Madhouse (2004) User Reviews

Ambitous yet lacking organization

[cocciakittie · 5/10 · 8 December 2004]

This movie is admittedly better than the usual fare horror fans are offered, however it was still missing something. The majority of the characters were interesting, though at times they seemed too perfectly tailored for their roles.

The movie is suspenseful for the most part and keeps you guessing. At times, things seemed kind of corny (worms and men with eyeliner don't scare ME, for instance) and certain plot points are never explored to their full potential.

All in all, it's a movie worth seeing (especially if you're into the genre). Reminded me a little of a juvenile version of Session 9... but if given the choice between the two, I'd choose Session 9 again!

Schizophrenics double the fun!

[Coventry · 6/10 · 28 August 2005]

Not a better location imaginable to shoot a horror than a mental institution and yet the last really good films revolving on asylums and murdering lunatics date from the 70's, with "Don't Look in the Basement" and "Dark Places". This new film "Madhouse" isn't exactly a masterpiece, neither, but still it's an admirable attempt that makes good use of the ominous clinic setting and even manages to throw in a scary sequence from time to time. Joshua Leonard (one of the twats that got famous after "The Blair Witch Project") stars as the ambitious and idealistic medicine student Clark Stevens, finishing his college years with an internship at the Cunningham Hall clinic. The facilities and methods there are extremely archaic and Clark begins to suspect the administrator, Dr. Franks, of sabotaging the curing processes of his patients. His investigation is interrupted when the clinic's head nurse is brutally murdered by an unknown psycho. With the help of cute nurse Sara and the mysterious patient in cell 44, Clark begins to uncover all the dark secrets of Cunningham Hall clinic. The first hour of "Madhouse" is pretty atmospheric with spooky introductions of the asylum's craziest patients (schizos, nymphs, savages etc...) and a rather impressive collection of typical surgery-tools (a lobotomy, anyone?). After that, however, the script totally stops to make sense and it desperately tries to trick you....without much success, though. The film isn't as gory as you might think but it does contain two or three very nasty sequences and they are effectively done. It could have been a better film but I'm not complaining about the end result too much. Worth a look.

An intense and smart thriller... but not without flaws.

[shanfloyd · 6/10 · 10 June 2005]

The horror/thriller is about a rookie intern who checks into a mental health facility and discovers its darkest secrets as well as his own ones. Excellent sound effects, above average photography and smart script filled with plenty of shock moments make this film real fun to watch for fans of this genre. Joshua Leonard, a veteran in such films, acts quite well as the lead character.

But there are loopholes in the plot. One can clearly see them after a single viewing. The ending is catchy, but utterly unnecessary. Jordan Ladd hardly looks like any medical personnel. But most of all, the actions of the patients are very much exaggerated and overtly dramatic. Apart from these points, 'Madhouse' is worth renting, because the 'thrill' element is in right proportions in the film.

one of the hidden surprises of the year

[sowyau · 27 September 2004]

i have seen it. i always like movie theme like horror cum mental institution. e.g. session 9, house of haunted hill remake springs to my mind. lance henrikssen has only a small role here. anyway, in madhouse, i found it creepy, disturbing and scary throughout the movie especially the first time we see the "basement lock up patients" scenes. the sound design/effect is very very vigorous. this is another movie which got a 'clever' ending, it's not a 'scratching my hairs' kinda ending but rather a 'WoW" ending. i truly recommend it.

to anyone who wish to know my selection of favourite horror movies, here it is: - the shining - psycho - the ring remake - the grudge (original) - jaws - the exorcist - the eye (hong kong) - dead end .......etc etc

another wack psych ward movie

[johnsmithjanuary-20081 · 2/10 · 29 October 2021]

Just another insane asylum movie where nothing happens for the first 3/4 of the movie. Low budget slow burner that hardly qualifies as a thriller and certainly not a horror movie.

Functional, if predictable.

[Ky-D · 7/10 · 17 March 2005]

There is a twist to this horror tale; all modern horror films seem to be required to have a story twist. I won't tell what it is, but I will say careful viewers will have no trouble figuring it out.

