The Damned Thing (II) (2014) User Reviews

Finally, a movie more technically inept than Birdemic!

[ajira99 · 2/10 · 15 April 2016]

I'm a fan of well-executed horror anthologies, especially the classic ones. I was hopeful for this attempt and I was willing to give it a chance (based on the other reviews). While I hate to be a naysayer and embrace negativity, I would truthfully grade this as a "C+" student film, at best. The only time a character showed any emotion instead of just reciting lines was during the third story. That just isn't good...

Film-making is (very) hard work and every director has a starting point, but compelling characters and/or a decent story can make up for many shortcomings, including poor special effects and slow pacing. While this movie attempts to tie together three "vignettes" in a meaningful way, it would have fared better if the director had just plagiarized a throwaway script from a Syfy-channel reject. Rule number for any film project should be to solicit feedback from outside your immediate peers -- that would probably help cut down on the rampancy of overused movie tropes.

All in all, this is a rather amateurish effort marred by clichéd dialogue, questionable casting choices, sloppy editing and poor cinematography.

Are you supposed to laugh during a horror movie?

[dylansecure · 2/10 · 25 April 2016]

Honestly this movie can only be described as truly terrible. The abomination of horror films is what lies within.

I found myself laughing throughout the movie at the attempts to scare the audience.

I Really do not recommend this movie, and genuinely believe you'd find your time be better spent watching paint dry.

For a start, the acting wasn't particularly great. Admittedly some actors were better than others in this movie, but they were far and few between, and there was a lot to be desired. The poor cinematic techniques did not support the acting in anyway either. In some scenes, the shakiness of the camera, along with the shaky acting skills, made the movie feel rather amateurish. The lack of cinematic techniques and the inappropriate application of them, in my opinion, damaged any potential this movie had, where they may have been able to salvage it into a half decent movie if applied correctly.

The story line was rather scattered. There were 3 separate stories that were supposed to connect to a central theme. The stories didn't seem to logically connect together. I appreciate that they were trying to create something that was different from typical and overdone movies in the genre, but the execution was poor.

Just please don't waste your time on this movie.

Horror anthology dud

[Leofwine_draca · 2/10 · 5 May 2017]

I saw this dud on Amazon Prime under the title HOTEL HELL. It's a patience-testing horror anthology containing three stories told via a paranormal investigator. The medium is the found footage format and a creepy clown which appears in one of the segments makes it onto the video cover. The first story is another boring spin on the haunted house genre, PARANORMAL ACTIVITY style; the second story is about a psycho who dresses up as a clown to revenge himself on some former bullies; the third story is about a TV crew faking some Bigfoot evidence running afoul of real evil. The running time is interminable and the intermingling stories are exceptionally poor. The very bad production values make this a struggle to sit through.

Comes across like a student project, but still decent

[nysalesman · 5/10 · 14 April 2016]

This movie starts really bad. Everything about the first scene (and subsequent set-up scenes for the anthology stories) is bad. It has the worst acting and the worst production values. It must have been shot on an iPhone, because my home video camera takes better quality video than these scenes. The poorly written dialog, along with the poor production values, makes it nearly unwatchable.

I was about to give up on this movie after the first ten minutes. Then I remembered the other reviewers saying to stick it out. One even said that the bad acting and story was for a reason and it would all be clear by the end of the movie. So I stuck it out. I'm kind of glad that I did, because the first anthology story was actually pretty good and although the acting was still not that good, it was the best of the entire movie. Suffice it to say that the first story is sort of like the first paranormal activity film, but better and shorter. The second anthology story was decent, with the third being the least decent. Unlike the first scene and set-up scenes, the anthology stories actually had good production values.

The entire movie, however, never explained why the first scene (and subsequent set-up scenes) had the worst writing, the worst quality, and the worst acting. I'm taking a leap here, but this movie came across to me like a very well made student project. If I were attending film school and watched this as a final grade project, then I would say it was great. Otherwise, as a commercial film, it is entertaining enough to rate 5 stars.

Far better than expected.

[Patient444 · 5/10 · 14 April 2016]

I've seen so many horrors, especially those underground ones, that's why I'm here, commenting on those poorly viewed or rated in order to straighten some things up. This one looked like so many before, another cheesy copycat of everything else ever made.. but wait!

Wait! Watch it till its very end, after about 40 minutes, when the first story ends you start to understand it. It actually has a nice plot to it, some good stories, not the best acting out there but the script is indeed a good one. I declare myself truly pleasantly surprised. I did enjoy this and even tho it is very unknown I will recommend it. If you are a horror junkie armed with a little patience, see this one. Most likely you will not be disappointed!

Cheers!

