on the movie.

It's amateurish at best. The acting sucks and nothing extraordinary really happens.

It's really poorly directed and you wind up being bored.

Not worth 20 seconds of your time

Don't waste your time

[dnesci-54546 · 1/10 · 4 May 2022]

I tried to ignore the negative reviews. I looked past the bad acting as actually enjoyed the story and was happy with the movie UNTIL THE TERRIBLE ENDING. It didn't exist, they made an ending climax and then credits. Don't waste your time for disappointment.

Just my thoughts about his movie

[ntg_cody · 1/10 · 9 January 2018]

Like a fellow reviewer said, I also think the ratings for this movie comes from friends and crew.

Ok, not to be a real negative reviewer since its my first, I appreciate the fact that they tried to do something, but the outcome is pretty bad, the acting part is like a bad joke (I thought at some point they are trying not to laugh themselves out) and the idea is very old also very boring to go through.

A group of untrained actors trying to make a movie about a haunted Asylum. Plain boring from the start since there are a lot of movies based on this same idea, nothing new only sound effects that are trying their best to give you a little scare, which they fail to do also.

The movie doesnt worth the time.

Sorry guys, my rating is 1, but I guess this 1 star is for trying to do something without any involvement from bigger movie companies. Maybe the next one will be better with a good original idea. If you lack the script writers ideas, I would gladly do it for you, I dreamed a much more scary thing past week that could be good for your next movie.

Cheers

If I could rate it lower, I would

[nikishamelendez · 1/10 · 5 October 2020]

This movie has a great premise: Yhere are two boys who just disappear, and the owner of an abandoned asylum that has a tragic past, hires a paramomal investigation team to come and prove that there is activity. It's filled with a team of the usual suspects, the leader, the person with family issues, the overprotective male, the female who's drawing the affection of the new hot guy to the group, and of course, said new hot guy to the group, who happens to not believe in ghosts. When they all arrive to the asylum, to speak with the owner, he explicitly states that there are ghosts there, and they don't mess with him. So why did he hire them? No idea! The leader, Rich, is an empath. He touches objects throughout the movie, to "see" what happened in the past, but all you get is a TON of bad acting, and poorly designed sets. As group members have events that happen, that takes them out of the movie, you find yourself counting down until the movie ends, and hoping you didn't lose any brain cells along the way.

Worst adult movie ever

[moghorva · 1/10 · 23 April 2018]

The movie in key words: Serious plot holes; horrible acting; lines read out from paper; extremely cliché characters; hilariously cheap set even cheaper visual effects; amateur lighting and cutting; no directing at all; dull story; actors cast by their looks; etc. etc.

In conclusion, it's the worst porn ever made - no nudity nor sex involved.

Not that good, but not that bad

[serina25801 · 5/10 · 30 June 2020]

Let me start off by pointing out the good in this movie. The five main leads are the best point in the film. They work well off of each other and they do throw their all into their acting, even with the movie's cliched premise. Even the guy at the end (won't spoil who) threw his all into his performance. I genuinely became attached to these characters and was upset when things happened to them. Which is WAY more than most standard horror flicks.

The production value is also really nice, even though some of the effects can be lackluster (at one point, a guy's head is bashed in, but you can clearly tell it's just a mannequin).

Now for the bad, and there's quite a bit. Any actors that aren't our leads. The guy who plays Dr. Pender is horrible. He's supposed to play this scary psychotic, but it comes off so phoned in anytime he's on screen. Whenever there was a flashback scene, it just sucked me out of the film entirely, and I wanted to return to the present with the investigation. The deaths scenes during the flashbacks were hilarious. One person gets stabbed in the stomach with a scalpel and immediately dies. So many of the deaths were caused by injuries that wouldn't kill someone - literally flesh wounds. It's cheesy, it's great.

Also, the kid actors. I hate knocking child actors because they are children, but any time they have a speaking role, you'll find yourself asking if they ever bothered with a second take.

Again, the premise is cliched, but what do you expect for an asylum haunting flick?

Overall, I did enjoy this film for what it was. It wasn't that good, but it wasn't that bad. Half of it truly had my interest, while the other half kept losing it. If you're looking for something mindless, yet entertaining, I recommend it.

Fun Paranormal Thriller

[ele-81319 · 8/10 · 10 January 2018]

I'm not usually one to review a title but I'm disagreeing with what I am seeing here . Also it drives me nuts coming onto pages, mostly low budget independent films from what I can tell, seeing people say the only good reviews are from the cast or crew. Just because you didn't like it doesn't mean other people didn't enjoy it.

If you are a fan of paranormal television shows, which I have a guilty pleasure of, this will be a good movie for you.

I would say this film is more thriller than horror. It is not in your face scares and up until you get to the end there is not a lot of violence. Although it does hit later. What they do well though is build up the intensity surrounding this asylum.

While the story may not be the most original out there I think the way it was told was great. It was obvious the cast was having a lot of fun and their chemistry together on the screen was fantastic!