A young grad student arrives at a mental institution to begin his internship and from the start notices that the hospital is not up to standard. Patients are not given proper (sometimes not even humane) treatment, doctors and staff seem uninterested, facilities are nearly defunct, and (of course) the place just might be haunted.

The movement of the film is nice and brisk, with scare scenes coming at a fairly steady pace. The cast is capable and it's nice to have a couple horror regulars on board (Lance Henrickson and Jordan Ladd). The scripting is also adequate, but lacks punch; most everything seen here can be seen elsewhere. And then there is the twist, which while not a 'deal-breaker' will still influence your opinion of the film as a whole.

For some decent and classical scares this works just fine, just don't expect anything new or unique.

7/10

Madhouse (the place they should've sent the authors to)

[rainking_es · 1/10 · 4 December 2005]

Well, what a silly thing, for God's sake!! A Psychiatric Hospital which looks more like Dante's inferno, a new doctor that arrives to it, a series of strange killings, and a crazy end/explanation... The script seems to have been written by a bunch of amateurs, the characters are just ridiculous, and we don't even got a single fright that worth the watching. The guy that directed "Madhouse" should focus on making Marilyn Manson videos or stuff like that. The most of the actors are (well deserved) unknown, except for Lance Henrikssen (I guess he has to make some money from time to time.

I always end up wondering why the hell do I watch this kind of sub-products... but I never learn my lesson. Believe me, don't waste your time on this piece of sh*t. Recently they released a movie in Spain called "Hipnos", it's no big deal either, but it's quite a better movie and the story is pretty similar to Madhouse's. So give "hipnos" a try if you feel like.

*My rate: 1/10

Great Unknown Horror B-Movie

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 5 June 2005]

The psychiatric intern Clark Stevens (Joshua Leonanrd) comes to Cunningham Hall, a mental healthy facility administrated by Dr. Franks (Lance Henriksen), for a training period before his graduation in medical college. He gets close to the resident Sara (Jordan Ladd) and to Ben London, a dangerous patient lodged in cell 44 in the basement of the clinic. Clark becomes intrigued with a boy, who seems to be a ghost, and finds that Dr. Franks does not use real medication in the patients. A further investigation shows hidden dark secrets in the clinic.

"Madhouse" is an unknown low-budget movie with a surprisingly great gory story. The direction is sharp, the screenplay is very well tied up and in the end it is a worthwhile horror movie, highly recommended to be discovered by fans of this genre. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "A Casa dos Horrores" ("The House of the Horrors")

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest this isn't

[Leofwine_draca · 3/10 · 24 October 2016]

MADHOUSE is a piece of trash horror film that seems to want to be the next GOTHIKA, although it's so cheaply made and poorly-shot that it's a bit of a chore to sit through. It's also one of those films made in the early 2000s that looks incredibly dated for modern audiences, amazing really when it's only 12 years old as of my viewing. Compare it to similar produce from the 1990s or even 1980s and you can instantly see how dated it looks.

The film features BLAIR WITCH PROJECT actor Joshua Leonard in the lead role and you quickly realise why he wasn't in many films (clue: he isn't very good). He plays a young intern who arrives at a creepy old mental institute and soon becomes involved in the usual run of weird goings-on amid the staff and patients. The patients do their best to be weird and disturbing but when one of them is a Divine rip-off they just come across as quite sad. Supporting cast members include one-time popular starlet Jordan Ladd (CABIN FEVER) and old-timer Lance Henriksen stuck in the clichéd role of the institute director. The worst thing by far about MADHOUSE is the horribly cheap direction from a guy who has made GINGERDEAD MAN 3: Saturday NIGHT CLEAVER. I think that says it all.

An intense, painful feeling of fear

[Kazombie · 7/10 · 5 August 2004]

I went and saw Madhouse last night and I wasn't expecting half of what I actually saw.

Madhouse is a good scare. It is a movie filled with horrific images that kept me entertained all the way thru. There are a lot of cool death scenes. The crazies were really creepy. But the major minus is the fact that you hardly ever really get to see them as much as you'd like to. Only in very short shots and they never really play a big part in the movie! Joshua leonard acted really well.

