Screaming Dead (2003 Video) User Reviews

So bad that it's bad and will remain bad even while drunk.

[fibreoptic · 3/10 · 18 August 2004]

From the get go i could tell that this movie was going to be like Hell Asylum. It's amateurish with bad acting and cheapy crappy effects. The story is kind of good but of course was never pushed in the right direction. The characters kept saying how creepy and spooky the place was and that it was an old abandoned asylum or something. Abandoned? The place didn't have a spec of dust and it looked quite modern. Bare yes but old and abandoned it wasn't. Whoever scouted for a location for this movie sucked.

I'll briefly give the story. It's about a successful photographer who combines art with bondage and S&M. He's a real sleaze bag and rents a place so he can work on his art with 3 female models and his female assistant but are also joined by a big hulking ug ug kinda guy who works for an estate agency or something and has to oversee this guy for insurance purposes (it's kind of hazy). But needless to say there's an evil ghost in this place.

I watched this while having a few beers and i'm sorry but Screaming Dead is in a word 'dead' and no way could you ever say that this film is so bad it's good! It's so bad it's bad! Apart from a potentially good story gone to waste and nice looking women there's not much good about this movie. There's only one gore effect in it too. I'm giving it an extremely generous 3/10 for reasonable but wasted story, nice looking girls and one good gore effect.

Failed Piper Film///might be spoilers

[BloodTheTelepathicDog · 3/10 · 13 September 2007]

Let me begin by stating that I loved Psyclops and Arachnia and viewed those before I watched this poor exercise in film-making. Piper used brilliant clay-mation effects in the two previously stated films but here, I'm certain it has a lot to do with Shock-o-Rama Cinema, none of the fun and creative effects are prevalent. He just uses the same old worn out CGI that everyone else and their dog employs.

Apparently Shock-o-Rama is an affiliate of Seduction Cinema, and judging by the catalog included in the DVD that I purchased, they specialize in making erotic lampoons of A-List movies; what with titles like Playmate of the Apes and The Erotic Time Machine. Therefore Shock-o-Rame places less emphasis on the SHOCK and more on the O.

Granted this isn't much of a horror movie as Piper wasn't allowed to showcase his genius like Edgewood Studios allows him to, but this isn't a terrible movie; believe me, I've seen worse.

VIOLENCE: $$$ (Plenty of violence and gore to sustain the viewership of horror hounds as Rob Monkiewicz packs a pistol and we get to see an exploding head, which was actually handled well).

NUDITY: $$$$$ (Seduction Cinema couldn't allow their fright film satellite to take it easy in the nudity department. Misty Mundae, who appears to be a favorite of Seduction Cinema, spends a great deal of the film nude. Another "actress" takes the patented horror film shower scene while she talks with an "artist." Her acting skills are laughable but she is really the only cast member who lacks talent).

STORY: $$$ (The plot is there but the dialogue leaves you wanting at times. There are moments where Piper makes strong statements on gender issues but his messages get lost in the poor production values and Shock-o-Rama's accent on skin. Although the plot of people entering a haunted house has mileage, Piper gives us a new twist with the deviant and sexually frustrated "artist" and his desire to take photos of the three models in submissive roles).

ACTING: $$ (Nothing special here although Misty Mundae isn't nearly as bad of a thespian as I was expecting. She could be a decent actress even without removing her clothes. Rob Monkiewicz, who has been in other Piper films, gives the best performance and the guy who played the twisted photographer wasn't bad but a tad too stiff. Rachael Robbins does an adequate job in her mother-hen role).

Decent for a low budget horror flick

[wingedcobra · 4/10 · 5 December 2004]

I happened to like the script. I liked the writing and thought when Rossiter appeared and his eventual demise was an idea that worked well and one I had never seen before, even in higher budget horror films. The actors did a good job, the house it was filmed in looked genuinely spooky.

Of course sex sells and there were plenty half naked girls in the movie. There wasn't too much of it though, and there wasn't lesbian scenes or anything like that (though it was suggested by one of the main characters). So depending upon your preference that could either be good or bad.

Low budget wise I think the special effects was more computer generated in nature. Lots of computer generated ghostly images and billowing smoke kind of stuff. Rossiter had some special effects work and there was some scenes where gory effects were used. I would give them a pat on the back for the effort. It was better than some of the other low budget horror movies I've seen recently. I do have one complaint and that was the fake blood. Fake blood should look real and not fake right? Well in this movie it's clearly FAKE blood.

