A friend of mine put this on as he had bought it for £1, personally after seeing it the film was not worth it. The acting was poor the story was very formulaic and quite dull and there were no scares. The actress Denice Duff playing Dr Verger was reasonably sexy and there were a couple of reasonably steamy scenes with her in (she looked a little like Carla Gugino who I saw in Nic Cage vehicle "Snake Eyes") The lead actor Stephen Polk reminded me of John Glover most well known as the father of Lex Luthor in Smallville. Andrew Divoff who I have seen in a few low budget flicks was easily the best actor in this as Dr Straun a crippled psycho who likes to watch his patients treatments and reactions on CCTV in a straight Jacket. Even the most devoted horror fans would have little to enjoy here. 1.5/10
16 Reviews
Serious title fraud, mostly worthless, some fun in last 5 minutes
HEFILM2 August 2006
The film is being sold in the U.S. as a Haunted House movie, even the menu designs show a house with burning windows and people with straight razors. Well none of that is in this movie! Shot in 2002 finally seeing a video shelf in 2006! Written originally like 20 years before that this is a film that escaped, briefly, not released. Was the only way to sell it to sell it as something it wasn't to this degree!?! Given the "quality" of the film, perhaps would be a cynical answer and the answer the producers must have decided was their only option to get the film off the shelf. But this is really shameful.
The film almost entirely takes place in rather poorly decorated warehouse interiors trying to be some sort of hospital. Lots and lots of talk, the medical machinery when it's shown is very shoddy indeed. Brief nudity sort of in one love scene with Denise Duff should be mentioned as one of the few reasons anyone may not be totally angry to waste time and money watching this. She plays with her glasses a lot, that's as much character development as she explores.
However, there is a mutant sort of two headed retard character/monster that is pretty well done and during the final 5 minutes there is a lively sequence involving him. The rest of the film is a dull cheap waste of time.
Whole thing is shot on HD, and thought it doesn't scream video, it doesn't look especially good either, some of the lighting is really bad but it's in focus, just lacks any style or sense of claustrophobia or building tension. Talk talk talk. Cheap, cheap, cheap. A long wait for very very little result I'd think for all involved and for all those who have to watch it.
The film almost entirely takes place in rather poorly decorated warehouse interiors trying to be some sort of hospital. Lots and lots of talk, the medical machinery when it's shown is very shoddy indeed. Brief nudity sort of in one love scene with Denise Duff should be mentioned as one of the few reasons anyone may not be totally angry to waste time and money watching this. She plays with her glasses a lot, that's as much character development as she explores.
However, there is a mutant sort of two headed retard character/monster that is pretty well done and during the final 5 minutes there is a lively sequence involving him. The rest of the film is a dull cheap waste of time.
Whole thing is shot on HD, and thought it doesn't scream video, it doesn't look especially good either, some of the lighting is really bad but it's in focus, just lacks any style or sense of claustrophobia or building tension. Talk talk talk. Cheap, cheap, cheap. A long wait for very very little result I'd think for all involved and for all those who have to watch it.
A sweaty rage
wrlang13 August 2006
I think that the cover said it was based on a true story, but I didn't see it. This is a C or D level horror film with little going for it. An angry man is sentenced to work with a mad doctor to control his rage. The doctor enhances the rage to extract the rage through the sweat glands ala the funky Gatorade commercial colored sweat. The only thing that saved this film from being a total washout was the relatively good acting by the experienced cast. I wonder why they took this job? It couldn't have paid very well. Only two good things about this movie, the sex scene between Duff and Polk and the last 8 minutes with some surprise special effects. Dialog was crummy, camera work was crummy. Scenery was crummy. They even had a setup for a sequel.
Blatantly False Advertising
running_with_scissors20 June 2007
Let me describe the UK cover for this movie, it's called Nightmare Hostel and is apparently an Unrated Directors Cut. Despite being Unrated it actually carries an 18 certificate and comes with the following warning - "contains scenes of graphic horror and violence & nudity", furthermore the bottom of the cover has the following - "creates a new level of gruesome, beyond that of Roth's Hostel and Gordon's Re-Animator" I think they got the wrong movie!
Violence & Horror? very, very little.
Nudity? None.
Avoid it at all costs, it's complete s**t!
Violence & Horror? very, very little.
Nudity? None.
Avoid it at all costs, it's complete s**t!