Not at all what I expected, but that's a good thing. I was expecting a lot of senseless blood and screams. While it had its fair share of gore, I was glad it did focus more on the plot.

Overall, this is a good horror flick. I give it a 7/10

So, I guess all asylum horror movies are more or less the same.

[Boba_Fett1138 · 5/10 · 9 December 2010]

Hospitals and asylums always have been great settings for horror-flicks. You can very rarely go wrong with it, though it's simply true as well that once you have seen one of those movies you'll find all of the other ones to be just alike.

And as far as the genre goes; this one really doesn't stand out. As a matter of fact, it's a pretty failed attempt, mostly. The fact that Lance Henriksen is being an high billed actor on this movie should already tell you enough. I love that guy but the movies he does normally aren't of the highest caliber and just don't have the highest budget or most talented people involved with them.

Reason why this movie just didn't work for me was because it failed at to create a decent atmosphere, of paranoia, claustrophobia and just overall madness. Instead the movie was more focusing on being a slick looking, typical, modern horror-flick, with lots of flashing images and quick cuts and some very clichéd characters.

Because the atmosphere is lacking, so is the tension of the movie already. But it gets made even worse by the movie its total lack of imagination and creativity, when it comes down to its horror moments. It's one of those movies that rely heavily on false scares and it aren't even well done false scare either.

But another obvious cause of all the movie is problems is simply the story. I'm sorry, I just couldn't care about anything happening in it. There is a mystery but you literally have no idea what it is all about, until half way through the movie, or so, but even then you are still trying to figure out which direction the movie is heading toward. The one moment its heading toward a more supernatural story, while at others its more a straight-forward, horror-slasher. It sounds like a good thing that the movie its mystery and story are so unpredictable but in truth the reason why its being so unpredictable is because it's a quite big mess and the story is very often just all over the place. It will make you loose interest pretty fast and just don't care to find out what this big 'mystery' is. It also just doesn't seem like anything life threatening or something that could solve some problems or help people out. It's a mystery that seems and feels totally irrelevant and it's not really an interesting subject for a movie, which I admit is also largely due to the messy way the whole story and movie presents itself.

Also the 'twist' just didn't do it for me. I know every genre movie tries to be original, by often adding a twist ending but when it isn't in style and tone with the rest of the movie and it really doesn't connect too well with the rest of the story that got set up previously, your twist just doesn't work out too well and it feels more like a cheap way to surprise your audience.

There are still far more worse movies to watch out there and the movie didn't annoyed me too much, despite of all its mess and ineffective approach. But it's obviously hardly a movie that I would recommend to anyone.

5/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Surprisingly Good

[TBelton1 · 9/10 · 21 February 2005]

I first rented this movie, expecting only the typical cheesy low budget B-movie, but was surprised to discover a good movie that could have played first run in the theaters. Basically, a young psychiatric intern comes to this backwater rundown mental hospital and discovers a chamber of horrors. There is a mysterious kid/ghost running loose in the hospital (unfortunately, this actor's name was missing from the credits) and a string of murders taking place, as the intern attempts to piece together what is going on. There were several recognizable stars (such as Lance Henrickson) in the movie, most of whom had small parts in favor of the lesser known actors. There was a fair amount of bloodshed in this movie, and a very good turn around in the plot towards the end of the movie that makes all of the previously hard to follow elements crystal clear to the viewer as the identity of the killer is realized.

S10 Reviews: Madhouse (2004)

[suspiria10 · 7/10 · 20 April 2005]

Clark (Joshua Leonard) is a young and idealistic new intern at a run-down and out-dated mental health facility. His aspirations for cleaning the place hit a snag when he butts heads with Dr. Franks (Lance Henrikson) who seems to not mind that the patients never seem to get any better. Shortly Clark begins seeing things and death and mayhem invade the reality of the "Madhouse". Together Clark and Sara must uncover who or what it is that stalks the asylum and survive the massacre.

"Madhouse" is a slick-looking production. Nicely filmed and directed it adds some nice visual pizazz to a relatively standard script. The three leads are all veterans of horror films and do very well in their parts. Excellent sound design and above-average photography make "Madhouse" a solid horror-thriller.

Predictable. Boring. Stereotypical.