Overall for a low budget film the script was well done in my opinion. I liked the writing in the fact it did a good job bringing out Neal's character and his penchant for dominating women. You really want to hate the guy. I would recommend this movie to anyone who wants to see half naked girls (that's clearly why they're there) and have that half-nakedness revolve around a horror movie plot. As long as your expectations are low...you won't be disappointed.

It Might've Been Worse

[masercot · 2/10 · 18 December 2005]

Certainly, if the movie carried a specifically designed tone to make the viewer's heads explode it would've been worse. Actually, halfway through, I was praying for such a tone. I've never fast-fowarded through a nude scene before this movie, but the dialog voided out the excitement from the nudity.

Misty Mundae is an attractive woman; however, it takes more than beauty to save this movie. It would take all the best doctors in the east to save this movie and, even then, I doubt it could be anything more than something to separate channel 357 from 359.

Well, that was what was bad about the movie. What follows is what was good about the movie:

Awful, boring. Another waste of time and money.

[gsh999 · 1/10 · 20 May 2006]

A famous photographer wants to shoot photo shoots in an old asylum with three hot young girls. The company that owns the property insists that their representative be present. The representative (hero-boy) immediately and constantly antagonizes and confronts the photographer because of the harsh treatment of the girls. My question: Why would a famous photographer put up with such a macho hero-boy doing his best to ruin the shoots? This was the foremost unrealistic aspect of this movie for me.

But famous photographer continues putting up with hero-boys crap, and the movie plods on. Lots of boring talk with the photographer verbally abusing the girls and threatening to fire them if they don't do what he says. Yawn. Nothing much happens until the end, when an ugly ghost possesses the photographer and hero-boy saves the day for the girls.

Really one of the worst movies I've ever seen, and not one that is so bad it is good. This one is just a bore.

A 5 year old could have made a better a film

[Horrorible_Horror_Films · 19 December 2005]

OK, I hope I remember everything I want to say about this steaming pile of crap of a movie: Lots of nudity! A photographer basically gets these 3 hot young girls to obey him. There naked for lots of the movie, and he ties them up and yea. If your 14, or an old creepy man, you will probably love this movie for the nudity.

Fake Blood. OK, in one scene, he has one of the girls tied up to an X crucifix, and all of the sudden some kind of ghost starts putting fake blood all over her. That is exactly what happens, fake blood is thrown on her body from nowhere, but apparently what it is SUPPOSED to be is a ghost cutting her. ITs so freakin obvious her skin is not being cut, its one of the stupidest things you will ever see in a movie.

'Special' Effects. Uh..yea, if they used effects from before the digital age, they would have been more effective. The special effects in this film were the WORST example of digital technology I have ever seen or probably ever will see. I am dumbfounded at how someone could do the worst possible job they could do with digital effects, then the director or producer sitting around going "yea, I think that looks good, will go with that in the film" Its just so extraordinarily bad, I mean young children would laugh at the stupidity, and its supposed to be scary! Oh an the fire at the end is all fake digital too! The 'smoke' that is supposed be from the fire is white fog obviously not from a fire and its coming and going the opposite way.

Mediocre and forgettable

[Woodyanders · 4/10 · 7 September 2009]

Arrogant and despicable sleazeball control freak fetish photographer Roger Neale (a nicely slimy portrayal by Joseph Farrell), his perky assistant Maura Holloway (the delightfully spunky Rachael Robbins), amiable, morally uptight lug Sam Rogan (likable Rob Monkiewicz), and three beautiful models -- sweet, naive Bridget (the always adorable Misty Mundae), vacuous Lauren (blonde looker Heidi Kristoffer), and meek Jennifer (fetching brunette C.J. DiMarsico) -- go to a rundown and abandoned old building for a photo shoot. Of course, said building turns out to be haunted by vicious and depraved sadist Rossiter (a deliciously hammy turn by Kevin G. Shinnick). While the premise certainly has promise, alas said promise is severely undermined by writer/director Brett Piper's lackluster execution: the sluggish pace crawls along for the first two thirds of the picture, there's no spooky atmosphere to speak of, the special effects are strictly so-so, and the drab and uneventful script gets bogged down in a dull surplus of insipid talk. Only when Rossiter gets revived in the last third and begins brutally torturing the ladies does this flick finally start cooking, but by then it's too little too late to alleviate the general tedium. The cast do their best with the blah material, both Jon Greathouse's moody score and M.A. Morales' polished cinematography are up to speed, and there's a decent smattering of yummy female nudity (Misty in particular as usual looks quite scrumptious in her birthday suit), but overall this movie is too poky and plodding. A merely passable time-waster.

