If you commit to the slow burn more than the actors or the scriptwriters did, there's a bit of a payoff in the end. Unfortunately, the acting and the pace of the story were both so bad, I couldn't make it that far and still take it seriously. It's a straightforward dark possession horror, except it feels like Tommy Wiseau was the writer, director, and acting coach.
Plot summary
Douglas Elmore is an alcoholic writer and caretaker haunted by visions of his dead wife and pursued by supernatural forces bent on revenge for his past deeds. When tenants start turning up dead in the hallways and stairwells of his brownstone apartment building, Douglas suspects a strange but sexually alluring homeless prostitute named Karna who sleeps in his basement by day and prowls the empty city by night. But as the bodies pile up, Douglas is torn between his growing obsession with Karna and the threat of becoming a prime suspect in a murder investigation. Douglas must find the origin of the evil residing in the old Hagstone building before the secrets of his past return to destroy him.
Uploaded by: OTTO
Director
Top cast
Sasha Andreev as Fr. Carl Becker
Movie Reviews
Reviewed by
Proof I'll finish any movie I start
Reviewed by
Are the cast of this movie writing these reviews?
Sure sounds like it. This is one rotten movie. I give it a 10. I like bad movies, you see. This has everything: bad writing, bad direction, bad production, bad acting.. bad everything. Even the Hagstone is a disgusting looking old building with smelly slimy creepiness oozing out all over. Bad bad bad. But is it Doris Wishman bad? Is it Hershel Gordon Lewis bad? No way. Is it Plan 9 bad? Yeah, sort of. It is bad in an innocent, endearingly bad sort of way. The sort of bad you can scoff at with a good conscience because you support the idea of low budget truly independent film making and rather hope the makers keep making without ever getting good enough to sell out and become mainstream "good". Because that would be truly bad and truly unwatchable. Ya know what I mean?
Reviewed by
Be very afraid...
Wow. What a stinker. We pick out three obscure films every Friday and this was in the last batch. One of the big problems other than how boring it is is that it takes itself VERY seriously. Shot in B & W to give it some kind of artistic feel, it just contributes to the dullness, and trust me this script is DULL. The protagonist is a very goofy looking "actor" who is incapable of emoting. Apparently he is some kind of cult star and maybe the movie is made exclusively for his fans, so I don't know maybe I'm missing some kind of inside joke. The effects look like they were made on the spot except the cat-thing which looked like it was a rubber puppet.I would love to give some props as this was obviously a no budget picture, but it's trying so desperately to be a Rosemary's Baby or some other kind of real movie that it couldn't possibly succeed. Some of the shots were nice so they had a decent cameraman, now if they had just replaced everything else it might have worked. One more thing, whoever you are who wrote that long glowing review is either connected to the production or should not be writing reviews because you are seriously misleading people.