Worse Than 1 out of 10
nicoleatskool18 February 2007
Warning: Spoilers
My friend and I love laughing at horror movies. So, seeing this movie at Blockbuster, we thought this was going to be a laugh fest. It wasn't. It was so bad, most of the movie we stared at each other with our mouths in perfect Os, unable to believe this movie had actually been made.
First of all, this movie claims to be based on a true story. No. Not a true story at all. A two headed monster living in the basement, a man who pulls his face off, an injection that makes your sweat radioactive... Yeah, none of this stuff ever happened. Maybe there was a place called the Straun House, but there are also Elm Streets all over the country, and I haven't seen Freddy Krueger once.
And what's possibly the worst part about this movie is the cover of the DVD. I'm really tempted to contact the company and complain about false advertising. The cover shows a house in the background, and a hand with a bloody blade in the foreground. First of all, that house isn't in the movie at all. The Straun House is a run down building in a city... not a house at all. And not one point in the movie does anyone wield a weapon remotely like that.
The only good part about this movie is the bum fights. The deformed monster in the basement with two heads that I mentioned earlier has been watching a show called "Bum Fights" on television his entire life. You get to see a couple clips that showed bums fighting for a dollar. There were a lot of homeless people in this movie. It made the movie a little less painful to watch.
I gave it a 1 out of 10 because 1 is the lowest IMDb goes. This movie deserves a - 329749734798987124667. I would give it a - 329749734798987124666, but the bum fights made it one point better.
First of all, this movie claims to be based on a true story. No. Not a true story at all. A two headed monster living in the basement, a man who pulls his face off, an injection that makes your sweat radioactive... Yeah, none of this stuff ever happened. Maybe there was a place called the Straun House, but there are also Elm Streets all over the country, and I haven't seen Freddy Krueger once.
And what's possibly the worst part about this movie is the cover of the DVD. I'm really tempted to contact the company and complain about false advertising. The cover shows a house in the background, and a hand with a bloody blade in the foreground. First of all, that house isn't in the movie at all. The Straun House is a run down building in a city... not a house at all. And not one point in the movie does anyone wield a weapon remotely like that.
The only good part about this movie is the bum fights. The deformed monster in the basement with two heads that I mentioned earlier has been watching a show called "Bum Fights" on television his entire life. You get to see a couple clips that showed bums fighting for a dollar. There were a lot of homeless people in this movie. It made the movie a little less painful to watch.
I gave it a 1 out of 10 because 1 is the lowest IMDb goes. This movie deserves a - 329749734798987124667. I would give it a - 329749734798987124666, but the bum fights made it one point better.
No one should ever watch this movie
Ghost338 December 2007
This movie was so absolutely horrible, it inspired me to write my first review on IMDb.
My friend and I are horror movie connoisseurs. We've seen them all - bad, good, awful yet funny...
It doesn't matter what you in enjoy in a good horror movie, this movie will not deliver it. It was a waste of my 88 minutes and 3 bucks from start to finish. Even if you like to watch bad horror movies simply to laugh at how bad they are...this movie will simply make you want to rip out your eyes and curse the society which gives birth to such horrible, poorly acted films.
DO NOT RENT!
My friend and I are horror movie connoisseurs. We've seen them all - bad, good, awful yet funny...
It doesn't matter what you in enjoy in a good horror movie, this movie will not deliver it. It was a waste of my 88 minutes and 3 bucks from start to finish. Even if you like to watch bad horror movies simply to laugh at how bad they are...this movie will simply make you want to rip out your eyes and curse the society which gives birth to such horrible, poorly acted films.
DO NOT RENT!
It's a movie made by Asylum, should I say more?
bellino-angelo201428 August 2019
The Asylum is a movie studio that has a reputation of making cheap B-movies. Sometimes mock-busters (cheap knock-offs of more known movies made for fooling the viewers in seeing their crap-fests) and sometimes really cheap movies. And DR. RAGE is no exception.
The movie is about a doctor that tries to uncover the mysteries behind the Straun Foundation with the help of his female partner. In the meanwhile he also discovers that the foundation's director is plotting against them. But in the meanwhile the viewer is bored by shoddy editing, bad acting performances (including from once respected actress Karen Black in one of her more recent movies to date), some scenes that doesn't make sense (like the scene of the hobo assaulting the lead across the street) and some creepy special effects towards the end.
