Castle Freak (2020) User Reviews

Primitively Entertaining non-lovecraftian Lovecraft

[TwistedContent · 4/10 · 5 December 2020]

Stuart Gordon's "Castle Freak" was shlocky but entertaining and low-key charming horror romp of the 90's that got a 6/10 from adult me, and it also possesses a considerable amount of personal nostalgia as it was one of the first horror movies I ever saw, peeking through the doors when dad was watching it on VHS. I also happen to be an admirer of H. P. Lovecraft and his ever-reaching influence on the genre, but let me tell you, I believe that both Lovecraft and Gordon would have a lot to say on this here "bold reimagining", may the old ones bless their souls.

There are two prominent, noticeable changes between both "Castle Freak" movies, firstly, the remake/reimagining has added even more gore, gorified perversion and simplistic, cheap vulgarity with lack of any real atmosphere. Eventually, if not for the Lovecraft angle, it feels like yet another cheap "Wrong Turn" installment. Personally, a horror which deliberately prioritizes being offensive - overuse the shock factor - doesn't work nearly as well as those with more investment in story/characters and atmosphere, that use violence as a spice, an added value, and to a much bigger effect. Filmmakers behind "Castle Freak" most definitely knew what they were doing, so at least that's good. Did I already mention all the needlessly inserted soft-core porn scenes? Secondly, there's a lot more Lovecraft in the remake. And it's not good - hear me out though. Before getting to watch "Castle Freak", I had gathered that it will have more story, more Lovecraft lore, Cthulhu mythos, and that people like it. I was definitely excited, for Lovecraft cinema is slowly picking up pace, thanks to successful and awesome adaptations like "The Color Out of Space". When the 100 minutes went by and the credits started rolling, as a fan of all things Lovecraft, I was truly disappointed and almost frustrated. Did it have more lore? Yes. Was it completely void of cosmic horror vibe, lovecraftian atmosphere or anything even remotely spiritually similar to Lovecraft's style and nature? Yes. Did the lore feel forced in, because of the dissimilar modernized b-shlock horror background, and the mere sketch of a character cheese that "The Professor" was? Consequently, did some themes felt disrespected and infused with unintentional humor? Also yes.

As You can see, I'm not too happy. Having said all that, "Castle Freak", for the general viewer, is a potentially fun horror flick, provided you're into gore (practical) and perversion, the usual typical melodrama, and lots of subpar comedy, the intentional or unintentional nature of which is not always readable. All-around a low-budget feature, but decent and fluid enough when it comes to cinematography, production design, locations and such. Crisper, more colorful and, well, modern, of course, but I can't say it provides serious competition for Stuart Gordon's 1995 "Castle Freak", even in the technical fields. Like most elements of "Castle Freak", acting is also an inconsistent wave, with the highlight reasonably belonging to Rebecca Whateley played by Clair Catherine, to whom it's the first leading role, from just two credits on IMDb. I was looking forward to see Jake Horowitz whose performance in "The Vast of Night" blew me away a little, and perhaps it was the passive aggressive antagonistic nature of his character, or the fact that "Castle Freak" was likely filmed earlier, but I didn't particularly enjoy his presence this time around.

They are selling it as "A bold reimagining of a horror classic", I guess perhaps they are defending what came out of it all. Bold it may be, but via cheap (and I don't mean literally) methods and loss of spirit. It's a primitively entertaining movie with very little heart. Guaranteed fun for lovers of the 80's, gore, B flicks, shlock/trash cinema etc. My rating: 4/10.

Lame lovecraftian copout

[terrencepatrix · 4/10 · 5 December 2020]

This movie has one of the most awesome filming locations you can hope for, a legit massive castle. The scenery is absolutely fantastic if you like that sort of thing, I wonder how they got the license to shoot in this place.

Unfortunately the movie just isn't good. The acting is below average, the plot is very thin, and they try to throw in a Lovecraft theme at the end that doesn't really make sense. Really none of the plot makes sense...because there isn't much of a plot at all.

There is boobs though for those that are interested. And they are very nice boobs. They add absolutely nothing to the plot but they are there for those who are interested. The FX is actually quite good as is the film quality, but unfortunately it's just not that great of a movie. I realize I didn't discuss the actual plot...that's because there really isn't is one and anything I said would be a spoiler. Other than the nice boobs it was a meh.

Complete Letdown

[austinjrutherford · 4/10 · 6 December 2020]

I'm a huge fan of the original Castle Freak so I was very hesitant, but also curious as to what this new reimagining would bring to the table. I'm admittedly not very familiar with the Lovecraft story that it's based on, so maybe I'm missing something, but this movie was just all over the place. The acting was terrible, the story was full of cliches, the camera work was clunky, and there's absolutely no build up or suspense whatsoever. Nothing even remotely significant happens until the last twenty minutes or so, and by then you couldn't really care less about these hollow characters and what's happening to them. Better stick with the original on this one.