Cheesier Than A Cheese Pizza With Extra Cheese

[nikmaack · 4/10 · 30 May 2005]

If you like bad, low budget, unintentionally funny films, seek no more. This is the movie for you.

It has nudity, some horror, and really bad acting. The special effects are embarrassing. For example, a nude woman receives a series of "cuts", and it looks like someone just squirted red paint on to her body. There is no cut of any kind. She's just being basted in tobasco sauce.

Yes, it's shlock. Shlocky shlock. Super shlocky shlock.

At best, you'll laugh. There were some scenes where I laughed out loud. Not because the film was funny, but because the film was so very bad.

At worst, you'll become bored and shut off the movie. There were a few times I was tempted to do so, but I waited out my boredom, and was rewarded with more terrible dialogue, needless nudity, ridiculous special effects, and filming mistakes. Hooray!

The film stars Misty Mundae. Having never heard of her before, I laughed when I saw her name in the credits. The moniker has "soft core porn star" written all over it. The bonus material to the DVD assures me she is a famous horror movie actress who has been in many magazine articles -- Fangoria, for example. And she has, they assure me, "star quality".

Well, no. She doesn't. Not really. But she is willing to take off all her clothes. She is sort of cute, I guess, if scrawny and small.

Rob Monkiewicz plays the male hero, Sam Rogan, and he's amazingly bad. He delivers is lines like he's delivering a pizza -- each sentence comes coated in Luke warm cheese, served in a cardboard box. More than once, his hamfisted lines made me giggle. He's supposed to play a muscle bound romantic, but comes across as a bouncer who occasionally "acts".

Now you know what you're in for -- bad, bad, bad, bad film. But so bad it can be entertaining. Get your friends together, get drunk, and maybe you'll enjoy the film. Watch for the scene where a crew member is accidentally filmed by the doorway. Laugh as the mike once again swings into the scene. Boggle at computer special effects that you would be embarrassed to use as a screen saver.

This, my friends, is a great, bad film.

Let down by the script

[etale · 5/10 · 25 March 2004]

I liked the acting and the directing in this film, but, alas, the script left a lot to be desired. First of all, do you really think that Neal would have as much clout, considering the subject matter of his photographs? I have my doubts that they would end up in all those prestigous galleries, if they did, I'm sure that feminists would picket them or they might be shut down by the authorities for indecency (Can you imagine if he tried to show in Cincinatti, for example?). I would say that if Rogan got fired for telling off Neal that he could take his ex-boss to court and press charges against both of them. After all, I'm sure that even New Jersey must have laws against this type of "art." As it is, the acting, photography and the directing was quite well done, especially considering this being a low budget film, but the script left my suspension of disbelief hanging there.

Shoot Me - Please!

[jrfranklin01 · 1/10 · 21 July 2004]

The only good thing that I can think to say about this movie is at least it wasn't worse than 28 Days Later. Boy was that torture or what?! That being said, there now only remains an onslaught of negative opinion.

This movie reeks of an amateurism that only a group of silly teens would take interest in. It has your bizarre, ditsy, nude-babe material that's a must for any sleep-over (yawn). I mostly felt sorry for the film because you can see how hard the director is trying to make a good movie, but just misses the boat completely. This seems to be so prevalent nowadays that I have come up with a theory about it.

The target market for all new horror films is mindless teenagers. This is the audience the movie has been created for and the one that it is designed to attract. For an old man like me, we are out of the picture. Not even considered. Because why in the world would they want to go through the trouble of making a REAL horror film? One that involves great skill, attention to detail, and solid construction. Who wants to go through all that trouble? Nah, making a cheap and quick infantile flick and marketing it to a simple audience is much easier. That way old men like me are stuck continuing to gripe about how there aren't any serious horror films anymore.