My friend and I rented this and were very pleasantly surprised. If you want to sit down and see a fun mystery/thriller with a paranormal setting, I would recommend this one.

Like A Late Night Ghost Hunting Special

[vm04k · 6/10 · 20 October 2021]

This reminds me of those paranormal tv shows you see every night on travel channels. Once the film gets to the asylum it was a fun watch. Good paranormal scares and the ghost hunting crew were cast really well. This film is not perfect, it's a plot that has been done repeatedly and some of the supporting characters could have been replaced. I like ghost stories and those paranormal tv shows so this was a good one. If you enjoy those as well I would recommend this movie.

Insanely Bad - Couldn't Even Finish Watching It

[kcrisenphoenix · 1/10 · 29 March 2022]

I had been warned by other raters here, but one or two went on about how unfair those ratings were (filmchic101 was one of them) so I gave it a chance, thinking it might be so bad is was good. No such luck. Do NOT pay attention to filmchic101! This movie is dreadful and the acting is so horribly bad my back teeth started hurting, especially, Michael Medford as Shane Miller (there are no words to describe how bad he was) and James Doherty (while very cute and sexy) as Zak was just painful to watch. They're the main reasons I had to STOP watching. That and it all is just terrible. Bad specials, bad filming, bad editing, bad bad bad bad. Callie Deering as Nicky Miller was the only one who looked like she could have talent. Avoid "Asylum of Fear" at all costs! Otherwise you just might go insane! Shame on Paramount+ for including this in their offerings. Shame!

Not much to say

[torroutedipz · 4/10 · 3 June 2018]

Really not much to say here. It is what it is, I mean there are a 100 asylum movies and another 1000 movies about paranormal investigation teams, this movie has both. I do think it's in the better half of these movies (for whatever that's worth). Mainly above average because it was pretty well made, good effects and not horrible acting. Personally, I actually liked the team and individuals (as cliche as they are). So yes, it's a team of paranormal investigators going in to document a haunting, but I don't think it's a waste of time. Oh yeah, there's also a missing children angle thrown in, which is a little different. Btw that's where the worst acting occurs. The female cop must be the producers sister or something because she is awful.

my notes

[FeastMode · 1/10 · 24 July 2019]

Rofl. not a movie. didn't finish. could tell IMMEDIATELY it was trash. bye (1 viewing)

somehow gets more amateurish as it goes on

[phenomynouss · 1/10 · 7 July 2018]

There always seems to be something about lower budget and amateur films that make themselves instantly recognizable. Most likely it's due to the quality of the camera. I never begrudge a movie being or looking amateur. As such, I was not at all bothered by how this film began, with two adult actors doing a somewhat shaky acting job but not outright bad or offensive.

Once their role in the cold open was done, we open to the main characters; a bunch of late teen/early 20s type kids, with one of them shrieking at his father as he packs up for a trip to the asylum. I was watching this entire scene from inside the guy's house to into the car and I cannot for the life of me remember what the point of the scene was or what it was about. If it was an exposition dump, it was so colossally boring that it failed outright.

Once it gets to the asylum, it picks up significantly, with an older man acting as their daytime guide with a sharp wit and deadpan affect, made me laugh every time he corrected them (such as claiming the name of the movie with the Chuckie doll is "Child's Play", not "Chuckie").

As soon as he's out, the film becomes significantly worse, as the kids start lingering about the asylum at night and encountering some "ghostly" encounters that range from completely indistinguishable from a non-paranormal prank or act of sabotage, to blatantly added-in-later sound effects.

What really completely destroys the rest of the film are pointless, cynically gory flashbacks involving the supposed "doctor" of the asylum, who looks and sounds as young, if not younger than the camera people there. Not sure how a kid who can't possibly be older than 25 can somehow be a doctor and head of an asylum. All his acting cues are over the top to the point where it is inexplicable as to how all the people around him are just standing around listening to him shriek incoherently and rage nonstop, even as he is actively killing other people in front of them.

Every flashback scene like this supposedly serves to fill in plot points about the history of the asylum, thus doing literally the exact opposite of what a good horror mystery should do (show us spooky stuff, and indirectly infer background points with them). As well, these scenes are not only incredibly badly acted, but somehow manage to look like they were shot on a stage rather than the set.

And the copious gore and murder depicted is so cynical and lazy as to evoke distaste not in the character, but in the movie itself. There's one flashback in particular where the doctor is inexplicably shrieking at a nurse, then uses a gun to murder a bunch of children. It's so poorly executed and poorly shot that it feels insulting, like a deliberate bit of mockery of the genre as a whole.

Somehow I managed to get 52 minutes into the film before giving up in cynical disgust. The LEAST that I can say about this is that most of the actors, despite several of them not being very good, are at the very least trying their best and are giving fairly decent performances, with the exception of the doctor.

