Castle Freak

This movie has one of the most awesome filming locations you can hope for, a legit massive castle. The scenery is absolutely fantastic if you like that sort of thing, I wonder how they got the license to shoot in this place.

Unfortunately the movie just isn't good. The acting is below average, the plot is very thin, and they try to throw in a Lovecraft theme at the end that doesn't really make sense. Really none of the plot makes sense...because there isn't much of a plot at all.

There is boobs though for those that are interested. And they are very nice boobs. They add absolutely nothing to the plot but they are there for those who are interested. The FX is actually quite good as is the film quality, but unfortunately it's just not that great of a movie. I realize I didn't discuss the actual plot...that's because there really isn't is one and anything I said would be a spoiler. Other than the nice boobs it was a meh.

Initially I was not particularly thrilled to learn about this 2020 remake of a classic 1995 horror movie based on a H.P. Lovecraft story. Why? Well, let's just face it, fact is that the majority of Hollywood remakes tend to be abominable results.

But still, I sat down to watch the 2020 remake from writer Kathy Charles and director Tate Steinsiek, fearing the worst, but hoping for the best. Even when the movie didn't have neither Jeffrey Combs or Barbara Crampton on the cast list.

Turns out that the 2020 movie "Castle Freak" was actually surprisingly good for a remake. Heck, I would go as far as saying even if you aren't familiar with the 1995 movie or the H.P. Lovecraft story, then "Castle Freak" is a rather enjoyable and entertaining horror movie.

Now, a movie based on a H.P. Lovecraft story has some pretty high stakes to live up to, and I will say that director Tate Steinsiek actually rose up to the occasion and delivered a movie that was entertaining, but also at the same time managed to bring to the screen a sense of cosmic dread that H.P. Lovecraft was known for. So in that sense, then the remake is actually a worthy movie of bringing such an iconic horror tale to life on the screen.

The acting in the movie was adequate for most parts. Some of the people, though, felt like they were just wrongly cast for the movie, as it felt like they were out of place in the movie, not really bringing any soul or spirit to the character.

The special effects in "Castle Freak" were good, and there was even enough gore and mayhem to keep a seasoned gorehound like myself entertained.

There were also a lot of nice small details in the scenes and sets of the movie, lots of nods towards the Cthulhu Mythos, which was definitely interesting.

One thing that I didn't really enjoy about the movie, was the sex scenes and nudity. Now, I am not a prude or anything, but it just brought a whole mid-1980s horror feel to the movie, unnecessarily I might add. The movie would have been more impactful and outstanding if director Tate Steinsiek had opted to leave that sleaze out of the movie.

The 2020 remake is a worth addition to the horror genre, just as it is an entertaining horror movie of cosmic dread, and it is a rather enjoyable remake. I am rating it a solid six out of ten stars. And the stars are right...

Stuart Gordon's "Castle Freak" was shlocky but entertaining and low-key charming horror romp of the 90's that got a 6/10 from adult me, and it also possesses a considerable amount of personal nostalgia as it was one of the first horror movies I ever saw, peeking through the doors when dad was watching it on VHS. I also happen to be an admirer of H. P. Lovecraft and his ever-reaching influence on the genre, but let me tell you, I believe that both Lovecraft and Gordon would have a lot to say on this here "bold reimagining", may the old ones bless their souls.

There are two prominent, noticeable changes between both "Castle Freak" movies, firstly, the remake/reimagining has added even more gore, gorified perversion and simplistic, cheap vulgarity with lack of any real atmosphere. Eventually, if not for the Lovecraft angle, it feels like yet another cheap "Wrong Turn" installment. Personally, a horror which deliberately prioritizes being offensive - overuse the shock factor - doesn't work nearly as well as those with more investment in story/characters and atmosphere, that use violence as a spice, an added value, and to a much bigger effect. Filmmakers behind "Castle Freak" most definitely knew what they were doing, so at least that's good. Did I already mention all the needlessly inserted soft-core porn scenes? Secondly, there's a lot more Lovecraft in the remake. And it's not good - hear me out though. Before getting to watch "Castle Freak", I had gathered that it will have more story, more Lovecraft lore, Cthulhu mythos, and that people like it. I was definitely excited, for Lovecraft cinema is slowly picking up pace, thanks to successful and awesome adaptations like "The Color Out of Space". When the 100 minutes went by and the credits started rolling, as a fan of all things Lovecraft, I was truly disappointed and almost frustrated. Did it have more lore? Yes. Was it completely void of cosmic horror vibe, lovecraftian atmosphere or anything even remotely spiritually similar to Lovecraft's style and nature? Yes. Did the lore feel forced in, because of the dissimilar modernized b-shlock horror background, and the mere sketch of a character cheese that "The Professor" was? Consequently, did some themes felt disrespected and infused with unintentional humor? Also yes.

As You can see, I'm not too happy. Having said all that, "Castle Freak", for the general viewer, is a potentially fun horror flick, provided you're into gore (practical) and perversion, the usual typical melodrama, and lots of subpar comedy, the intentional or unintentional nature of which is not always readable. All-around a low-budget feature, but decent and fluid enough when it comes to cinematography, production design, locations and such. Crisper, more colorful and, well, modern, of course, but I can't say it provides serious competition for Stuart Gordon's 1995 "Castle Freak", even in the technical fields. Like most elements of "Castle Freak", acting is also an inconsistent wave, with the highlight reasonably belonging to Rebecca Whateley played by Clair Catherine, to whom it's the first leading role, from just two credits on IMDb. I was looking forward to see Jake Horowitz whose performance in "The Vast of Night" blew me away a little, and perhaps it was the passive aggressive antagonistic nature of his character, or the fact that "Castle Freak" was likely filmed earlier, but I didn't particularly enjoy his presence this time around.

They are selling it as "A bold reimagining of a horror classic", I guess perhaps they are defending what came out of it all. Bold it may be, but via cheap (and I don't mean literally) methods and loss of spirit. It's a primitively entertaining movie with very little heart. Guaranteed fun for lovers of the 80's, gore, B flicks, shlock/trash cinema etc. My rating: 4/10.

This is one of those films were right away you know it's not going to be good. Mostly it's about a blind girl wandering around a castle (we know she's blind because she wears sunglasses all the time). I saw review that called this a "reimagining" and I only imagine it's what I would create if I wanted a horrible movie. Don't waste your time move on to something else.

A mix of classic Lovecraft elements, combined with characters that you could care less about, in an overlong movie where everyone makes stupid decisions leading to dire consequences: equals another remake that failed overall. Watch the original instead.