[heatherfb-96941 · 3/10 · 24 October 2021]

I should have known from the stereotypical montage of "scary and creepy" things in the opening credits that this film was going to be predictable and tired.

I work on a locked psychiatric unit and I'm always up for watching anything that tries to depict my line of work. If it includes spooky "insane asylums", count me in! I was looking forward to watching a well done psychological thriller but instead I felt like I was walking through a low budget haunted house that desperately tries to scare its patrons with every overused trick in the book. Cue the creepy laughing children, the unkempt old lady, and the identical twins. Add lots of blood. Yawn.

This was no Session 9, a movie that, to this very day, still haunts me. Instead this reminded me of a very hokey slasher film that elicited more laughter than it did fright. Do yourself a favor and run from this humdrum horror flick.

Ther is something creepy bah films set in institutions.

[Fella_shibby · 6/10 · 3 June 2017]

Saw this on a DVD in 2005. Revisited it recently. Ther is something creepy about films set in asylums, hospitals n institutions. But these films need good amount of atmosphere n suspense. Well, Madhouse ain't one of em but its not that bad. The story is about an intern who before graduating arrives at a mental health facility where he notices that there is something weird going on. In the institution there is a restricted area where the most dangerous patients are kept permanently locked up. Silence of the lambs style. Patients r given the same medicines n mysteriously people r murdered in gruesome ways. Sadly only two kills in this film. The movie has decent atmosphere n suspense. Ther is a nice twist. Ther is enuff gore. The acting was dull but it is always good to see our genre actor Lance Henriksen. Sadly he is not given enuff screen time. Of course ther r much better films than this. The Ward, Psych 9, Session 9, Patrick, Shutter island, Asylum blackout, Insanitarium....

Kinda lame

[questclub · 29 October 2004]

A bit boring stuff. Compared to this House on Haunted Hill is a masterpiece. A short summary: 1. Creepy intro - 5 min. 2. Blah-blah-blah - 30 min. 3. One kill - 5 min. 3. Again blah-blah-blah - 30 min. 4. Watch the ending - 20 min. But seriously - some jerky guy comes to a madhouse. There's lots of talk, sightseeing around hospital, a couple of murders in between, some suspense and kinda cool ending. There's nothing more I want to say about the movie, because there is nothing more to say about it. I would not suggest watching this stuff at the movies - better give a shot for stupid Alien vs Predator or funny Shaun of the Dead. But if you miss the real stuff then - Grudge, Haute Tension and Old Boy are a hot pick.

At best unremarkable, at worst total schlock

[I_Ailurophile · 2/10 · 6 November 2021]

There are some noteworthy names in the cast, and Natasha Lyonne, Jordan Ladd, and Lance Henriksen were who drew me in to 'Madhouse' in the first place. It unfortunately didn't take long for me to begin to question what I had committed myself to. The feature is technically sound, for the most part. The writing and direction is another matter. I don't think to date that I've seen any other features that filmmaker William Butler has made in those capacities; I will assume he's grown in his capabilities since 2004. However, this title's problems far outweigh its possible strengths. 'Madhouse' isn't scary, thrilling, or exciting in general - it's just dull and boring.

Very, very early on we can predict to nigh perfection where the plot is going to end up, with only the most minute details left to be discovered. In no small part the movie casts its eye on mental illness, giving us depictions of patients' idiosyncrasies - obsessions, compulsions, expressions and behavior that are manifestations of their affliction - and wants us to consider these as a horror element that will satisfy our need for cinematic stimulation. It's exploitative, and ignorant. The film employs wholly unremarkable if not deeply tired tropes of storytelling and film-making, without any embellishment - thereby ensuring that we don't see anything we haven't before, nothing that's new and fresh. With all this in mind, plot development is at best uninspiring, and at worst altogether unconvincing.