Underrated Horror Film

[claudio_carvalho · 5/10 · 5 July 2023]

The cameraman Will (Canon Buckingham) meets the writer Eddie Osborne (Rodney Osborne) in a derelict hotel charged with negative energy to document images for his new novel. Eddie tells three horror stories to Will while visiting the floors of the hotel with him.

"Death Hotel", a.k.a. "The Damned Thing" (2014) is an underrated horror film and the 2.9 User Rating is unfair. This film is neither a gem nor a garbage, but an average horror movie. The screenplay is flawed and the verbiage in the beginning is annoying. But the three tales about negative energy are reasonable. Lana and Michael moving to a haunted house is certainly the best segment. The slasher with the humiliated clown Lester is not bad. The cannibal that attacks Molly, Tommy and Jared while shooting a documentary is weird but also not bad. My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): "Hotel da Morte" ("Death Hotel")

Another case of writers writing about things they know nothing about!

[mephistounderwood · 1/10 · 21 December 2019]

The acting is beyond amateurish and bad. It's completely horrible. The dialogue never flows. It's full of pauses and devoid of natural emotion. Everything is forced by bad actors, making it completely cringe worthy. I've seen better acting from teenagers using cell phone cameras to make short videos.

In addition, it starts off with a faux interview, with a guy throwing out words like positive energy, negative energy, dark matter and vortexes, but they are just words the writer has heard, without understanding anything about what they are. So it all comes off as nothing but meaningless double talk. Us a few "science" words to lend credence to bull. For anyone who actually knows what those thing are, it sounds absolutely ridiculous, to the point of complete idiocy. It's beyond nonsense.

Then there is the entire premise, all set up, based on pseudo science crossed with pseudo religion, making it a double dose of crap! I can suspend my disbelief fir movie magic, if the stories are good and the basic principals used, even in science fiction, fit within the realm of scientific possibility, written by someone who understands the science being talked about. So hearing a ship explode in space or the rumble of its engines, I can deal with. But this one goes too far down the rabbit hole of utter crap and complete nonsense to tolerate!

Anyone with intelligence and knowledge, will find this movie so bad as to be an insulting waste of time!

A good effort on a low budget

[zelahproductions · 5/10 · 3 May 2017]

It's really not as bad considering the limitations and money these guys had. I've seen a lot worse efforts. They obviously spent more on certain stories than others which is to be expected. The connecting scenes were the worst and probably the most rushed. The sound, direction and acting leaves a lot to be desired in these segments but I'm presuming all the money and time went into the stories which I would imagine were filmed first. I admire independent film makers making a go of it with very limited options and this one gets a decent amount right albeit not on a high level.

The first story is the best and was genuinely quite creepy and had a good sense of suspense and scare moments. It's wasn't a new story, but executed quite well considering. The actors were fine, apart from when she had to act a bit weird because she chose to overdo the oddness..especially with her eye-line, which when you consider they were newlyweds and knew each other pretty well, her behaviour at those moments would ring enormous alarm bells with me! It would have worked better if she was more subtle with it. The ending was a bit naff, but the substance of the overall story well executed.

The second story is an well worn story of revenge, but it definitely had it's moments, especially when the 'victim' meets the bully in 'heavy breathing silence' before the act of violence. In these sorts of stories, for it to succeed you need to create a certain amount of understanding with the revenger and I thought, in the short amount of time to convey this, the writers did an OK job. The Director gave it space and pace at the right moments. The scene with the parents watching the cartoon was very good, since it encapsulated everything about them in a very short space of time and you kind of realised what sort of life he'd had with them very quickly.

The third story was the weakest and I imagine they might have shot it in one day! Slap hazard and not particularly well thought out and also unrealistic. You can tell this by the way she grabbed the knife...I mean really? Also, the decisions made by certain characters were 101 of how NOT to do things when considering a discerning viewer audience.

The connection to all this was the hotel. I understand the title was changed to Hotel Hell which isn't really what it is about...it's not about the hotel...the hotel is just a place used a conduit for the main character to act as a catalyst for the stories. You could argue that that is why it is a hotel of hell...because of the telling of the stories..but it just doesn't quite work. Yes, the final eiplogue to the anthology is based there but it's still not about the hotel...it's about the characters. The final scenes are disappointing and the fact the lead actor is in the final story..and very easily recognisable from that story means there isn't any surprise and it's all rather obvious. Also...bit plot hole...the videographer gets attacked by the clown....which goes against what the second story is about. It's about revenge against those who have done him wrong. The videographer hasn't done anything to him,doesn't even know him, so it doesn't really make sense. It's feels like a cheap afterthought to finish the movie.

However...really not that bad an effort when all things are considered.

They Should Have Stuck w/ The Damned Thing as the Title...