However this movie is so badly made and dull that even bad movie fans (like myself) would avoid. And I have to confess that the more I watched it the more I wasn't caring about the characters and prone to falling asleep!!
The movie is about a doctor that tries to uncover the mysteries behind the Straun Foundation with the help of his female partner. In the meanwhile he also discovers that the foundation's director is plotting against them. But in the meanwhile the viewer is bored by shoddy editing, bad acting performances (including from once respected actress Karen Black in one of her more recent movies to date), some scenes that doesn't make sense (like the scene of the hobo assaulting the lead across the street) and some creepy special effects towards the end.
However this movie is so badly made and dull that even bad movie fans (like myself) would avoid. And I have to confess that the more I watched it the more I wasn't caring about the characters and prone to falling asleep!!
Disappointing...if you want a film that matches the title
Stauffdante7 December 2009
Warning: Spoilers
*SPOILERS throughout*
Given that this film has more alternative titles than lead actors, I'd recommend that it be treated as an appropriately mish-mashed production. It's a pity that it misleads the viewer - nowhere are there the haunted houses or stained saws as the DVD box shows, and nor is it actually about a hotel, hostel, or house. The plot is more complex than the initial setup has us believe: Michael Dare, a cab-driver (Polk) is sent out to a fare that seemingly doesn't exist...and is beset by a homeless man who mumbles gibberish at him whilst beating himself up. Having successfully framed Dare for the attack, it's put to the prosecution team that Dare is suffering from a rage disorder, and needs clinical treatment. Fortunately,the Straun Institute is offering free clinical trials...
Through woefully subtle (and often missed) shadowing, we see that the whole setup is aimed to ensure that GenTech, the company that Michael's whistleblowing father betrayed, is implicated throughout in his incarceration at the hands of Dr. Straun. It's here that the movie shows off its best cameos - John Kassir (best known as the voice of the Cryptkeeper from Tales from the Crypt) and Andrew Divoff (The genie from Wishmaster I & II). Kassir camps it up as Moe Moebius, a kind of modern- day Igor to Divoff's evil genius, Straun. Both play their roles well, but are hampered by poor direction, and a total lack of tension within the plot. The lack of horrific enough props (Dare is at one point menaced by an umbrella dotted with sponges) gives the clinic a total lack of menace. Even the 'gritty realism' of a warehouse setting doesn't lend anything to the overall hokey tone of the film. The scenes between Dare and Dr. Verger, a pretty young scientist, are possibly the only redeeming aspects of the film. Sex is a seller, so obviously 'enraged' sex is a bigger seller...right? The violence is minimal, and serves to underline the lack of dramatic tension. Though she may be sweet and geeky, Duff's character leaves the viewer almost as cold as Polk's does, lacking any depth. The obligatory horrific scenes at the end of the film are no revelation. In fact, the resolution of the film simply kills off a set of characters in one go, robbing the viewer of any chance to actually make any sense out of the film's premise. The special effects aren't overused, but given how unspectacular the film is, you might forgive them overloading on blood and gore. There is the obligatory mad science laboratory, filled with glowing ingredients and body parts. The 'monster in the cellar' is possibly the only valid claim for a SFX budget, and DiTillio labours on under layers of latex, grunting madly and gurning his way through the film. 'Monsters' aside, the overall effect is of a drama that somehow tried to stray into the territory of Creepshow (1982) and the like - but lacking the plot to let Divoff and Kassir inject a little horror into the plot and leave us rooting for the wishy-washy hero and heroine.
Given that this film has more alternative titles than lead actors, I'd recommend that it be treated as an appropriately mish-mashed production. It's a pity that it misleads the viewer - nowhere are there the haunted houses or stained saws as the DVD box shows, and nor is it actually about a hotel, hostel, or house. The plot is more complex than the initial setup has us believe: Michael Dare, a cab-driver (Polk) is sent out to a fare that seemingly doesn't exist...and is beset by a homeless man who mumbles gibberish at him whilst beating himself up. Having successfully framed Dare for the attack, it's put to the prosecution team that Dare is suffering from a rage disorder, and needs clinical treatment. Fortunately,the Straun Institute is offering free clinical trials...
