The Dungeon of Harrow (1962) User Reviews

Dungeon of Harrow (1962) *

[JoeKarlosi · 2/10 · 3 July 2004]

Okay, make no mistake - this is a pretty awful film, but I actually thought it had a couple of creepy scenes and overcame its pathetic budget every now and then. At the very least it's unintentionally funny in spots and has a definite air of creepiness and discomfort (a face burning scene, the part with the disfigured bride). This baby falls into the "so bad it's entertaining" category to me, and for that alone I would give it a star. The effects are terrible, the acting is abysmal, and the whole thing looks like it was shot in a day. You gotta love that toy ship at the beginning, too! It brought back childhood memories of seeing this on late night TV many years ago. While the Alpha DVD print looks weak and as though it was recorded directly off an old television broadcast or something, I actually liked that in this case! * out of ****

This one can sting...you have to be in the right mood to appreciate this

[lemon_magic · 2/10 · 3 June 2006]

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".

Some comments on the DVD quality

[rwagn · 2/10 · 5 April 2008]

Buyer beware. The Alpha Video release uses a print that defies description. The movie was shot in color but you wouldn't know it for the first 25 minutes or so. The print that is used is so faded and decrepit that it appears almost sepia toned. After 30 minutes some color seeps back into the print but from there to the conclusion the color comes and goes. Keep in mind, even at it's best the color is pale and washed out. It looks like the print was recorded off a television that wasn't getting the best reception. Adding to this travesty is the most plodding delivery of lines that I can recollect. Even the voice over narration is stupor inducing. Every line is delivered in this irritating plodding demeanor. I found myself wishing that they would hurry and get the words out. For this reason I couldn't wait for this movie to end. It's one of those so-bad -it's- good movies but I wish that someone would find a half decent print. Adding notation December 2010--Sinister Cinema offers this title and it is struck from a pristine print. This version still has the nude scene censored.

Soft porn moment edited out

[cewilsonjr · 27 May 2006]

Wondering why the scene on the Alpha DVD where Ann (the servant girl) and Fallon were making out for a brief moment looks like it has been cut? It was cut on the TV station copy the DVD was made from because Ann bared her breasts for Fallon (and the viewers) when she came into his room. The first time I saw this movie was in the early 70's on the local UHF station in Baltimore. It must have been the first time they had shown it (and must not had previewed it, thinking it was just a low-budget horror flick), because nothing from the scene was edited out. On the DVD, you see her at the door with her top undone and cleavage showing, and then it cuts to the two of them making out before Fallon pulls away. In the uncut version that I saw, she walks in and opens her top even more to expose her breasts as she offers herself to him. I was in my early teens in the days before cable and the internet, so you could imagine about how I could not believe how I had lucked out and seen this! I told my friends about it soon after, and they thought I was making it up. Next time the movie came on I tipped them off that it was going to be shown again, but the TV station had gotten wise to it and edited out the bare breasts. Needless, to say we were a disappointed bunch, but at least my friends saw that something had been cut out. Anybody else get to see the unedited scene back when the movie first started being shown on TV? This might just start a hunt to see if there's still an uncut copy still in existence...

satisfaction for seekers of the freaky

[asinyne · 5/10 · 29 December 2009]

I agree with some comments made previously and I also disagree with a few comments. I concur that this movie has the feel of something from the 1930's that somehow got filmed in color. In my opinion that's not a bad thing cause I love the old suspense films from that era. Make no mistake, this is a C film working with very few resources. Its not a huge stretch to compare this movie with The Terror, the Corman/Karloff/Nicholson epic. There are similarities. The action takes place near the ocean in a creepy old castle with a creepy old man, there is a mysterious and very lovely girl, there is a mystery about the old man's wife, etc. etc. Dungeon of Harrow is sorta and even lower budget version of that low budget classic which I actually loved. There are some very cheesy moments which would have best been left out. The shipwreck is lame, the skimpy Santa Claus outfit Mantis wears is kinda really dumb, and the painting of the Manor is pretty weak.

