User reviews

The directors cut version, which was the one I saw, was very long for this type of movie. Almost two hours is way too long. If you have the choice, definitely go for the non-directors cut.

The main plot is almost not taken up at all, the movie consists to the main part of several murder scenes, which are connected but the feeling is that they're only shown in order to fill the movie with splatterish violence. The connection is not revealed until the latter part and the lack of context bored me out long before I was there.

As a horror movie it doesn't work. You never get the required feel for the characters due to mediocre acting and the general disposition (character is presented, 15 minutes later character is dead). This pictures strong side lies in the splatter part.

This movie has a few things going for it right off the bat. Having Dani Filth as a lead actor is automatically going to make some people like this movie. Admittedly, I love Cradle of Filth and listened to the soundtrack to this movie long before I watched it. Dani Filth is a very recognizable character and makes for a great lead. The independent filming style of the movie is great for the creepy factor. There are some GORGEOUS actresses in this movie. For being low budget, the special effects weren't bad either. The ways that people died were very creative and nightmarish.

Now on to the cons. There is VERY little talking throughout this whole movie, thus making for very little as far as character development. It's hard to fear for the lives of limp, static characters. When there was a little talking, the F bomb was abundant, popping up in random places. Yes, I understand people swear but it seems like a preteen boy scripted this and thought himself cool for including all the language. The storyline, what I could make out of it, was pretty good although many parts are left dangling and the lack of conversation leaves one often wondering what's happening.

In the end, Cradle of Fear is like a porno for people who love sex and violence, but like a porno trying to pull of a storyline, it just doesn't work too well. Rent it though, if you're a morbid person looking to sate your blood and flesh appetite.

Check out the film's website, more time was put into making that than in the writing of the script for this movie. It couldn't be more off in it's boasting. Original story? Original? They must have found the script tucked away between the old testament, or face legal repercussion for that bit of horn-tooting. High-end special effects? Come on, I could do better with an Atari 7600 and a jug of earwax. Stylish cinematography? Oh yes, the America's funniest home video look is still a classic. I'm sure they had little money available for this title, so of course the sf aren't really that good, or a bit bad now and then, or just plain hilarious, but it's the story that makes this film a waste of time and money. 4 stories rolled into one and all of them brainless bits of seen-befores and done-already's.

This sure is one comedy I'm not likely to forget for a while.

Wouldn't normally bother to comment on this movie: it's so minor that no one would watch it anyway, but as it happens, it's kind of popular in p2p sharing networks such as Kazaa, and so this saaad production needs to be exposed for what it is.

So what is it then? Well, of course it's not really a comedy; instead, it's intended as a horror flick -- "intended" very much being the key word here. The script is a totally incoherent and unbalanced mess, the special effects are only special in that they're especially pathetic, and as for the acting, well, let's just say that if this had been my graduating play at primary school, my teachers would have burst out crying at our talent.

Of course I realise that this is a very low budget film and that in those cases one should lower one's expectations, certainly as far as things like special effects are concerned. Also, even though I'm a big fan of the horror genre, I'm aware that these movies are only rarely the places to look for interesting scripts and top notch acting.

But still.

B-movies often have some redeeming features to make up for the lack of funding, such as humour. The only laughs in Cradle to Fear lie in the ridiculous performances. If you can find the humour in that--and I could for the first 20 minutes or so, gradually dozing off after that--then that's going to be the only thing the movie has to offer. Oh, that and two or three pairs of breasts.

Woohoo, how exciting.

As for the story, it's not even that it doesn't try to convey anything: the victims either use drugs and/or are involved in serious crime. The lesson: Watch out, naughty boys and girls, because one day you'll be made to pay for what you've done.

I rest my case.

So, all in all, a little bit of sex, a fair amount of drugs, but absolutely zero rock 'n roll.

I rate this one 1 out of 10, but would go to 0 if I could. Or perhaps I wouldn't: it deserves a 1 for spelling the actors' names correctly in the titles. I mean, that's something, innit?