I can't speak to everyone in the cast, but of those I'm familiar with, I know they're skilled actors, and have illustrated as much in the past. Butler's direction in 'Madhouse' forced them, and everyone, into ham-handed, sluggish, sometimes outright lethargic performances that leave much to be desired. These are contrasted with those aspects of the picture that portend a more frenetic flair, presumably intended to excite (and that fail in that aim): sharp, rapid editing producing sequences of blood, gore, and unsettling imagery (yawn), and kitschy use, and out of place inclusion in the soundtrack, of the sort of overblown, radio-friendly heavy music like Slipknot were churning out in the late 90s and early 00s (no thanks). Factor in instances of absolutely gratuitous and unnecessary homophobic and transphobic slurs, and what value the feature may have held seems to vanish right before our eyes.

'Madhouse' isn't the extreme worst film I've ever seen. It plays with ideas that other movies have used to success of one degree or another. But Butler utilizes them with no great careful consideration, and so the rendition falls flat. Tally the other flaws of writing and direction as they present to us, and the tables quickly turn from uncertain potential to definite tawdriness. No doubt there are viewers who have found this to be of their liking; to each their own, I suppose. I entered with mixed expectations, and watched as they slowly crumbled to naught but dust. Even if you're a particular fan of someone in the cast - by whatever means you may happen to come across 2004's 'Madhouse,' I simply cannot recommend it.

Great, but relatively unknown creepy horror

[mjw2305 · 7/10 · 21 January 2007]

Cunningham hall is a run down mental health facility with too many patients and reduced funding. An eager young medical student Clark Stevens (Joshua Leonard) accepts an internship at the asylum, and he quickly learns the level of depravity in this madhouse.

A young nurse named Sara (Jordan Ladd) shows him around, and he begins to worry about the condition of the inmates, particularly Alice (Natasha Lyonne) who is having horrifying hallucinations and Carl (Aaron Strongoni) who has suicidal tendencies. But when he begins to have visions of his own he turns to Sara for help, yet she also has something to hide.

Despite the fact it's a low budget and the straight to DVD (Video) movie, it still delivers great tension, and a creepy atmosphere throughout; the cast are quite strong and the story keeps you guessing till the end. I won't pretend it's flawless, but it is definitely worth watching if you get the chance; certainly not a film that you should avoid because you fear it may be too cheap.

7/10

Not as good as some people think...

[miladyb · 3/10 · 5 October 2006]

I'll just keep this straight, and simple. This movie is NOT a good movie. There are some pretty terrible jump cuts, tons of continuity errors, boring dialogue, and other mistakes I would commonly see in any amateur film. There was plenty of nice looking gore(as well as the bad looking gore), but that doesn't mean much if the deaths are extremely predictable, and at some moments absolutely ridiculous. Example: Turning on a radio to terrible rock music just to see a woman be tasered by some 1980's electric-blue lightning effects. Of course the torture went on to some more gruesome effects, but that did not improve the quality of the scene. The only thing remotely creepy about this movie are the horror montages commonly seen in many other horror movies of jittering, deformed, and mangled humans/creatures. I will, despite my opinion of this movie, acknowledge the well thought out plot. I don't believe it to be a good plot, rather I'm just happy to see that everything in the movie was actually there for a purpose. The climax of the movie, if you can call it that, was short and unsatisfying. After surprising the viewers with the identity of the killer (if you hadn't figured it out by then), the confrontation between the killer and what seemed to be his number one nemesis was short and unsweet. There was no interesting dialogue between the two, the death was more boring than the earlier scene of the suicide patient hanging from the ceiling, and it was followed by a very typical denouement. I can definitely say that I have seen plenty of movies worse than this, but that didn't stop me from being slightly embarrassed for asking friends to watch this with me.

Issues with the Ending, but otherwise Good

[silverbillings · 6/10 · 17 March 2013]

Okay I checked the spoiler button, and I truly truly mean I'm going to be writing spoilers, like the entire ending out because I am having such horrible issues with the way they ended it.