[shmarie · 5/10 · 8 March 2017]

This movie is actually titled "Hotel Hell"- which doesn't make much sense. I am confused as to why it takes place at a hotel when none of the stories have anything to do with that hotel in which he hires a videographer to tour with him. I liked the twist at the end, but I am so confused as I really thought that when he was discussing the rooms that the 3 anthologies would actually be related to the hotel in some way shape or form...It was a solid campy B-movie horror flick, so please do not go into it assuming that it will have any deep meaning or be a work of art. I just enjoyed it for what it was and, if you decide to watch it, go into it with little to no expectations.

Cheap and doesn't make sense

[kosmasp · 2/10 · 1 August 2016]

Now the cheap part you can expect. Horror movies are made for many reasons. One is because you can achieve making them with little money and there is a big market for them. If you also put more than one story into your movie you are bound to attract a bigger crowd. The thing is, that the whole story does not make a lot of sense. Even when it tries to tie things up at the end.

It also doesn't help that you have people involved mostly that couldn't act if their life depended on it (and at least their characters life is depending on it, so fail). While it does have a couple of good scares and maybe a moment or two where it almost shines, the overall verdict is: Stay away from this. Doesn't mean that the filmmaker here may not be able to pull something off. Maybe his next movie, with better resources will show better results

Surprisingly solid low-budget anthology

[moonmonday · 7/10 · 14 April 2016]

This film, also known as Hotel Death as it's shown on-screen, was surprisingly engaging and pulled me in. I hadn't heard of it before, and the lack of reviews only piqued my curiosity. I sat down to watch it, and I wasn't expecting to last too long before turning it off. The linking segments were a bit...off, somehow. I wasn't sure if it was low-budget aspirations not meeting their goals, or something else.

However, the first story segment really drew me in. It was creepy, scary, and effective. The second one was also pretty frightening and engaging. The weakest one was the last, but it was still eerie and unsettling. And then, it became clear that there was a reason to why the linking segments were so odd. It wasn't bad acting or low-budget anything, but instead something clearly planned.

Still, someone going into it without knowing that might judge it too quickly and too harshly, and that would be a shame. This is actually one of the better anthologies I've seen in years. It's no big-budget, big-effects extravaganza, but the acting was generally solid, the direction was capable, the sound was excellent (with soundtrack done in large part by Kevin MacLeod of the famous incompetech.com), and overall it was a really and truly enjoyable experience. It was the kind of horror film that is not only really scary, but one easy to believe in and set your preconceptions aside.

There were a few questions that weren't easily addressed, such as the Osborne character actually managing to make good for himself despite what we gradually learn about him. But that was easily enough handwaved. The third segment, though, was probably the weakest overall because of some questionable choices by some of the people in it. When a problem is obvious and the solution is pretty effortless, it's frustrating to see someone take the clearly wrong choice for no understandable reason.

But that's just quibbling over details. The effect of the film overall was a very positive one. I was truly interested in what went on, and I didn't find myself bored and skipping ahead like some films can make me do. This was just a plainly good film, and the writing was solid. It built suspense in a way that really made for tension and scary atmosphere. The stories were enjoyably frightening, and they overall tended to make good sense. There was a little fun dark humor in there too, which was more than welcome and not overdone.

I really recommend this one. If you haven't seen it, check it out! With friends, if you can. This is one that is bound to be fun in a group. Get it and keep it for October parties too! You'll have an enjoyable time.

Spoilers follow ...

[parry_na · 6/10 · 21 July 2016]

Anthology films are somewhat scarce recently, although 'Little Deaths (2011)' and 'ABCs of Death (2012)' have been the more notable exceptions. And so to 'The Hotel', which features three stories within a framing narrative concerning paranormal investigator Eddie Osbourne staking a hotel with his new videographer. It's worth pointing out that this strand features the least effective moments in the film.

The first tale concerns newlyweds Michael and Lana (Carson Nicely and Miranda Parham) moving into a house that appears to possess them. Nothing new in that, but it is played in engaging fashion by the two leads, and contains a few sinister moments before a weak ending. Retribution plays a part in the second piece, a Jason-like story about a bullied child dressing up as a clown and getting his own back on his childhood aggressors.

An astonishingly dim film crew of three decide to record a hoax documentary concerning 'Bigfoot', and actually record themselves creating fake footprints in the foliage! A real life cannibal, played by Rodney Osborne takes advantage of the three youngsters' stupidity by eating them …

… so it's no surprise to find that Eddie is himself a revealed to be a cannibal who has lured Will to the hotel in order to eat him – however, in a terrifically unexpected reveal, the killer clown from story two turns up for the finale. The message is that if you surround yourself with negative energy, it will soon consume you.

This is good fun, obviously filmed on a micro-budget, and contains a vein of dark humour that makes up for any acting/production short-falls. The camera turns away from any gore, but there are some frightening moments – the shadow man from story one, the physically intimidating clown from story two, for example. There is an abundance of atmospheric from Director/writer Derrick Granado.