Normally when I go on a raid of the local Hollywood Video I head towards the B-Horror movies. To me the basic principals behind a B-Horror movie is it's camp value, Heavy Gore, Lots of needless Nudity, and special effects that anyone can put together with a pack of corn syrup and latex. I rented Cradle of Fear strictly because I've been a fan of the band since they released they're first Demo in 1995. The movie started off on an interesting note and then when I saw Dani Filth stomp on an extremely obvious latex mask I LAUGHED. When I saw the Lesbian sex scene for the sake of a Lesbian sex scene I LAUGHED EVEN HARDER. I spent pretty much the entire movie laughing and when I wasn't laughing I was shaking my head thinking about how a multi-million dollar rock star would want to make a movie that seemed like it was on a budget of multi-hundreds of dollars. The whole point of this movie to me seemed to attract the "Hardcore Goth kids who think death, destruction, sex, blood, and Satan are the greatest things invented since Lava Lamps. That was really it. To me this movie seemed like 80.5% of the things that happened in this movie just happened for the sake of being Satanic. This movie had a lot of potential and really could have been a real good movie but in the end this "Movie" really is just an extended Cradle of Filth Video.

I just saw the DVD of this and I belive it to be the biggest waste of aluminium and polycarbonate issued in years. Now, let me get this straight: I love low-budget films. I love really gory, gross-out films. I love horror anthologies. I also used to be a goth for several years. Sadly, this film does a grave disservice to all of the above (no pun intended). The film was produced on DV and therefore looks home-made. The fact that the budget didn't extend to getting it transferred to film says a lot. Sure, there's nothing that says films can't be low-budget and many people have made some excellent pieces using little more than a home DV camera. The difference is that most people don't usually try and pass them off as feature films.

The plot attempts to tie four small stories into some kind of cohesive whole, but the fact is that most of these segments don't really make much sense. Only the "sick room" plot holds your attention and looks as if it might be going somewhere interesting, but then it spectacularly drops the ball with the sub-Twilight Zone predictability of its denouement.

The dialogue is a low point amongst a sea of low points. Expletives are clumsily dropped into scenes, giving the impression of the writer somehow trying to prove how grown-up the film is.

Acting throughout is mostly appalling. I mean, really bad. The usual-suspect rent-a-goths Emily Booth and Eileen Daly give the type of performances that will see them typecast in this kind of tripe until they no longer look good semi-naked. As for Dani Filth, his virtually-silent role merely gives him the opportunity to carry over his stage persona and- if possible- look an even bigger berk than usual.

As for the effects- well, if indeed Creature FX really were involved, then I can't see that they got paid more than twenty quid for their contribution. There is shocking gore, yes, but only shockingly bad. It almost made me laugh, but I was so depressed by the rest of the experience I couldn't raise a smile. Oh, and the CGI is truly, deeply, totally unspeakable. This is not one of those films that's so bad it's good, so don't get taken in by that line of reasoning.

In my experience, the music and imagery of Cradle Of Filth appeals mainly to young, oh-so-rebellious just-turned-teenagers and goth/metal fans who take themselves far too seriously. If this describes you, you'll probably love this film. If it doesn't, then don't insult your own intelligence and just walk away...

...and you can look at that statement in different ways, by the way. First of all, it's a mess because of all the gruesome and extremely violent scenes. Your wildest imagination doesn't even come close to some of the explicitly shown scenes here. Entire parts of this movie are just plain sick, disgusting, offensive, brutal and they bring you close to puking your guts out. Now, I love horror movies and I am very 'pro-violence', but I do think that it has to lead somewhere !! Is that too much to ask ? Cradle of Fear is just a series of utterly sick and twisted thoughts. The "movie" contains out of four separate chapters connected by a wraparound story. This results in endless showing of torture, murder and sickness only to find out that the victims have something in common. Not very informative, if you ask me. And yet - it has to be said - the basic plot idea surely HAS potential. It's about a cannibalistic hypnotist who made a deal with the devil himself to avenge himself and cause misery and death to everyone who was involved in his trial. Personally, I think that is an interesting topic, so they should have focused on that a little more instead of wanting to create the most disgusting movie ever.

Secondly, the whole production of this movie was a mess. They didn't have much of a budget and they spent it all on fake blood and guts...Tons of it !! The acting performances are a joke and some of the worst I've ever seen. Any other special effects besides the make-up looks very amateurish ( Like that attempt to a realistic car crash, for example ). There's no tension or atmosphere to detect anywhere...not even an attempt to build up one.

Cradle of Fear is a failure and a missed opportunity to say the least. With the presence of death-metal icon Danni Filth ( from the band Cradle of filth..get the link ? ) this movie is obviously only meant for the eyes of twisted teenagers who try to be controversial. Troubled girls and boys who take pleasure in worrying their parents by watching crap like this. And then people keep complaining that the amount of suicides and juvenile delinquency is increasing...Bah. I can imagine that this movie can cause a lot of damage when you're easily influenced or dispose of an unstable mind. For every self-respecting horror fan, this movie is an insult.