It doesn't help much that the leading man has zero acting ability. He does kinda look the part which helps. Also, the film moves very slowly at times. However, the overall effect is sorta like watching some surreal play while doing acid. Not a bad thing!

The big payoff for me were the scenes when the leading man is tossed into the dungeon which was more like a massive tomb. What he encounters there actually manages to bring the audience a few moments of rather stark anxiety. The scenes in the "tomb" were awfully effective, I was creeped out.

I am familiar with some of the Director, Pat Boyette's, comic book illustrations. The man had an imagination and the ability to create weird visual images. At the end of the day this movie is one of those "what might have been with more money, real actors, real special effects, and a more experienced director." However, it still manages to be rather watchable for its bizarro value and some out of the box experimentation. I gave it a five because I did enjoy it reasonably well. Its quite a trip if you're into stuff that is sorta "out there." Check it out, its still showing somewhere out there on Planet Weird.

A good idea that goes nowhere

[burkhart-3 · 2/10 · 27 March 2003]

The basic idea behind "Dungeon of Harrow" isn't all bad. The acting, however, is bad. The lighting is bad. The music is bad. The scenes of torture are without emotion. There really isn't much there to recommend this film. You know what kind of a movie you're in for when the credits say "Special Guest Star" and list someone you've never heard of. Might as well say "Rex Hamilton as Abraham Lincoln." because there's really no one in this movie you can identify. There are one or two decent moments, mostly toward the end and I think the basic plot outline may have contained an original idea, but that alone is not enough to keep you awake through this otherwise inept yawner.

Harrowing indeed

[Flixer1957 · 3/10 · 23 August 2002]

**May Contain Spoilers**

The main character, a nobleman named Fallon, is stranded on an island with characters so looney and lethal he might have been better off drowning. Count Lorente de Sade (pronounced "dee-SAYd") talks to his own hallucinations and sees all intruders on the island as invading pirates. He routinely beats mute servant Anne and tortures his unwilling guests in the dungeon. Inadvertant laughs are provided by giant "Nubian" slave Mantis who talks with a Deep South accent and helps de Sade hunt down trespassers in the style of THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME. De Sade's crazed wife, ravaged by leprosy, provides some truly scary moments as she prowls the dungeon and embraces a helplessly chained prisoner. (This scene was viewed on late-night TV by many kids who carried the memory into adulthood.) The one nearly-normal person in sight is Cassandra, who has self-deprecation down to a science. ("I used to be a nurse, now I'm not much of anything.") She and Fallon plan their escape and ultimately encounter an enemy more fearsome than de Sade and Mantis combined.

This movie was shot in San Antonio and directed by a man more competent at drawing horror comics than making horror movies. (I'll say this much for Mr. Boyette--he does showcase his fixatation with contagion here, as he did in his comics.) It's rather like an Andy Milligan melodrama minus the meat cleavers. The period wardrobe, library music, abuse of the handicapped and all-around misanthropy makes one wonder if Andy wasn't called in as a consultant. However, Milligan made better costumes and wrote better dialogue. Technical gaffes are too numerous to list here but you know this flick is in trouble when you see the opening shipwreck, which looks like it was shot in a fish tank. Also, a film made in Texas should have had real spiders and snakes rather than rubber ones. Glorious Eastmancolor gives this melodrama the garish look it so richly deserves. Fallon's initial encounter with the leprous Countess is truly horrifying, as is the movie's parting shot. If the rest had been half as harrowing, THE DUNGEON OF HARROW would have been a terror classic. Instead it's a funny piece of schlock that trash-fiends will love, for all the wrong reasons.