I watched this movie the way I watch every other movie, camped out in the middle of the night in my dark living room, sitting in my rocking chair just a few feet away from the flat screen TV so I can hear it but not disturb my sleeping housemates. As a horror fanatic I critique horror movies very close-knit, much more strictly then I would any other genre. The movie was very easy to follow along with, and despite the initial aggravation I had with the psychiatric hospital (I've spent well over my share of time in psych hospitals, and they are NOT as "crazy", "misguided", and "dark" as this one) I thought that the set up of the movie was pretty good. It was an obvious call that when Clark started talking to the mysterious prisoner in the bottom of the psych ward that there wasn't really a prisoner there. And if the mystery of him not coming out into the light didn't give you enough hints then the voice echoing in a paranormal way should have. The little boy running around the psych ward that he kept seeing was dressed in rather old fashioned clothing, which had me suspecting that it was either Clark as a child or the run-away psych patient as a child - I guess either way I was right(?). But I guess I should stop rambling and get on to the ending, the letter that said Clark had died and the file that said that he was suffering with MPD. First of all, Multiple Personality Disorder was re-diagnosed as Dissociative Identity Disorder in 1994, however it's not clear just how old Ben is, but my guess would be that at the time of his diagnosis they would have filed it as DID instead of MPD. Ben's inability to recognize Clark as a person, or even as a personality, is very common with DID patients, however he had said things throughout the movie - especially at the end of the movie while with Sara in the bottom of the hospital - that would suggest he HAD in fact recognized Clark as a real person. And it's obvious that Clark knew who Ben was, which is usually a mutual thing with DID patients, either all personalities know about each other or none of them do. This small detail really made the ending of the movie hard for me to find believable and probably ruined the entire movie for me. However I rated the movie 6/10 for the beginning of the movie, their way to pull you into the film.

madhouse is mad

[mjmreeves · 4/10 · 15 April 2005]

Okay, I read all of the reviews for madhouse before renting it because I hate renting a movie to be thoroughly disappointed after watching it and I must say it wasn't that bad but it wasn't as good as all of the reviews stated. I was expecting something like Session 9 and really, that is not what it was all about in fact the only thing both movies had in common was they both took place at a psychiatric institution. (Caution two spoilers ahead) I was confused many times during the movie about what era it took place in. (spoiler 1) The way Clark was dressed at the beginning of the move suggested it took place in the 1950's because of his glasses and his brown suit. Also, the institution and the lead psychiatrist's office was indicative of 1950's style. However, when we meet other cast members it becomes evident that it is in fact taking place in modern day.

I wont spoil anymore for the viewer except to say that if you are expecting something like session 9 expect to be disappointed!

Unexpectedly Scary, Fairly Original.

[drownsoda90 · 8/10 · 18 December 2006]

"Madhouse" is one of the best asylum-set horror films I've ever seen (not quite as good as "Session 9", though), and provides for some good spooky entertainment. The film begins with Clark Stevens (Joshua Leonard, "The Blair Witch Project"), who is sent off to intern at a secluded mental institution for the criminally insane. The place is old and has quite a lengthy history. While staying at the asylum, he meets Sara (Jordan Ladd, "Cabin Fever"), a hospital employee, and the two begin to hit it off. Then, one day, Sara takes Clark to the basement of the asylum, which, unlike the rest of the nicely renovated building, is dark, damp, and rotting away. Only the most violent and insane patients are kept in the darkened dungeon-like rooms, and Clark begins to have a conversational relationship with an unseen patient who resides in one of the cells, who seems to know a lot about the hospital's history. But more secrets are unraveled and someone begins murdering people around the hospital, and Clark finds himself responsible to investigate.

I have to admit, this movie really surprised me. I was expecting something along the lines of cheap, straight-to-video trash to be honest, but I was pleasantly surprised with this creepy little mystery thriller. For one, I liked the story. An isolated mental institution with a violent history is a perfect place to set a horror movie - and this film makes good use of it, with the perfectly constructed and very spooky sets. The actors were also very good - Joshua Leonard was convincing as the intuitive intern, and Jordan Ladd really displays her acting skills. Natasha Lyonne also had a role as an insane patient, and she played it very well. Then there's the scares. I've seen hundreds of horror movies, and I am rarely scared by them, but this one succeeded in getting quite a few scares out of me. The scares were very well placed and got my heart pumping pretty fast. One of the scariest had to be the scene with the nurse who is pushed down the stairwell, the camera-work was clever and was the main reason that the bit was so jolting. Very unexpected and very scary.