Cradle of Fear

This isn't a movie where intricate delicate little narrative nuances occupy our attention. This is not a film where the special effects are supposed to leave us slack-jacked uttering that sense of whoa. What it is though is a slice of lo-fi goth horror which leaves little to the imagination, created in the eyes of the director, Alex Chandon, as "a throwback to sleazy '70s and '80s horror".

This is a very visceral experience for 2 hours, where four plot lines are connected through lots of watery blood, reams of dismembered body parts and innards, tied by an intestinal thread of revenge.

The purveyor of such horrific violence is Dani Filth, lead-singer of the metal band Cradle of Filth, executing a role he was destined to play.

As other's have said, there is nothing new about wanting to carryout occultist revenge. In this particular context a convicted sexual predator and murderer, Kemper, the father of our devilish avenging-angel, compels his son to exact retribution on those who are some how connected to convicting him to purgatory within an insane asylum.

What this provides for the Chandon, who should be congratulated on also penning and editing this piece, is the opportunity to let his sick mind run free. He seems to take delight in the idea of splattering blood into the orifices of those on screen, and into every nook and cranny that can be reached. We are also treated to close-ups of skull's being crushed, demonic rape, and other assorted imagery to engage those who relish getting up close and personal to their horror. And for some of those who closely follow these type of films, there is the odd sequence which may have you thinking, "Did I just see what I thought I did", because of course Pretty Woman this 'aint. It reminds me of some of the gore-fests created out of Italian horror some 20 to 30 years ago, and a number of other works where disgusting images have left their mark but not the context in which they were viewed.

Story 4 of the set is particularly intriguing where the idea of ones obsession can ultimately lead to death in the pursuit of internet violence through the "Sick Room", where the user is in control of how a life can be snuffed out. Further acknowledgements should also go out to a pounding soundtrack that allows Filth to exercise his daytime talent, and an effective use of drum and bass, often overlooked in film-making as a viable form of supporting visuals. Using the city of London as a backdrop with real people as opposed to movie stand-ins also adds support to the commando feel of the film. OK, classic it may not be, but blood, guts, intestines, occult and demons in a slightly perverse unproblematic way it is.

Having been a fan of the band Cradle of Filth for many years, I was inclined to watch this movie. Alex Chandon had previously done a video for the band (From the Cradle to Enslave) which is one of the most visually original music videos of all time. With this background information out of the way, here is a checklist to see if you will like this movie. 1. Can you tolerate bad special effects? The effects in this movie are about one step above crappy because it had a limited budget. It does take some work to get past the poor effects and get into the story, but it can be done. 2. Do you have ADD? One thing I did enjoy about the movie was that it weaves together 4 story lines which really helps to keep your focus during the movie. It's far from stagnant. 3. Are you offended by anything? Anything at all? If so, you will hate this movie and possibly feed the need to speak to a pastor after viewing it. The effects, as previously stated are poor, but the material the movie deals with is very intense and often satanic with references to Crowley. If you answered yes to 1 and 2 and no to number 3, you will probably enjoy this movie. In my opinion, it's worth at least one watch if you enjoy horror movies. One last time though, the special effects are weak and this movie is not for the faint of heart.

I didn't have very high-hopes going into CRADLE OF FEAR. The first scene shows some "scary" goth-kid killing some guys in an alley, with pretty poor gore FX and an insanely obvious SOV feel to it. Number one - people who dress up like vampires at an S&M party are about the most un-scary things humanly possible - and two - I typically don't care for extremely obvious SOV productions...so you can see as how from the first five minutes I didn't think I would be feelin' this one. I have to admit though, that as it went along, CRADLE OF FEAR ended up being quite entertaining, despite (and in some cases because of...) it's numerous flaws...

The film is made up of four vignettes that center around a mental patient who was a hypnotist and child rapist/murderer. In each vignette, one or more people die in different splattery ways, that are related to people that had to do with the hypnotist's incarceration. The stories themselves are all relatively entertaining: the first dealing with the same goth kid from the beginning (who is apparently mind-controlled by the hypnotist) who bones a semi-hot goth whore and some crazy baby/spider-thing busts out of her stomach. The next has two friends who rob an old man and the robbery goes seriously wrong. The next is about a one-legged guy who goes to seek a "donor" for his missing leg, and the last (and in my opinion, most interesting) story deals with a kid who becomes obsessed with a snuff web-site. The four stories are all semi-amusing excuses to show some tits and gore, and still stay within the context of the film...