It Has a Couple of Moments

[Hitchcoc · 3/10 · 10 November 2009]

This movie tries to be more than it is. First of all, the acting is horrible. You have to get past the incredibly bad delivering of lines and terrible emoting. The plot is quite interesting. A shipwreck occurs (apparently because it was made out of strings and balsa wood), and a couple of guys find themselves on shore. If this weren't bad enough, some guy named Count de Sade is living there as well. He lives in fear of pirates and has gone utterly insane. Anyway, he has a large slave, a young woman, and some dogs. There's another woman who doesn't speak and his wife, who is a leper. Anyway, things get bad as these men have to deal with this nut case. He is arrogant and likes to pose and deliver lines. The rest of the movie involves an attempt to escape. It has an ironic ending which I won't reveal and it kind of rescues the film. I wouldn't bother if I were you.

A-Low-Ha from Pat Boyette

[wes-connors · 5/10 · 4 July 2009]

"The mad Count De Sade lives in his families' (sic) castle located on a remote island. Count De Sade keeps his wife locked up in a dungeon below the castle and his insanity strike (sic) fear into the staff. After a terrible storm, a ship's captain and the son of the ship's owner find themselves washed ashore on this lonely isle, not knowing the danger they face from the evil Count De Sade," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

This hilariously awful spoof of "The Most Dangerous Game" could obviously be better, with a bigger budget and more directorial flourish. But the script, by Pat Boyette and Henry Garcia, is quite wittily written; and, the performances are delivered with appropriate tongues-in-cheek. Although its satirical intent serves to negate it as a "so-bad-it's-good" movie, "The Dungeon of Harrow" should appeal to followers of that genre.

***** The Dungeon of Harrow (1962) Pat Boyette ~ Russ Harvey, Helen Hogan, William McNulty

Not completely worthless, but not very good, either.

[Hey_Sweden · 4/10 · 4 October 2019]

Aaron Fallon (Russ Harvey) and a ships' captain (Henry Garcia) are the only two survivors of a shipwreck. Washing up on an isolated island, they become the guests - or is that prisoners? - of the primary island resident, a maniacal Count named De Sade (William McNulty). Assisted by a simple-minded Dennis Rodman look-alike dubbed Mantis (Maurice Harris), The Count likes to regularly torture people. Eventually, Aaron and The Counts' young companion, Cassandra (Helen Hogan), try to make a break for freedom.

Filmed on the ultra-cheap in Texas, "The Dungeon of Harrow" plays as if it weren't a 1960s film, but something made during the 1930s or 1940s instead. It has that sort of feel about it. It's not without strangeness and atmosphere, thanks to co-writer / director Pat Boyette. (He actually had a solid career after this as a comic book artist; his credits in this capacity include Howard the Duck.) But, far too often, his story is VERY dull and VERY talky. "The Dungeon of Harrow" commits one of the cardinal sins of movies by being boring most of the time.

That's not to say that it doesn't have its amusements. Examples: the hilariously campy performance by McNulty. He manages to save the film, at least whenever he's on screen. And the pronunciation of De Sade by the characters (it's done phonetically) is good for some mild chuckles. The effects, and matte shots, are so crude as to be priceless. Not all of the performances are that great, however (although that's to be expected): Harvey is an extremely, fatally insipid leading man. And Harris joins him in his brand of stiff "acting". Actually, with the exception of McNulty, and TV horror host Lee Morgan as a ghostly "Captain", nobody looks like they WANT to be here.

This viewer wanted to enjoy this a bit more, due to his soft spot for cheesy midnight movies, but this can be a real chore to get through at times.

Four out of 10.

It's bad but it's fun.

[stephen-duffy2 · 2/10 · 3 June 2011]

Words fail me – well nearly. Never heard of this one but it could well be a contender for one of the worlds worst movies – yes, it's that bad. Thankfully it's also great fun with a good few laugh out loud moments and i must say by the end i had a warm spot for it – no i don't mean Hell. Direction, photography, editing, performances all stink like week old fish but oddly the script has, in between plenty of crap dialogue some wonderfully lucid and poignant lines that could have come straight from the pages of a 19th century novel by M.R. JAMES or some other notable genre scribe of the period. The story itself is quite strong and given some money, a decent cast and crew there was a good movie waiting to be made here. Certainly worse than anything EDDIE WOOD ever did and i suspect this is what an ANDY MILLIGAN picture might look like – i've only seen trailers of that guy's .....'work'. At least originally it would have looked nice enough having been shot in EASTMAN COLOR – alas the print here ( on YOU TUBE ) had very faded colours.

