trashgang I guess that I don't have to introduce Andy Milligan. He's the king of the drive-in's and schlockfests. This flick is one of his later attempts but is still an ultra low budget. It contains wooden acting and bad editing. Almost none of the actors made it into another film, do I have to say more. And for a flick from 1984 it's really slow, made me think I was watching a sixties exploitation. The effects used, if you can say that, are really no-budget effects. Windows closing itself, things dropping or moving, disappearing tools, you know, wired stuff. You can easily see that there wasn't money for extra lights. The just used the light on the camera. If you still don't know what I mean just watch after 30 minutes how a knife goes into a hand, OMG. It's a typical Milligan flick but in some ways it's watchable. But still you will have big laugh, just take a look at the ghost appearing, all done by editing like they did with the flicks from the 30's! It's all done so cheap. Suddenly, by editing, someone sees a ghost in a mirror, but you can easily see that she stands in the room. Here and there it's okay, like the throat slicing and the slaughtering of the burglars but overall, it's a Milligan schlock. Just take it as it is.

Red-Barracuda I bet this film had a great poster. They must've spent the money on something.This is an ultra-cheap knockoff of films like The Amityville Horror and Poltergeist. It's about a newly-wed couple who move into a new house in which the previous tenants – another newly-wed couple – died in a sort of suicide pact. It's not exactly like this is an original concept. The problem Carnage has primarily is that its ambition vastly outstrips its budget and talent. There are many, many ghostly occurrences depicted but 90% of them seem to be bits of furniture and gardening equipment moving slightly. Scary kettle! Scary paper! Scary candle! It's basically atrocious. There are a few gore scenes spliced into the story to liven things up but they are not exactly convincing; especially the scene where the burglar is disembowelled – his guts looks suspiciously like Chinese noodles. None of this would matter so much but the pacing of the film is bad and the overall effect is one of boredom.It's difficult to recommend this unfortunately.

Hitchcoc Yes, it's that bad. This carries the usual idiotic premise that no matter how many awful things take place, you stay in the house. Some movies would make this interesting, but this is absolutely terrible. Friends come and die. Relatives come and die. Things move. Gas gets turned on at night. People fall on broken glass. Old crappy radios fall in a three foot bathtub while a guy is taking a bath. A minister gets a meat cleaver in the head. These two suicide victims are haunting the house. They are constantly getting in the way. They have that Beetlejuice thing going to some extent. They are attracted to the people they are torturing. Anyway, there's no end to the suffering, not of the people in the house, but of the people who saw this movie. Avoid at all costs. It's not even campy.

marymorrissey I was on amazon.com and read about some bio of the director that is supposed to be quite fascinating and can be bought for .01 evidently he was important to starting off Broadway as he made films for 42nd street theatres. this was last night then I found this with another movie on one DVD at the 99 cents only store, so I knew I was fated to watch.this movie was cute, gets a little dull after awhile but . . I did quite like the ending!it's important to give 10 lines of text. Well, it should have been the husband shown in the opening scene who was eventually to be nude and without clothing in the raw as it were.-------------it's funny how the film boldly commits errors but then parts of it are very competently shot, when the people are looking around in the house of doom.---------in the soundtrack there is a loop of a barking dog that is played 3 times in succession, then there is a variation like a little bit of it is cut out and this "big phrase" ends by starting again. This cycle repeats maybe 8-10 times when employed, becoming a sort of a pure vibration a kind of incantation of mood, "ARF ARF ARF! ARF!! (pause) ARF!! (pause) ARF!! (pause)" rather like morse code are this particular hounds utterances. The filmmakers get away with it partly cause dogs are often quite repetitive in their barking. there almost seems to be dog sentence structure, from the sound of it, and I couldn't help wondering if it might be possible that dogs borrow their "cadences" from humans. after all it's usually humans they are barking at. But only in the most lassie like extremities, really, maybe only on TV, in face, do dogs use barking as a means of communication with their masters, it's whining that's commonly done. What I'm saying is, if dogs were imitating conversation then maybe they'd be liable to join into human conversations by barking along, but this doesn't happen. anyway I was glad to have watched the movie for putting my mind onto this subject of the structure, grammar, or just rhythm of dog barking.