CRADLE OF FEAR is a very disjointed film. The way it's shot makes it look like a bad UK soap-opera. There are some decent performances from some of the cast - others are atrocious. There are a few sets of decent goth-chick tits in this one, and that's never a bad thing. Some of the gore FX are convincing or at least decent - others suck completely. There are a few CGI special FX that are so bad they're absolutely hilarious (car-chase/crash, anyone???) - but somehow this mess of a film still works. It is a little long, clocking in at a solid two hours, and could probably use a little bit of a trim, but even so - it manages to stay pretty quick-paced and entertaining throughout. Not a great film by any stretch - but it's quirky and worth a look to splatter fans...8/10

In London, Detective Pete Neilson (Edmund Dehn) is investigating several bloody and gruesome murders with all the victims connected to the trial of the serial killer Kemper (David McEwen) that is interned in the Fenham Asylum.

Melissa (Emily Bouffante) has one night stand with a sick man she met in a Gothic club and while going to the house her friend Natalie (Eileen Daly) on the next morning, she has the sensation that she is surrounded by demons. Sooner she finds that she carries an offspring of the man.

Emma (Emma Rice) and Sophie (Rebecca Eden) go to the house of an old man to steal his money, but their robbery becomes violent when the dweller wakes up.

Nick (Louie Brownsell) has a great complex with his beloved girlfriend Nikki (Melissa Forti) because his leg was amputated in an accident. He becomes deranged, gets a leg and forces his doctor to implant it, with tragic results.

Richard Neilson (Stuart Laing), the son of Detective Neilson, works in an Internet company and becomes obsessed with snuff movies in a website, where the user can select the means of killing the victim, losing his job. When the site vanishes, Richard seeks information finding the truth about the movies.

"Cradle of Fear" is a collection of four original, erotic and gory horror tales. Using great special effects, performances and music score, sexy actresses and lots of blood, I liked very much this surprisingly good B-movie, but the Satanism used to entwine the four tales with the investigation of Detective Neilson does not work very well and is the weak part of the tales. The first story is certainly the best one, but I was really impressed with the excellent special effects that in many cases gives the sensation that the violence of the scene is for real. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Nascido do Inferno" ("Born From Hell")

I think for your own true opinions of this film you should ignore the comments and make your own verdict by actually going to watch it. In my opinion I think that it is a clever story line, being a fan of cradle of filth I like the soundtrack and the actor (the man.

Instead of ordinary horror films, cradle of fear has 4 different stories all linked by one theme, so f you don't like a part of it, there is a lot more in the film. I think some o the scenes are far-fetched but overall it's a film for someone who has an imagination

I think the film was designed for young horror fans and overall it delivers: bring you a sickening fear. fans of horror, gore and Danni filth will not be . disappointed so watch it and make up your own mind!

Not since Caligula have I considered turning off the movie half-way through....but then with this one, I was only 15 minutes in when I considered. Unfortunately, I did make it all the way through. Make sure that you do not.

It's not that Cradle of Fear is shocking or gory or scary or frightening or sexual. It's that it's not any of those things, yet it so desperately wants to be all of them. Instead, it's boring, trite, ordinary, predictable, and unexceptionally poorly executed (shot on video, high school special effects, no sense of even basic visual storytelling, dialog barely audible...not that it's worth hearing, though).

This movie is proof for the argument that even the straight-to-video distributors need to draw a line in the sand somewhere.

This may have been made for the hell of it, but it was most probably the worst film i've seen in years, The best thing about the entire DVD would be the case!!! I'm surprised that people took the time to make something so rubbish and yet spend money on it too, I'm glad i only rented. I suppose the real fans of this film would probably have to be sadistic and Gothic to care about it without taking in any CGI or any other effects for that matter, I hope Alex Chandon learnt a lesson about lighting and SFX to make a better film in the future, that is, if he is still in work.

Notes to buyers this is extremely disappointing, DON'T BUY IT!!!!!

I think this is the worst movie I have ever seen. The Effects are bad. The acting in the movie is horrible. I think the story line sucked more than anything I ever seen. I thought the movie would be cool because i read on the cover that it was the people who made the effects for Hellraiser and Black Hawk Down,but if those effects is by the people from these movies I think something wrong has happened. It's only one good thing about the movie and that is the music,very cool black metal,but thats not enough to give the movie any higher grade.I rather watch Wes Cravens Scream 3 than this terrible movie at least Craven has some good effects and better acting. Anyway to the point, even if you like blackmetal because Danny Filth from Cradle of Filth is in the movie,I don't recommend anybody to see this stinky movie. I just say like the comic guy in The Simpsons:"Worst movie ever".