If you dig 60's horror comics, ala Creepy and Eerie, or regional horror oddities, this is pure gold!

[KREEPY · 8/10 · 21 May 2010]

This film just screams cheap-jack 60's horror comics ala Creepy and Eerie, and I mean screams with a capital S, and no surprise really, being director Boyette was a well-known horror comic scribe/artiste. Where "Creepshow" failed in really capturing that "EC-vibe", "Dungeon" succeeds 100% in getting that surreal budget label Charlton Comics thing down to a tee! I say, turn it on, shut down you brain and just soak in the oddness, and this film is way odd, dreamlike really, and best watched while slightly groggy after 1 AM (it has a similar dreamy quality akin to the classic poverty row noir "Detour" in this regard, call me crazy)...that said, though, I really only recommend it to hardcore genre fans, regional horror obscurity weirdos (like myself, especially fans of Texas-lensed regional oddities), and retro horror comic fans, so if this sounds like you, Dungeons is pure gold. Now, if someone could please find Boyette's lost film "The Weird One's" my life would be complete.

Give It A Try, Really! Ignore Those Other People!

[Scott_Mercer · 6/10 · 18 March 2006]

I've seen me a lot of bad movies, and I've seen me a lot of low budget movies.

Note: those two are NOT necessarily the same! I shouldn't even have to say this, but everyone who has watched at least a few movies (and that includes almost everyone in the United States), has had this experience; you go to a theater or turn on a movie channel. Sometimes you get a huge budget major studio film that is oddly hollow, perfunctory and disappointing. Sometimes you get a film that is entertaining in spite of its low budget, transcending its limitations.

The latter is what we get here. In the world of low budget film-making, there are a few "cheats" that can be used to make up for a lack of sumptuous screen images. One is great acting. Another is great writing. We are not treated to either of those in DUNGEON OF HARROW.

But we are treated to a creepy, hallucinatory atmosphere which is quite effective, and gives the viewer a bang for the buck infinitely out of proportion with its tiny budget. Remember, this is (to speak simplistically) a period Gothic horror film shot in Texas in 1963 for a budget under $50,000. Keeping that in mind, the filmmakers and actors have come up with quite a laudable final product. Fans of CARNIVAL OF SOULS can expect similar chills on a small budget, though COS is a much better film.

For a couple of bucks, or in a cheap DVD box set, this film is well worth your time if you like late show type horror thrills.

UPDATE: This film is in the Public Domain. Readily available on YouTube or other streaming video options for free.

PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE is not the worst movie ever made.

[mccolley2 · 1/10 · 12 February 2005]

That distinction has to go to THE DUNGEON OF HARROW. At least Ed Wood's misguided attempt at making a quality science fiction film had the dubious "star" power of Bela Lugusi, Vampira, Tor Johnson, Criswell and Lyle Talbot. THE DUNGEON OF HARROW has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. What could have been an interesting and suspenseful plot about a marooned aristocrat on a leper colony, perhaps in the style of THE ISLAND OF DR. MOREAU or MYSTERIOUS ISLAND, is trashed by the heavy dialog and mono tonal acting of amateurs whose lines sink like lead weights into a sea of stupidity. The "special effects", which took place in someone's bathtub, further doom this film to the dung heap. Even the treatment of leprosy is something out of a Victorian interpretation of the Bible. The fact that leprosy can not be contracted from an individual in its last stages belies the plot line that the aristocrat Fallon and his lady, Cassandra contract the disease and end up as the original occupants of the Castle De Sade, doomed to insanity and inhuman cruelty. It is interesting to note that not one member of the cast made another film. No wonder, talent begets talent; lack of talent begets oblivion, which is where this film should find its deplorable end.