Better than some of these people will have you believe

[filmchic101 · 26 May 2021]

Some of these reviews are terrible and unjust. Seems more like people with an axe to grind. Full disclosure, I am friends with someone attached to this movie, but i will still give my honest opinion. There are a few issues that concern me, the story and premise are obviously not very original but that can really be said about most of the fare in this genre. The acting may not be great but it's not bad and certainly not as bad as some make it out to be. Some of the pace issues could've easily been addressed in editing. The special FX are very good, especially for an indie, the art department and production design team did quite well on this and there really aren't any glaring technical issues that you tend to find in a lot of indie projects. I'm glad I gave it a whirl.

I wanted this to be good...

[sharkandledo · 1/10 · 21 October 2018]

I turned this off after about 25 minutes. The acting was horrible! This premise/storyline has been done many times, but maybe never this badly. Don't waste your time.

How is this a 5.9?

[csliger931 · 1/10 · 9 May 2022]

Are we watching two different movies here? This movie getting a 5.9 is LAUGHABLE. The reviews had to come mostly from people involved with the making of the film. It's a terrible movie.

Scooby Doo where are you?

[johnsmithjanuary-20081 · 2/10 · 21 March 2022]

The cheesiness in the movie goes beyond the typical ghostbusters nonsense. The actors feel as though they're acting out a children's spook/mystery flick but with scenes of R rated gore. Not an entertaining watch from start to finish.

One of the dumber films of its genre.

[frankblack-79961 · 2/10 · 27 May 2021]

I'm shocked this is rated at a 5. Really, really bad acting. Decent special effects. Really bad acting. Stereotypical plot. Really bad acting.

Sensitive or experience of your own? Watch this

[foxlightstep · 8/10 · 11 June 2018]

If you have had personal paranormal experience, or you are sensitive, this is a good watch. It will give you some chills. If you don't have either, then you'll probably just end up disappointed with a tiny thrill adrenaline if you're lucky.

Asylum films are getting cheesy and over done. But usually it's a bunch of teenagers looking for a thrill or spooky night. Or it's a "found footage" ordeal. Which gets old real fast and takes the viewer out of the moment. The description states it's a paranormal team going to a place that's soon to be demolished. I'm not even sure it was ever mentioned the place was going to be demolished. The one man that's not part of the group is a non believer and a jerk. He doesn't bother trying to get to know the team for his article. I think the story could have been a little better if the beginning was re written to him interviewing each member of the team. That way we get a feel for them. Only 1 person is a sensitive? That doesn't make any sense since Nicki shows a few times she can at least feel the energy output of the spirits. We are constantly thrown back and forth since the group splits up, and then it's the police investigation for the missing boys. The missing boys is thrown in at the beginning and honestly sounds like it's an audio coming from the past to set the stage. But no, it's a current event. Not really relevant until the very end. Speaking of the end, it is heavily implied that the doctor's spirit possesses our sensitive, and the movie ends rather abruptly. Signing off that there will be a sequel. Well everyone but the one guy is dead. The place is to be demolished. Not much to go on for a sequel.

Good Plot, Story Cheap Production

[cjstanford-65097 · 6/10 · 20 September 2022]

I gave it a 6 could have been a 5. Unfortunately for the movie I actually fell asleep in the middle , reversed and fell asleep again-But wide awake for the beginning and the end. I think there's a little too much of the same scare tropes. Also, it's in the slasher category in a way. So be ready for for a declining number of actors, for the most part the worst actors are killed first, a thought dil touch by the director. The acting is better than most of these cheaper productions have and the story actually pulls together well. Yes, there are "plot holes" but they're passable. The plot has greater depth, development than in many high budget horror films. I think it is a easily watched , enjoyable story with some twists and an explanation which is often missing.

Don't.......Show......Fear........

[wandernn1-81-683274 · 2/10 · 17 June 2020]

Another one of those Paranormal Investigator flicks. You really can't have too many of those right????

Oh wow so the 'sensitive' guy sees a whole dark replay of everything that ever occurred in the ASYLUM??? That's an amazing ability!!!

-1 Star for the 'scene' the sensitive can see, but apparently he's the only one that can see it. So really if he's the only one who can see it, and he's not obviously telling anyone else about it, then how do the other idiots know about it??? Eh?

-1 Star For Once The 'Investigators' Realize that Spirits are Manifesting and able to do them physical harm...it makes a lot of sense to insult them verbally in order to initiate more contact!!!!

-1 Star For the nonsensical convoluted ending that was just a mess and really cemented this film as one of the worst ....WORST Paranormal 'Investigator' Films of ALL TIME!!!

But I did make it all the way to the end of this mess so......

2/10

Mixed bag

[verdandee · 2/10 · 20 June 2021]

Screen writing was pretty bad. The acting was pretty poor, but that could have been due to the bad script. There was absolutely no chemistry between the actors. They were supposed to be long term friends, but for the most part they seemed like they had all just met.

Storyline was pretty basic and predictable.

On a positive note, the actor playing Conner did a good job.