Where have all the cowgirls gone (sigh)?

i have been burned

[zombietackle · 1/10 · 3 November 2010]

wow, i picked this movie up for 50 cents and i payed to much. this movie is so badly made on 2 levels that i was burn by it on 2 levels. for people who like to see people die in gory ways, no luck, only the anti hero dies, thats it. and for people who want to make fun of a crappy flick, not for you, this movie takes its self way to seriously to be made fun of. the sfx are really bad, and the "jokes" that they try to pull off are not funny an stupid. please don't see this movie. oh, and it was put out by shock-o-Rama. thats just great. the same guys who put out psycho kick boxer gave the world this mistake of a movie. 1 out of 10

Feminist exploitation!

[grghull · 9/10 · 5 November 2005]

This is an ultra low budget indie horror film, refreshingly old fashioned and well made for its kind. Some of the settings were atmospheric and the acting was pretty good (although the main villain is kind of stiff he's suitably despicable). I rather enjoyed the leisurely pacing, although it gets more frantic (and goofier) in the last fifteen minutes. The girls were cute and charming and capably acted. But the most unusual aspect of this film is that it's a feminist statement in disguise! It's all about how scum bag "artistes" manipulate gullible young women by holding the lure of fame and fortune over their empty little heads. I was pretty surprised to see this kind of social comment in a cheap indie horror movie --- although that didn't stop the director from showing enough young female skin to keep the fans happy!

Devil inside

[unbrokenmetal · 7/10 · 21 March 2011]

This is a clever little horror flick and clearly underrated. It demonstrates the idea of split personality when the photographer Roger (Joseph Farrell) meets his 'alter ego' Rossiter (Kevin Shinnick). Whereas the photographer only arranges scenes with the girls that scare them, but don't actually hurt them, the devil in him breaks out and then takes the job to the extreme. Transformed into Rossiter, Roger may at last torture and kill.

Some reviews below give me the impression most people take movies much too literally, so I elaborate a bit of the transformation idea. Check out 1:00:47 when Roger discovers Rossiters machine. Fascinated, he pulls the lever and says "this is ingenious"! We shall see Rossiter stand at the machine later just like that. Check out 1:10:41 when a hand seems to reach out of Rogers brain (or rather: mind) and smashes him against the door so that he 'dissolves' into an unrecognizable pulp. But when in 1:16:00 Sam Rogan enters the room, there is no body on the floor. Roger has disappeared - he was replaced by Rossiter.

Roger was still full of excuses (his artistic purposes), fear and restrictions. His released inner demon knows nothing of this and just does what Roger may only have had (wishful or terrifying) fantasies about. The actually scary idea behind the movie is therefore that once you lose control, you'll never be the same again. If that involves covering Misty Mundae in red paint, it may however seem negotiable ;-)

Dull

[xposipx · 3/10 · 13 March 2017]

A perverted photographer takes three models into a haunted mansion for his next big photo shoot. One thing leads to another and we see that this isn't your average photo shoot. The girls are locked in cellars and treated like prisoners, but soon the photographer realizes he's not the only perverted one in the house...

Gore could have saved this movie's final outcome. There were plenty of opportunities that left us feeling ripped off. There was a severed hand briefly, and a few horrible CGI cuttings. I don't understand why this company always uses lame CGI instead of putting their low budget into cheap "real" gore effects.

At least it stars Misty Mundae. This is the most redeeming value of the film.

The script was pretty weak, so that didn't help. Misty Mundae really isn't a bad actress...I think she has potential to do real horror if she ever wants to. Kevin G. Shinnick was the photographer -- he was also pretty good and understood his part pretty well. The other females were all typical bimboesque characters. None of them really had too many lines, and that was a good thing. Rob Monkiewicz played the cool guy trying to save all of the girls. He got on my nerves horribly throughout the entire movie. Not much to say -- typical shock-o-rama acting.

They're really learning how to make movies look pretty good without much of a budget. The film quality was great, the lighting was good, and the sets and props were great too. BUT this is shock-o-rama, therefore, there are horribly lame CGI effects instead of gore and bright red paint used as blood. The audio was pretty low and muffled as well. For every good aspect, there is also a bad one.

Final Thoughts: This was supposedly shock-o-rama's attempt at a real horror film. Though they are progressing nicely, butthis didn't cut it. Keep the actors, keep the directors, DUMP THE CGI EFFECTS. Get some nice "real" gore in here and we might get some really decent horror movies instead of this.

Screaming Dead, pretty good

[Katatonia · 6 April 2004]

Possible minor spoilers ahead...