Bargain basement scarer that overcomes its limitations once or twice.

[reptilicus · 22 March 2001]

Here we have a film that looks like it was filmed over a long weekend. We know right away what we are in for during a storm-at-sea scene when the ships captain (Henry Garcia) bangs on a passengers door and the whole plywood set shakes. This is followed by a shot of a miniature ship in someones swimming pool. Stick around, this one has just GOT to be fun. Sure enough, the captain (Mr. Garcia who also co-wrote and co-produced) and Mr. Fallon (Russ Harvey) son of the ships owner, find themselves washed up on the island of Count DeSade (Bill McNulty). The Count has a little problem . . .he's crazy and terribly paranoid, believing everyone who comes to his island is a pirate. The captain soon finds himself imprisoned in the castle torture chamber while Fallon and Count DeSade's nurse Cassandra (Helen Hogan) try to plot a way off the island of madness. Directed by Pay Boyette, the artist who drew "Howard The Duck", this is the sort of movie Drive-In Cinema managers lived for. An early scene stresses how insane Count DeSade is. He sees a ghostly figure (Lee Morgan, a late night TV horror show host who gets "Guest Star" billing) who claims to be a physical incarnation of his own madness and sees snakes and giant spiders. The prolonged torture of the captain gets pretty tough to watch as the film goes on but the encounter between Fallon and DeSade's leprous, mad wife (Eunice Grey) is truly nightmarish.

Performances are . . .well . . .everyone does the best they can, which sadly is not saying much. Michele Buquor is okay as Anne, mute servant girl. In a nod to the 1960's she is miniskirted and barefoot like a time transplanted hippie chick. Standing out is Maurice Harris as Mantis, the count's devoted servant. he gets some of the best dialog in the picture and his line just before he dies is a sleaze movie classic. Lovers of low budget scary movies owe it to themselves to see this one at least once. No, make that twice; you'll want to see it again to make sure you weren't hallucinating the first time.

Z-grade B-grade fare

[stareater50 · 1/10 · 31 December 2005]

This movie shows what you can create if you have a camera, some spare paint and cardboard,a toy ship, a few friends who acted in community theater, and the incorrect notion you can make a film. The end result is an unwatchable time-waster that you'll skip through, unless you take it out of the DVD player and toss it through the window first.

The acting in the opening scene (especially by the rotund Lee Morgan as 'Captain') and the toy ship "crashing" into the rocks before the credits is a good indicator of what you're in for (with all the foam, it looks like this "special effect" was shot in a kitchen sink. I guess Boyette figured he save some cash by washing the dishes at the same time). In terms of bad cinema, the funny thing is "Dungeon of Harrow" seems to have inspired (maybe by coincidence) the twist ending of "Manos: The Hands of Fate". Yep, it's the same lame "I was the victim, and now I take the mad villain's place" ironic ending. The bigger irony is that two inept, talentless filmmakers could make two equally-wretched, Texas-filmed horror movies and get away with it.

Monotone nerd Russ Harvey is a noble in a great family line (why they were great is never broached), boring us while lamenting the death of his family line and crest before his ship even crashes (we're also treating to a droning narration throughout the film). Sadly, we aren't so lucky. His family's toy ship crashes into some styrofoam in a sink, and he's washed ashore with his bloated captain and some woman, conveniently deposited on a mad Count's island.

Meanwhile, the Count is visited by an evil spirit who, dressed in a Blackstone's Magic Kit outfit, assaults him with various puppets (spiders, snakes, bats. . . all the icky stuff). The Count (William McNulty) overacts worse than Shatner and has a visibly difficult time keeping a straight face through the typical madman ranting.