Through woefully subtle (and often missed) shadowing, we see that the whole setup is aimed to ensure that GenTech, the company that Michael's whistleblowing father betrayed, is implicated throughout in his incarceration at the hands of Dr. Straun. It's here that the movie shows off its best cameos - John Kassir (best known as the voice of the Cryptkeeper from Tales from the Crypt) and Andrew Divoff (The genie from Wishmaster I & II). Kassir camps it up as Moe Moebius, a kind of modern- day Igor to Divoff's evil genius, Straun. Both play their roles well, but are hampered by poor direction, and a total lack of tension within the plot. The lack of horrific enough props (Dare is at one point menaced by an umbrella dotted with sponges) gives the clinic a total lack of menace. Even the 'gritty realism' of a warehouse setting doesn't lend anything to the overall hokey tone of the film. The scenes between Dare and Dr. Verger, a pretty young scientist, are possibly the only redeeming aspects of the film. Sex is a seller, so obviously 'enraged' sex is a bigger seller...right? The violence is minimal, and serves to underline the lack of dramatic tension. Though she may be sweet and geeky, Duff's character leaves the viewer almost as cold as Polk's does, lacking any depth. The obligatory horrific scenes at the end of the film are no revelation. In fact, the resolution of the film simply kills off a set of characters in one go, robbing the viewer of any chance to actually make any sense out of the film's premise. The special effects aren't overused, but given how unspectacular the film is, you might forgive them overloading on blood and gore. There is the obligatory mad science laboratory, filled with glowing ingredients and body parts. The 'monster in the cellar' is possibly the only valid claim for a SFX budget, and DiTillio labours on under layers of latex, grunting madly and gurning his way through the film. 'Monsters' aside, the overall effect is of a drama that somehow tried to stray into the territory of Creepshow (1982) and the like - but lacking the plot to let Divoff and Kassir inject a little horror into the plot and leave us rooting for the wishy-washy hero and heroine.
Scary,Creepy,AND Denice Duff !
guestar576 November 2006
STRAUN HOUSE Starring: Denice Duff, Andrew Divoff, Karen Black and John Kassir. "So, You think you're ANGRY now !,Wait till THE DOCTOR sees YOU !"We wish they had used one of the original titles, Dr. Rage or The Last Patient, The public would have loved this 'Reanimator-esque' Mad Doctor romp. Denice Duff is gorgeous and has some wonderful scenes. Andrew Divoff seems over the top, Until you are privy to whole plot. Karen Black as a lawyer, No really ! John Kassir is a rubber face henchman, Brings new meaning to the word "Lackey". Theasylum has a good scare here and seems to let it breath with gusto. The beginning and the middle set up a fantastic finale with multiple gore effects
Avoid the Asylum
BloodTheTelepathicDog15 September 2007
I have viewed a number of horror films produced by The Asylum and all have been duds. I actually bought this film because it boasts three stellar horror actors; Andrew Divoff, Denice Duff and John Kassir, but director Jeff Broadstreet lacks talent.
The back of the DVD case is very inviting for horror fans such as myself. It states that this flick "creates a new level of gruesome, beyond that of Cronenberg's The Fly and Gordon's Re-Animator." It also has a bold WARNING stating that this film contains "scenes of graphic horror, violence and nudity." Well, the fact of the matter is that this film is closer to Curse 2 and Sreaming Dead than it is to the two legendary horror flicks it claims to resemble. As for the horror, violence and nudity... you get plenty more of that stuff by watching Cops on television.
Much like the brilliant marketers of that awful smelling deodorant "Tag" the marketers here are the best part to this film. They give us juicy tidbits on the DVD case that lure us in to watching this garbage and ultimately slap us in the face and smile at us while they do it. Bastards!
VIOLENCE: $$ (By no means "graphic" the violence and gore is quite tame. The gore you devoured in Re-Animator is not to be found here).
NUDITY: $ (This does not fall into the "graphic" territory either. There are two sex scenes where we see next to nothing of the actors; i.e. all the naughty bits covered up. There is one decent scene of Duff's flawless contours but she is strategically placed to keep the moment from being a "graphic" display of nudity).
STORY: $ (Wow! What an awful screenplay! Stephen Polk, writer and star, obviously used this screenplay as a ploy to get a little action with the lovely Denice Duff. The story begins interestingly enough but when Polk gets assigned to the hospital, where the story should elevate, it descends into mind-numbing territory. Polk has no business writing anything).