Another addition to the film's overall creepiness are the patients that reside in the asylum basement, good God they were scary. They're made out to be the most insane, mentally disturbed patients in the building - and that they are, not only in a mental aspect but also physically. The makeup job had them looking beyond scary, and the actors that played them made their characters just flat out bizarre and oddly disturbing. I'm actually surprised that this film never got a wide theater run, because it's easily worthy of it, and is much better than half of the teen-horror trash that is put out there lately.

All things considered, "Madhouse" is a unique and surprisingly scary horror film, and the twist in the end adds the film's overall atmosphere. I was actually scared on a few occasions, which is really rare. And going in, my expectations were low, but this movie really delivered. Try watching it all alone at night, with all the lights off - trust me, you'll get spooked on more than a few occasions. 8/10.

Patients aren't the only ones mad in a madhouse.

[michaelRokeefe · 6/10 · 19 October 2008]

Strong horror and a vivid thriller. Slow boiling suspense and a twist that neither makes or breaks the film. Clark Stevens(Joshua Leonard)is a young psychiatric student that arrives for his internship at Cunnningham Hall Mental Facility. Understaffed, outmoded equipment, building in shambles, patients treated subhuman and a mysteriously uncaring director Dr. Franks(Lance Henriksen). Stevens is hardly settled in and a brutal murder occurs causing him to dig deep in the facility's history to uncover suspected secrets.

The mixing is notable and those long dark hallways are pretty creepy. There will be a couple of occasions having you leave your seat, but it is the anxiety of waiting for the horrific violence that brings on a hammering headache. Others in the cast: Natasha Lyonne, Dendrie Taylor, Leslie Jordan and Patrika Darbo.

Average slasher with some startling imagery

[ThrownMuse · 5/10 · 6 April 2005]

Clark (Joshua Leonard) is starting his first day of his internship at a mental institution. Things are looking up: the guy who runs the place (Lance Henriksen) was friends with his grandfather, and he'll be working closely with Jordan Ladd. Lucky guy, huh? Not quite. He quickly finds that the "terminally insane" are kept in a dungeon, staff members are sleeping with patients, the head nurse arms herself with a zapper, and everyone else denies the existence of the small boy he sees roaming the halls at night.

Overall, this is an average asylum(-cum-slasher) movie with some creepy imagery. It starts out very promising but it never really gets its feet off the ground and settles for absurdity in the second half. The performances aren't bad (it is nice to see a BWP cast member getting work--it looks like Leonard's home is going to be the low-budge horror world). Natasha Lyonne plays a patient in the hospital and she is a scene stealer, but she only has four scenes, accumulating maybe three minutes. Jordan Ladd is good but her character is a bit ridiculous--I can't get into it without giving spoilers. It is worth a rental if you like asylum horror.

My Rating: 5/10.

Barely worth watching

[kagias1992 · 4/10 · 9 April 2012]

Well, confused would be the word I'd choose to summarize my 1 and a half hour experience with this movie. I mean watching it was pretty tolerable but on the other hand I believe it will be one of the very few movies that I'll immediately erase from my mind. The environment is good. Or at least promising. The introduction to the mental facility is decent and intriguing. Plot is also average. Acting is just OK. Some inmates appear pretty interesting too. But on the other hand I expected way more from an "asylum troubles" movie. Our protagonist is an ice cube, really. He shows no emotion, stays down when more dynamic characters talk and although this may be partially explained in the end, it stills slows down the movie and gets the viewer frustrated by his inability to cope with the environment.Also most (=all) characters aren't sketched thoroughly.Especially some of the "hardcore" inmates could and should be engaged in longer interactions. But the main push-back in the movie is lack of atmosphere. I mean guys we are talking about a MENTAL facility, an ASYLUM, you should be able to make something out of it. I want to follow the characters and feel the pain this place holds in every step they make, I want every little noise to get me on my toes, I want some action to the environment surrounding the main building. Scenes which where probably meant for some nice flicks are literally to laugh for. Concluding, if you expected a nice mental facility horror thing similar to "Session 9" or even "Fragile" seriously do not bother. I don't even know if it's worth seeing in a 3 am hangover situation. I believe it will leave you as empty and as confused as it left me. 4/10 greatly gratituous and mostly because of gorgeous Jordan Ladd