I'd be mad too if I had to be in this disaster. The woman is promptly killed by the Count's ferocious dogs, and the two jerks are captured by his manservant. The Count accuses them of being pirates (apparently his worst fear), he slaps his manservant around a lot (apparently his greatest joy), Fatboy gets tortured, there's a woman who's a servant and one who's a nurse, the rotting leper hag-in-a-wedding-dress Countess in the dungeon (she digs the Nerdy Noble and is the only effective & creepy thing in the movie), a lot of inane dialogue at a dining room table, the blubbery Captain gets killed while making a pathetic getaway (aking to watching a sloth battle a pack of lions). . . it's all an ugly haze to me. I spent most of my time on the fast-forward button.

Anyway, the jerk noble and nurse make a getaway and think they're going to be rescued by three guys in a rowboat on the lake (yeah, we're supposed to believe a lake is the ocean). They don't, since the nerd's hair turned gray and he scares the would-be rescuers away. Honestly, I think they simply took the opportunity to row away from this hideous film while the had the chance. They head back to the castle, the nurse starts rotting like the Countess (and your stomach, by this time), and we end with these two getting ready to descend into the . . . DUNGEON OF HARROW!!!! Blech!

I love old, lousy horror films, but they must have some sort of entertainment value. I feel ripped off, even at the low low price of $5.99 for this biscuit. Mystery Science Theater would have a tough time making this one fun. I was taken in by a few nutty reviewers who claimed this film had atmosphere and some creepy moments. Wrong! Avoid this tripe at all costs, and don't even waste a buck if you find it in a dollar bin somewhere. This movie makes Corman's "The Terror" like like a masterpiece of horror and atmosphere.

There's a lot of wasted money making some movies.

[tonopah6 · 2/10 · 12 December 2005]

This had some of the worst acting in the annals of acting. The ship captain was a horrible actor. The main character was almost as bad, while he narrated his way through this $H*T (ala Tom Neal in 'Detour'). There was a goof who played a ghost of the mansions master; and he was just that, a goof. The dungeon woman with plaster on her face (an idea of making her look weird) did one of the worst dying efforts I've ever seen, when getting stabbed by, a letter opener? from the token beauty. And the music, sometimes, seemed like it came from a b-western. The only good part (if you want to decide to laugh at this movie) was the black servant who looked to be dressed like Mrs. Santa Claus when she was in her hot-to-trot days. Unfortunately, he was pretty bad at dying, too, after the master (the old man who proved to be in better physical condition then the strapping black dude-during their pursuit of the main idiot character and the beauty) shot Mrs. hot-to-trot while he was pooped out - talking with his face in the dirt. I think this was made by some guys in Sandusky, Ohio: using Lake Erie as an ocean, and having fun with thinking they were somebody.

90 Mins. Of Your Life You Do Not Get Back...Really!

[zoso68-1 · 1/10 · 9 October 2005]

If it was possible to give negative stars I would for this stinkburger.

Don't get me wrong I LOOOOOOVVVEEEE a good crappy movie. I am a big fan of films like Octoman, Wizard Of Mars, Queen King and others. Real classics of B-Cinema.

But this film actually makes Jack Nicolson and Boris Karloff in The Terror look like an academy award winner!! The Dialouge is so needlessly long-winded, and mostly inappropriately used. (ie. "I will now Condensened (yes, condensend!!) to your wishes. The acting might have been a lot better if they had some more logical lines.

The story? What story, A count is exiled because his wife had leprosy? I'm still not sure on that count. A (Rich?) Fleet one and the Captian of one of his ships crash on the island? People acting unnaturally? OK, I like camp in b-films a lot, there lies a lot of it's charm, but this was just dumb..plain dumb. A salty sea Captian who sounds as well versed as a college professor? A fleet owner who is as clueless as they come (I felt this guy had no idea of how to play it, one scene he's Spanish acting, the next English/European)? The count, who's not sure if he's a reincarnation or really DeSade (Don't ask me how DeSade figures into this, after 4 beers my wife, friend and I still couldn't figure it out.

The scare factor? I could show this turkey to my small grandkids and only worry about them sleeping through it. I like a lot of early 60's horror movies, and some still have good shocks, but this thing...never had a shock, or even a hint of of a scare.

