Screaming Dead

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.