Strong and Moving!

I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

The negative reviews of Asylum of Terror seem extremely unfair to me. The vast majority of these reviews derides the film for being so poorly made. But poorly made, low budget films are an art form in of themselves. They can be entertaining, funny, and completely accomplish exactly what they intend. If you're looking for Shakespeare, or even Clive Barker, then don't watch Asylum of Terror. If you enjoyed Blood Feast or Color Me Blood Red, you might find Asylum to be worth your time. Personally, I'd much rather watch an H.G. Lewis movie than a Wes Craven movie. Take, for instance, the scene in Asylum where the chubby girl is having sex with a guy wearing a mask. She tells him to keep it on, and, after a bit of moaning, he is killed with a hammer to the face. She nonchalantly walks away, screaming in an unemotional manner, gets turned around accidentally, and is finally drilled to death. If this doesn't bring a smile to your face, you're probably not a fan of low budget horror to begin with. This is a movie that features an awkward killer who is dressed rather nicely, terrible fun-filled acting, a bit of gore, and children getting killed. Accept it for what it is, and you might not be disappointed. Compare it to I Know What You Did Last Summer, and you shame us all.

This is the most memorable film I have ever seen. I have always enjoyed bad films, and this is the pinnacle.... I don't believe you could make a film less good.The acting is bad, really horrible... REALLY atrocious, with actors looking at the camera, reading cue cards (those that could read), monotonous delivery of lines without any emotion whatsoever. It is hard to believe that any one of these actors have ever even seen a movie.The lighting seems to have been done with 40 watt light bulbs and flashlights. You can't see anything much of the time.The sound is the most fascinating part of this film, and the most difficult to relate to you. Sound effects seem to have been done by pre-schoolers. Sound quality is reminiscent of the cassette recorder I had in 1972... if you held it under water.The plot is non-existent. There really isn't any story at all. At first I thought the director was trying to make a 'B' movie spoof like Evil Dead... Quickly I realized that this was an actual attempt at creativity and horror. I spent the entire rest of the film with my mouth open in absolute awe of this remarkable failure.I highly recommend you see this film, and I assure you that you will remember it the rest of your life.

As a summary review, the film was good once all things are considered. It was shot on a shoe string and seemed to include a good bit of improv. All in all, not a bad flick for the B-horror genre. George Demick did a decent job with so little resource.

Aargh. Where to begin? I shall attempt to communicate in brief and unrelated fragments (as the movie frequently did): bad acting, a feeble attempt at special effects, horribly filmed, dialogue muffled (not that it would be worth hearing), and absolutely no plot whatsoever.For an especially torturous evening, pair this classic with "Ax 'Em", another fine film from our friends at York Entertainment.