On the info on the back it says, "This Movie contains scenes that are so vivid and degrading that they will surpass your worst nightmare." The ONLY degradation is WATCHING THIS MOVIE. It's 90 mins.(The case says it's 74 mins.) of your life you do not get back.

I paid only a buck, yes one buck, for this and another film. I still feel like I am owed .50 cents for even sitting though this.

To sum up Dungeon Of Harrow had NO ONE Named Harrow in it, but, it did have a lovely cardboard dungeon.

Cheap and lethargic Gothic horror

[Red-Barracuda · 2/10 · 17 January 2010]

A couple of men are ship-wrecked on a remote island. They are then captured by an insane count who lives there with a small group of servants; while in the castle dungeon lives the count's unfortunate leper wife.

The Dungeon of Harrow is pretty much a hack job of a movie. The amateur actors all sleepwalk through the film while an annoyingly insistent score continually plays in the background. The various bits of action are all filmed in an incredibly unenergetic way; in fact the film in general is completely lethargic. It just seems to drag on and on. And even though the ending isn't too bad you will be hard-pressed to care by that point. As an example of 60's Gothic horror, this is strictly a bargain basement example. I sadly can't recommend this one really.

Drugs!

[BandSAboutMovies · 4/10 · 2 November 2019]

Imagine this: You're evil and sadistic count who just happens to live in a waterfront castle with your equally disturbed family. A shipwreck happens and the survivor of the ship soon makes his way to your home. What would you do?

This was pretty much the passion project of Texas news anchor turned comic book creator Pay Boyette, who would also write and direct the movies No Man's Land, The Girls from Thunder Strip and The Weird Ones. It feels like an AIP movie made in Texas, which is meant in the most kind of associations.

Besides directing, co-writing (with make-up artist/actor Henry Garcia), and composing the score, Boyette also narrates the movie.

Vinegar Syndrome has released a better version of this than the one that's on the Pure Terror set, but that isn't a knock on this Mill Creek find. After all, how do you get this many movies from this many countries that all take horror in so many directions for such a low price? I'd advise buying this set to experience the variety for yourself, then pick and choose the boutique release versions of your favorites.

Texas-Sized Weird

[FilmFatale · 3/10 · 24 September 2008]

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.

Watching "Dungeon of Harrow" is pure torture

[Coventry · 2/10 · 3 April 2011]

"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

Interesting low-budget Gothic horror film

[Peter_Bark · 10/10 · 16 August 2011]

Some reviewers have called this a turkey, while others have tried to elevate it to a surrealist masterpiece. I found the film to neither be as bad nor as bizarre as they have made out.

It brought to mind Roger Corman's Edgar Allan Poe adaptations (e.g. House of Usher, The Pit and the Pendulum) and Mexican and Italian Gothic horror films from the same period, but done on a shoestring budget. The story, which borrows loosely from The Most Dangerous Game, was actually pretty good, and with a clever twist ending; I'm not sure why some reviewers claim it is incoherent, because I had no problem following it. While there may have been a few draggy bits, I found Dungeon of Harrow to be fast paced overall, which is surprising for an almost completely dialogue-driven movie. The worst that you can say about it is that some of the acting was wooden and some of the props (like a giant spider) weren't exactly state of the art. Given the tiny budget he was working with, I think the director can be excused for not hiring Vincent Price to be the lead man or for using cheesy props.

Some will think it's boring, but personally, I find obscure films like this that were made outside of the studio system and major cultural centers (Hollywood, New York, London, Rome, Paris, Berlin) to be fascinating.

My true rating is 7 out of 10, but I'm giving it a 10 out of 10 because I find the current IMDb average of 2.8 to be unjustly low.

Whatsamatter With You People??