This was the first movie I have seen a film with Misty Mundae. I had of course heard of her, but relegated her to the "softcore" genre of C-films. She was surprisingly good as an actress in Screaming Dead.

Screaming Dead is another fun, low budget offering from Brett Piper (Drainiac, Psyclops, Arachnia). Much of the film takes place in an actual abandoned mental hospital that dates from the 1930's. It's a rather unique location and serves the film's story and mood quite well. The plot concerns a famous S&M photographer and several female models which he quite literally "owns" while he shoots at the mental hospital. These girls are perfectly willing to do whatever it takes for his infamous depraved photo shoots, no questions asked.

As mentioned before Misty Mundae gets top billing, playing the lead as Bridget. Rob Monkiewicz (His 3rd Piper film?) evens out the cast as Sam, the ears and eyes for the real estate/insurance company. Rachael Robbins rounds out the cast as Maura, the photographer's assistant, who begins to see sinister side of her employer.

Suffice it to say that bizarre events begin to occur for the girls. There isn't really anything new in the film...it's simply a horror movie with some female exploitation thrown in, no more and no less. Screaming Dead isn't Piper's best film, but it definitely has it's moments and his unique signature style. The film's undead antagonist was fairly creepy and worked rather well I thought. A couple of scenes in the movie are somewhat STRANGE and make you think for a minute. You'll probably enjoy the flick if you enjoy very low budget horror movies, done right.

reminds me of something .... like that sex torture guy ...naaa

[godinamachine · 5/10 · 18 September 2022]

HEY EVERYBODY ITS ME (4) and today we review ...ghost busters 5 ......

here we have a classic ghost meets girl , girl falls in love with ghost .... and torture ensues .....

same director as aracnia? ....a-rack-knee ah ? ...the spider movie in the snow with giant spider monsters ....with the same "macho" guy lead in this film in that one ... you know i like tha guy as an actor in B films .... weird he only acting in like 5 movies or something and i think all from this director too .... he didnt do anything after 2006 acting wise ....maybe something happened ? I dot know i didnt look into it .... but i dont know i think he could have had some kind of series of just him going around being the hero of stuff lol..... i would watch it ....

as for this film .... not NEARLY as exciting as the giant spider one , in fact most of the time hes fighting his own urge to punch a guy lol.... over all story and acting mid grade, the FX are fine because you know what your getting here from the moment it starts ....lighting et , all the tech specs are average so its "fine" across the board .... nothing really special about it .... it COULD have had more atmosphere to it ..... it COULD have had more creepy factor in there ...it could have alot of things but meh its okay lol..... and im not talking bad here ..... just saying its like room temp water ... ill drink it .... and its fine ....

its your basic formula for these films .... hot chicks, weird creepy pervert, hero guy saving them .... add in a bit of monster/ghost and BAM here you go, a fast easy flick ....a old school saturday night cheap thrills kind of deal you would see on "USA up all night with rhonda sheer" LOL .... if you know ...you know ....

so

5/10

middle of the road, plays it safe with a basic formula , cant really go wrong with that.

An Honest Review

[generationofswine · 10/10 · 8 April 2020]

Here and there you see Misty Mundae do a role where she can kind of act. Duck! was one of them... but I'm not sure how I want to review that yet. This was another.

It's light on the S&M, it's light on the scares... but that doesn't matter because you are watching it for bad acting, boobs, cheap special effects, and occasional humor.

It's unfortunately a little light on humor, but it's still heavy on camp so you can't hold that against it.

But the shocking thing here is that it manages to build actual mood and tension here and there and not entirely rely on comedy, camp, and boobs. Occasionally you see actual talent shine through and that is... shocking for a movie like this isn't it?

So, ten out of ten stars because here and there the film makers actually managed to show the audience that they are talented.

Screaming for more action!

[Dr. Gore · 29 June 2004]

*SPOILER ALERT* *SPOILER ALERT*

OK. Here's the deal. Listen close. Misty Mundae is a softcore porn star. She's not a particular favorite of mine but you've got to give her credit for her willingness to hop into bed with other women. That's right. Misty Mundae = Sex with women. Mundae is shorthand for girl/girl action. That's what she does. Everybody knows that. So who decided to have a scene where Misty is in bed with two other women and then let them not have sex?! NOOOOOOO! Why Lord Why???