ACTING: $$ (Divoff steals the show but Polk's amateurish writing abilities fail to flesh out an interesting character. Polk also writes Denice Duff's role as one dimensional, using her character simply as somebody for him to sleep with. Kassir, better known as the voice of the Crypt Keeper also does a fine job in his orderly role, but Polk, much like his writing skills, is a rudimentary actor at best. His "talents" coupled with poor direction from Broadstreet make for a wasted 88 minutes).
The back of the DVD case is very inviting for horror fans such as myself. It states that this flick "creates a new level of gruesome, beyond that of Cronenberg's The Fly and Gordon's Re-Animator." It also has a bold WARNING stating that this film contains "scenes of graphic horror, violence and nudity." Well, the fact of the matter is that this film is closer to Curse 2 and Sreaming Dead than it is to the two legendary horror flicks it claims to resemble. As for the horror, violence and nudity... you get plenty more of that stuff by watching Cops on television.
Much like the brilliant marketers of that awful smelling deodorant "Tag" the marketers here are the best part to this film. They give us juicy tidbits on the DVD case that lure us in to watching this garbage and ultimately slap us in the face and smile at us while they do it. Bastards!
VIOLENCE: $$ (By no means "graphic" the violence and gore is quite tame. The gore you devoured in Re-Animator is not to be found here).
NUDITY: $ (This does not fall into the "graphic" territory either. There are two sex scenes where we see next to nothing of the actors; i.e. all the naughty bits covered up. There is one decent scene of Duff's flawless contours but she is strategically placed to keep the moment from being a "graphic" display of nudity).
STORY: $ (Wow! What an awful screenplay! Stephen Polk, writer and star, obviously used this screenplay as a ploy to get a little action with the lovely Denice Duff. The story begins interestingly enough but when Polk gets assigned to the hospital, where the story should elevate, it descends into mind-numbing territory. Polk has no business writing anything).
ACTING: $$ (Divoff steals the show but Polk's amateurish writing abilities fail to flesh out an interesting character. Polk also writes Denice Duff's role as one dimensional, using her character simply as somebody for him to sleep with. Kassir, better known as the voice of the Crypt Keeper also does a fine job in his orderly role, but Polk, much like his writing skills, is a rudimentary actor at best. His "talents" coupled with poor direction from Broadstreet make for a wasted 88 minutes).
Overall An Effective Horror Film, With Creepy Performances And Twists
danthewrestlingmanorigin17 October 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This film is a must, if you are a fan of creepy and weird performances. Straun House, which is the likely title you'll find this under, was never as scary as it should have been, but the twists, and genre veterans elevate it higher than the norm. Andrew Divoff is does what he does best here as the creepy doctor, the lovely Denice Duff who is sadly underrated, and should get mainstream roles, plays her part well, John Kassir of Tales From The Crypt fame takes on the Igor role to Andrew Divoff's Frankenstein, and Karen Black is only in it for a short time, but has a secret plot twist of her own. First off just to warn you, although the DVD I got was Unrated, and promised a bloodbath, this film isn't very bloody, so if thats what your after, look elsewhere. With exception of a gruesome looking mutant, and a gory death at the very end, this film is pretty much bloodless. My main gripe was that the tension was never amped up as high as it could have been.If your into films such as Madhouse(Joshua Leonard), Re-Animator series, or Apartment Complex, you should enjoy Straun House. The films low budget doesn't hurt it at all, as most of the action takes place in a rundown facility, and there is no CGI, only old school makeup effects in a few scenes.
Based on a False Story
kleen_edge22 May 2007
This review pertains to the "Unrated Directors Cut" Where to begin on a film like this? First of all I have seen many, many horror movies, but never one quite like this. You will notice from the first five minutes that this film isn't exactly a "Hollywood" production, but I tried not to let that taint my review. The film revolves around a taxi-driver who has a bit of a rage problem and instead of facing jail time, decides to do some medical "research" There are a few minor twists and turns that I will leave for you to find out, but the bottom line is this movie never reaches the high expectations shown on its DVD Cover. The special effects are OK, the last five minutes are fair, but the overall mood of the movie never really reaches full effect.
If you are a fan of odd, low budget, dialog movies, then you might actually find this one somewhat entertaining. The added sex scene provides at least some sort of excitement to an otherwise dull production.
My rating 2 out of 10.
If you are a fan of odd, low budget, dialog movies, then you might actually find this one somewhat entertaining. The added sex scene provides at least some sort of excitement to an otherwise dull production.
My rating 2 out of 10.