[Steve_Nyland · 7/10 · 11 October 2005]

Reading the other user comments posted about this odd, compelling little shocker, you think someone had put a gun to the heads of the people who have written in and forced them to watch this under threat of death, like they had no choice or were unable to find a remote control and the OFF button. You'd also think that they were judging the movie based on it's merits, or lack thereof, and no critiquing the crummy little DVDs they glommed onto. One dollar for a DVD, and it STILL doesn't rise to your expectations? What were you expecting -- CITIZEN KANE? Maybe FITZCARRALDO? There is a reason why public domain movies always look like crap, and that is that nobody owns them, the transfers bopping around are all 30+ years old or older, and you're lucky to see the film at all or that it was ever even made. If you want quality, go buy yourself the remastered KING KONG DVD. Stop picking on stuff like DUNGEON OF HARROW.

The film was made over forty-three years ago for less money than an average year of college tuition costs these days. The cast consists of maybe seven people, of which six have lines. Most of the film consists of people talking, and while there is no direct literary chain of evidence the content speaks of Edgar Allan Poe, who would have adored this atmospheric, amoral and at times gleefully sadistic little chiller. The film looks unreal, or like a nightmare or dream, with distorted colors, bizarre lighting and a voice over narration like someone thinking to themselves, reciting a nightmare as it unwinds in their mind's eye. The film has a quality to it that borders on surrealism, like figures swimming against a backdrop of half recognized shapes and outlines that just happen to resemble rooms or torture dungeons.

I love movies like this, bizarre, obscure little morality plays that exist as chains of moments rather than a boringly predictable story. Not everyone can make Harry Potter movies and not every director is interested in the same agendas. Some directors work to make visceral documents of moods or atmospheres, and that is what I feel is going on here. The story is actually irrelevant, which is why I am not discussing it. What is relevant is the almost overwhelming sense of dread, decay and madness that the film cultivates. It is claustrophobic, deliberately paced, sonorous and perhaps even a bit boring. I wish it was even MORE boring and that even less happened: The atmospheric use of fog and torture racks and indentured slavery that make up the legend of horror that the film recites is still extremely potent even with the faded, tattered, color rotted fullframe TV print transferred to home video decades before it ended up as a DVD.

I am not defending this movie, mind you, I am praising it. I am praising the director for having had the audacity to make it with so very little, the producers for allowing it to be made when there were idiotic B or C grade Westerns that could have been made with the same money and done more at the box office, and even the DVD companies that managed to dig up the old master used for their stupid little DVD. God bless 'em all, and to hell with BATMAN BEGINS or whatever other overblown, self important and soulless garbage is being shoveled out the door on DVD today -- packed with seven hours of extra stuff to watch and distract you from how shallow, empty and uninteresting the film itself is. Here's one for a dollar and it is a marvel of imagination, ingenuity and invention by comparison. It doesn't have any stars, it isn't very exciting and hard to put out of the mind afterward. That's why it's a masterpiece of one sort or another, and I'd rather be shipwrecked on an island with a box full of stuff like this than the entire collected works of Peter Jackson, George Lucas and Steven Spielberg combined. Whats that, like 12 movies in all?

7/10, though sadly, you apparently need a brain to get it.

So bad I couldn't finish it....

[planktonrules · 1/10 · 29 May 2016]

For many years, my wife has marveled at my ability to finish any movie I watch...even if they are really horrible. Well, truth be told, I've met my match with "The Dungeon of Harrow" as I found myself unable to finish it, as the movie is just amateurish and stupid. I can clearly understand why they allowed this film to pass into the public domain.

The film was made in the filmmaking Mecca, San Antonio, Texas and is about a family of weirdos that our boring hero meets after becoming shipwrecked. From the second he and the Captain of the ship land, you hear the hero's thoughts...and they sound EXACTLY like a 12 year-old trying to write a Gothic horror story...and a not particularly talented 12 year-old at that! The film is incredibly talky and has some of the worst narration and dialog I can recall. It comes off, like the acting, as very amateurish and silly. In fact, that is about the nicest thing I can say about the film...amateurish and silly. Not especially frightening...just boring and very poorly made in every possible way.