I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, if she's not getting it on with other women, there must be something else for her to do. That's where you're wrong. There's nothing else for Misty to do. Actually there's nothing for anyone to do. "Screaming Dead" is all build-up and no payoff. Misty Mundae is in bed with two women and there's no sex. Need I say more?

OK I will. Three models and a photographer head to an abandoned maniac's house. Sadist the friendly ghost is hanging around waiting for someone to turn him on. The photographer likes to take S&M pictures of girls. For some reason, there is a muscle-bound goon hanging around the photo shoot. He wears a bright green shirt that actually glows greener when he's angry. He's the Incredible Bulk. Bulk smash! Will he protect the girls from the kinky photographer and the ghostly sadist? You'll have to watch the movie to find out although I wouldn't recommend it.

No Mundae sex for you! Bad B-movie fan!

Don't Kill Him. It'll Ruin Our Shoot!

[mikeledo · 30 June 2017]

A cult photographer shoots three models in a haunted asylum. That's about it.

I made it sound better than it was. Boring "B" movie.

Misty does not pontificate on matters of religion or government.

Nudity (Misty Mundae, C.J. DiMarsico)

And I thought Johnny Pneumonic was bad...

[mrsknoll · 18 April 2004]

This was easily the most wretched movie I have ever been forced to sit through. The plot was loose and full of ridiculous gaping holes. The direction was terrible with poor camera angles and no prospect of originality whatsoever. I wasn't expecting much from this movie, but I had hoped that the "actors" could have been at least relatively fluid with their lines or mildly convincing. I have always said that shoddy direction and a poor plot can be overcome with great casting and this movie fails at all 3 major components of movie making. This is an hour and a half that I cannot get back from my life and I was subjected to terrible CGI, completely unbelievable acting, and absurd gratuitous nudity. The end scene, where one of the dumb blondes was being stretched on a torture device, threatened by red hot pokers and spiraling saws coming at her helpless body, was the scene that really did it for me with their acting ability. "oh..help...help...someone..." Come on - some real shrieking please? I guess that's what you get for putting soft-core porn "stars" in legitimate (and I use that term loosely) movies. If you really dig Mystery Science Theater 3000, go rent this - the only thing that made this atrocity bearable was my optional commentary. It was a blast to watch simply for the fact that it was sooo easy to rip apart and get some easy laughs from my friends.

No As Bad As I Was Expecting

[seybernetx · 8 August 2021]

A couple weeks ago TiVo's Suggestions threw up "Screaming Dead" as a newly available movie. When I checked into it, the Details noted that this was a direct to video movie, by the star of epics like "Playmate of the Apes" and "SpiderBabe". So I figured "Screaming Dead" was something along the lines of "Plan 9 From Outer Space" meets "Barbarella". But sometimes that is what you are in the mood for, so I figured 'heck, why not?'.

Somewhat to my surprise, this is a half-way decent movie. Erin Brown (A. K. A. Misty Mundae) and some other hot babes were hired (sort of) as models for a real sleaze bag of a photographer. He refuses to pay his models ("that would hurt the integrity of his work") and somehow manages to sell his photos for 5 or 10 thousand dollars. (he also has a bunch of other 'quirks' that I'll let you find on your own if you decide to watch the movie)

The photographer rents an empty sanatorium and moves the three models into the space. There is a woman who moves in with them, and was mostly there to chaperone the girls (I think). She has little, if anything, to do with anything that happens in the story. There is also a representative of the building owner, who is there mostly flirt with the women during the movie and rescue the girls at the end.

There is the near-obligatory ghost/demon, a couple torture scenes with some laughably bad special effects, and the hero defeats the ghost in a way that has "OK, we're running out of money, let's end things quick" written all over it.

"Casablanca" it ain't, but it is kind of fun if you are in the mood for something mildly interesting but not to challenging.

Photo Phreak...

[azathothpwiggins · 7 December 2021]

SCREAMING DEAD is the story of a crazed photographer and his unsuspecting female subjects (aka: victims).

Filmed in an abandoned asylum, it has plenty of creepy atmosphere and dark places, including a hidden torture chamber.

Is it a masterwork of brilliant filmmaking? Um, no. However, it's fairly entertaining in its own schlock-tastic way. Plus, it has Misty Mundae in a semi-serious role, and a semi-scary ghoul at the end.

Recommended for followers of Director Brett Piper...