In the name of medical research...tripe!
michaelRokeefe21 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Almost worth donkey dung. Based on actual events. Get real. A taxi driver, Michael Dare(Stephen Polk),accidentally harms a homeless man and instead of going to jail, his attorney(Karen Black)talks him into entering an anger management program. The program is carried out by Dr. Timothy Straun(Andrew Divoff), aka Dr. Rage, in an abandon warehouse. The beautiful Dr. Verger(Denice Duff)is his assistant that actually administers the treatments. Treatments? Painful injections that could possibly lead to torture and mutilation...in the name of medical research. Special effects; nothing special. Fear and interest factor are the same...none. Duff is the only reason to watch. Divoff is over the top to the point of being comical. Polk is credited with screenplay as well as producer.
The misleading advertising is the least of this nightmare of a movie's problems...
TheLittleSongbird29 November 2013
Admittedly it is a large part of the problem, because the DVD promised something that turned out to be the complete opposite to what was advertised. However it's how badly done execution-wise that is even more of an issue. The only reasons why Nightmare Hostel isn't rated any lower by this viewer is because of Denise Duff, who does brighten up the screen, and the final 5-10 minutes, which were relatively fun. If it weren't for those things, Nightmare Hostel would have had no redeeming qualities at all. Technically it's a poor-looking movie, choppily edited and too dimly lit with sets that look like the movie was shot in a (very, very) deserted factory and make-up/effects that are just okay at best, and most of the time they don't even reach that. The story never seems to find the right tone, it is predictable rather than tense, leaden rather than thrilling, corny rather than fun and far too tame to be scary. The suspense, horror and violence levels were severely lacking, with almost every scene done in an awkward and uninterested way apart from the ending and maybe the sex scene. The dialogue is very juvenile and banal, kind of like student-film-student-who-got-nowhere quality, while the characters have no likability or life and the acting is not good either. John Kassir is wasted, Andrew Divoff also tries hard but can't do anything with what he has to work with but the worst case was Stephen Polk, whose wooden and annoying acting and his rather amateurish script are along with the story and atmosphere where Nightmare Hostel falls hardest upon. All in all, the advertising was misleading but even that still wouldn't have stopped the movie from being a complete nightmare in almost every way. 1/10 Bethany Cox
Total Waste of Time
buthdnpurvis27 August 2006
There were two good things about this movie. It ended, and I didn't buy it.
The dialog was silly, the sets were thrift store rejects, the director was just one step above renting a barn and putting on a show, the lead character was stiff, and his nose moves with his upper lip. Karen Black should be ashamed. I guess you could tell its not one of my favorites I must say, that if they had intended to make a parody of a 1950's horror movie, they could have promoted it for laughs. There are a few giggles. If only the girl had sprained her ankle while running in heels up the stairs with the monster right behind her.
The dialog was silly, the sets were thrift store rejects, the director was just one step above renting a barn and putting on a show, the lead character was stiff, and his nose moves with his upper lip. Karen Black should be ashamed. I guess you could tell its not one of my favorites I must say, that if they had intended to make a parody of a 1950's horror movie, they could have promoted it for laughs. There are a few giggles. If only the girl had sprained her ankle while running in heels up the stairs with the monster right behind her.
A complete fake
antide-4237616 September 2023
I bought the DVD of this simply because of the cover stating the movie was full of gore, sex and was totally gruesome. It is a blatant lie and they shouldn't be allowed to get away with it.
Gore. This is as tame as hell. A little bit of special effects near the end but gory? Not in the least.
Sex. A couple of scenes that aren't sexy at all. The woman is a hottie but everything is covered up here.
Gruesome. Not at all especially if you expect something like 'Hostel.
So basically this movie is built on lies BUT there are some moments to enjoy and I did manage to sit through all of it. I would never watch it again though and have learnt a lesson here. Don't always believe the DVD hype and this is one example where action should be taken under the trade descriptions act.
Gore. This is as tame as hell. A little bit of special effects near the end but gory? Not in the least.
Sex. A couple of scenes that aren't sexy at all. The woman is a hottie but everything is covered up here.
Gruesome. Not at all especially if you expect something like 'Hostel.
So basically this movie is built on lies BUT there are some moments to enjoy and I did manage to sit through all of it. I would never watch it again though and have learnt a lesson here. Don't always believe the DVD hype and this is one example where action should be taken under the trade descriptions act.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