This film was available cheap in my local video shop. Not cheap enough. This has to be the biggest pile of Garbage masquerading as film I have ever had the displeasure to see. Dani Filth of Cradle of Filth displays the acting talent of a wardrobe (or given his short, podgy stature perhaps a chest of drawers is more accurate).

He fails miserably to convey any sense of menace whatsoever and just looks like a diminutive goth who has eaten all the pies. The Script is just terrible and it's not even funny-bad just BAD. The special effects are really ham fisted (car accident and a decapitation being particularly laughable). Part of the script is ripped off from 'Killer Net' a very poor Lynda LaPlante series and actually makes the LaPlante effort seem like Star Wars in comparison. If I could have I would have given this movie 0 (or less), I regret wasting about an hour and a half with this rubbish.

Empire called it "the best British gore film since Hellraiser". Allan Bryce said "i have seen the future of horror and his name is Alex Chandon". With praise like that it was bound to disappoint some. Cradle of fear is a low-budget horror anthology. Whether you will enjoy the film will depend on whether you can get past the low-budget video look, several bad performances and the at times laughable effects. However overall the most surprising thing about this film is how good it is. Alex Chgandon brings a level of directing style not usually associated with this budget, in particular in the excellent opening sequence. The gore is excellent and some off the effects are very good though at times the over the top nature off the violence is at odds with the tone off the film. In general the acting is good with Stuart Laing in the films high point the sick room segment being of special mention. Dani Filth is alright in a role that requires him to do little but kill and act cool. The actor who played Kemper was suitably deranged. Though the high point is the sick room segment , there are great moments throughout in particular the finale. Is it good as Hellraiser? No, but then not a lot of horror films are. It does however show that with a bigger budget and more time Alex Chandon could make one off THE horror films off the decade, and therefore really does introduce a new voice previously known only in underground circles. This however is not his masterpiece.

When one of my friends lent this to me I didn't really know what to expect. I knew that it was low budget and extremely gruesome. But in my eyes, low budget horror movies are better than high budget ones (Resident Evil anyone?). The storyline as a whole, I think, is really good (although a little disjointed at times) and the characters were really diverse, the acting wasn't the best I've seen but when is it in a horror movie! although Dani Filth played 'The Man' brilliantly, I couldn't have thought of a better person for the job. It makes you wonder though whether he was really that evil because the people he killed were not exactly nice people. Another thing that added to it's horror movie quality was the low budget special effects, they weren't awful, but you could tell at times that they looked fake. This just makes it better though in my opinion. So on a whole I think this movie is brilliant and it makes a change from the really poor horror movies that have been coming out recently.

9/10

By all accounts, this could have been an interesting film. Featuring a score by the mighty Cradle Of Filth, starring their frontman Dani and being hyped up as "the future of British horror", I expected Alex Chandon's gore fest to live up to the hype.

I was wrong.

Everything about this film is either cliche or inept. The short story anthology setup was done to death (and much better) in the seventies and eighties. Admittedly, the idea of 'the sick room' did send a chill down my spine, but as with most of the film was let down by bad script writing and acting.

Chandon cannot write dialogue. Every sentence with the main police investigator is brim full with swearing and insolence (the typical 'cop on the edge' formula. funny, i'm sure i've seen that somewhere else before...) No Chandon, you are not Tarantino. Or Scorsese. It sounds BAD. Add ludicrously OTT acting with very dodgy casting (don't get me wrong, Dani Filth is a great singer and musician, but actor he ain't) and the performances are beyond laughable to the vein burstingly cringing. Give me Bruce Campbell any day.

The visual effects are on the whole poor, with some atrocious CGI, awful gore effects (for goodness sakes, Peter Jackson did better and that was over ten years ago with less budget) and editing filters that shriek OVER-USE! As for the often mistimed use of Cradle Of Filth's score... man, they should sue.

The fundamental problem with Cradle Of Fear is that it takes itself seriously, trying to build atmosphere and incite terror and repulsion within its audience. too many good horror films made in the seventies and eighties do this so much better with far superior gore effects (eg: maniac, zombie flesh eaters, the beyond, suspiria etc), rendering Cradle of Fear, in my mind, second-rate and obsolete.

I hope Chandon can learn from this hideous ghoul of a film and go on to make some quality horror that actually scares.

Better luck next time.