Halloween Night

I thought this movie was a lame attempt at re-creating another Halloween movie...and after Rob Zombie screwed that up, we don't need another. I can't say that this movie was all THAT bad in its entirety, but it definitely doesn't stack up against any of the classic horror movies. The bloody affects weren't even realistic. And I could never understand why directors think that the key to a great horror/scary movie is to show as much blood and gore as possible. I love horror movies but I'm not into those that are so gory that they take all the focus away from the thrilling part of it. I gave this movie four stars because after it was all over, that's about what I felt it was worth. I wouldn't watch it again. Tho I must say the blonde who played Shannon is a pretty good actress...she was great in the Eating Out movies. She was about the only talented one in this movie...

Clearly an attempt to cash in on the success of other Halloween-themed slashers, "Halloween Night" offers nothing new to the genre. However, new offerings does not equate to entertainment, and this movie certainly entertains. For a low-budget DTV, it certainly isn't terrible...I have seen much worse.

The BAD: A weak script, and sub-par acting are this films main faults. Many have posted opinions of the guy who plays David's acting--honestly, I didn't have a big problem with him. That is probably because NOBODY was good in this movie, even Rebekah Kochon who gave a good performance in "When A Killer Calls." None of the actors seem to be really into the film, which is problematic. The script is laughable in parts on the dialogue really consists of nothing but high school hallway banter. The films looks like it was filmed all in one day, and yes, the killer resembles a zombie much more than he does a burn victim! Have the filmmakers ever even seen a burn victim???? I'm pretty sure they don't like they just climbed out of a coffin after decaying for 15 years. I also felt extremely let down by the ending....it was pretty predictable and by-the-book, but also very rushed. There wasn't a big chase scene and really no suspense as to who was gonna live/die.

The GOOD: Some pretty decent death scenes are about all this has going for it, and they aren't even THAT great. Also, the killer here is pretty ruthless and viscous, which some genre fans might find refreshing. But mainly, this entertains because of the old "it's so bad it's good" cliché, and sometimes, like on Halloween eve, that's all I really need out of horror flick--entertainment, no matter what its source. Still die-hard and picky slasher fans should probably just stick to watching the original "Halloween" for the 30th time.

My Grade: D-

Students throwing an epic Halloween party are infiltrated by a real homicidal maniac escaped from the local mental institution and who apparently doesn't like parties or partygoers. Clumsily edited, quickly made cash-in on the 2006 'Halloween' remake starts off okay, but despite some over the top, gory makeup effects, it quickly deteriorates into a cheap farce, little more than an orgy of mindless slaughter that defies logic.

I'm guessing the budget went on the costumes and the extras fees, and I hope there's receipts, because there's nothing else to show for it on the screen. The dialogue is an occasional highlight with some literary gold e.g. 'the real deal was psychological horror not medieval decadence' and my personal favourite 'you get tired of tasting tuna, you call me'.

Overall despite the tongue cheek tone and a reasonably sympathetic antagonist, there's only so much gratuitous nudity and corny one liners on which you can trade before you need to stump up on a coherent storyline. Unfortunately 'Halloween Night' the story, like its neglected killer, needed more attention in its development. Might just qualify as 'so bad it's good' and if you do take the plunge, make sure to stick around long enough for the coat-hanger killing, the whole set-up for which is totally wild.

From Michael Gingold, the editor of Fangoria...

You would think that Gingold, after viewing thousands of horror films, would know how to make a good movie. Now, granted, he did not direct it, he just wrote it... and granted, it does have a fair amount of gore. But he seems to have the same problem Rob Zombie does: he has seen so many films that he no longer has the ability to be original and can only steal from other (better) films.

And why is the audio not synced up? Nothing makes a picture even worse than when lips do not match the words they speak. The visuals are alright, though, so I guess it is not a complete loss.

This is an entertaingly bad b-horror movie, but like all movies like this the bottom line is its just horrible. I really really hated Derek Osedach who played David Baxter, he really really sucks. I'm not sure what they hell he was trying to do for his 'performance' in this film. Its so laughable, I guess he was trying to improvise and ad lib, but he kept stumbling, and sounded so ridiclous, one of the worst acting jobs ever, honestly he gives the guy from El Chupacabra, Eric Alegria, a run for his money for the worst performance ever given in one of the worst movies ever made. Where was the director on this dumbass' acting? Well I guess this may not be one of the worst movies ever made. It does has satisfying killings. You end up hating the characters and are happy when they get brutally killed. That is the halmark of a true b-horror movie - characters so annoying you root for the killer.

However, the greatest thing about this movie is the hot girl-on-girl action! And I'm not kidding, there are a couple of hot chicks that get naked and get it on a couple times during the movie. most excellent. The nudity in this movie is one of its few good points. The music was really really well done too, but the one string melody was interesting but overused. But the script, acting, directing, camera work, etc all sucked big time.