Disappointing

[taedirish · 2/10 · 12 December 2020]

This is one of those films were right away you know it's not going to be good. Mostly it's about a blind girl wandering around a castle (we know she's blind because she wears sunglasses all the time). I saw review that called this a "reimagining" and I only imagine it's what I would create if I wanted a horrible movie. Don't waste your time move on to something else.

Nothing happens, unsympathetic characters

[deadgirlrising · 2/10 · 5 December 2020]

Nothing happens for at least an hour twenty minutes in. Very boring. I don't think they thought this one out. Maybe something will happen in the last 19 minutes

Remake something well...... or remake it not!

[daryldemarco-752-177177 · 2/10 · 23 December 2020]

If you have low expectations, are you allowed to be disappointed? On the plus side locations scout is incredible! Hats off to you sir.

Sex is very important

[ks-60500 · 2/10 · 18 December 2020]

That's what I get from this movie, even a freak need sex, omg. Low quality content of this totally.

Decent Qualities in a Bad Film

[wvwriter · 4/10 · 4 December 2020]

I went into Castle Freak with very minimal expectations. Unfortunately, it didn't really exceed those expectations in any way. The effects and certain moments within the cinematography do shine. You can see that real care went into some of it. However, essentially every other element of this film serves to bring it down. The acting is very weak, and the fact that the casting itself is actually something they considered to be stand-out trivia isn't great. At best, the acting is B-Movie grade, and at worst, it's barely C-tier. Most of the wooden characters serve no purpose. I did like the implementation of Lovecraftian lore, but this leads me to spoiler territory. The ending is bad. If you want to use Lovecraft's work, you give it a proper end--madness, focused desolation of hope, cosmic insignificance--you don't follow up a fine monster reveal with a weak jump scare and a ham-handed cut to black. Now, perhaps the most important part of this review: the post-credits scene. If anyone with any sway in this production and potential future productions is reading this, please, hear me out. I can't emphasize it enough, do not remake Reanimator. Either do a sequel or leave it alone. Choose from the myriad of other Lovecraft works available to you. The Professor's achingly bad imitation of Jeffrey Combs' personality should be evidence enough that you will not equal or better a one-in-a-million performance like that. There's something in this movie, a start to better things if you play it right, but if you go for fan recognition and nostalgia, it will not turn out well. Horror fans don't play that game the same way as other film buffs. Look at the reboots of Freddy, Jason, and Chucky as points of reference. Overall, to everyone else I will say, a one-time watch wouldn't hurt.

While the original freak is a sympathetic character, this one is plain evil.

[Fella_shibby · 7/10 · 10 December 2020]

I didn't like the original as i felt sorry for the freak n ther isn't any tension, suspense, scare factor or bodycount in it. I enjoyed this remake cos it has some body count n this time they gave the true demonic/evil angle to the freak. This one too is devoid of tension n suspense but has beautiful boobs of beautiful babes. It has that sleazy 80s horror vibe. The other actors r just added for the bodycount effect. The freak having sex will remind viewers of the segment Jennifer from Masters of Horror.

who funds this type of garbage?

[georgio-26490 · 1/10 · 7 January 2021]

The beautiful college kids, the tough guy, the black guy, the glamorous bimbos, and the guy that is the nerd with the huge joke glasses to depict he is the one with education! as they narrate the storyline throughout in monotone dialogue to ensure we can keep with this oh so intricate yarn (not) and then low and behold the Albanian accents from actors from west los angeles! special effects created kids in a school science lab in their lunch breaks, a script that is hilarious but isnt meant to be. and a cardboard castle straight from the set of "a man with two brains" I dare say, other than soft core pornography or toothpaste commercials we will never need to endure the hammy acting from these beautiful talentless buffoons again. H P Lovecraft would be extremely angered by such a mock up of his work.

i watched this, now you do not have to.

Imperfectly Perfect

[gojiseb · 8/10 · 5 December 2020]

I know that I am probably well in the minority on this one, but I ADORED Tate Steinsiek's reimagining/remake/reboot/whatever of CASTLE FREAK. It trades out the familial drama of Stuart Gordon's original in favour of slow burn erotic grotesquerie, and therefor it's pretty much the most delightfully putrid monster film you'll find this year. Shave off maybe 15 minutes from the runtime and there's a real gem in there for those who have similar tastes as I do.

Yog-Sothoth is the key...

[paul_haakonsen · 6/10 · 4 December 2020]

Initially I was not particularly thrilled to learn about this 2020 remake of a classic 1995 horror movie based on a H.P. Lovecraft story. Why? Well, let's just face it, fact is that the majority of Hollywood remakes tend to be abominable results.

But still, I sat down to watch the 2020 remake from writer Kathy Charles and director Tate Steinsiek, fearing the worst, but hoping for the best. Even when the movie didn't have neither Jeffrey Combs or Barbara Crampton on the cast list.

Turns out that the 2020 movie "Castle Freak" was actually surprisingly good for a remake. Heck, I would go as far as saying even if you aren't familiar with the 1995 movie or the H.P. Lovecraft story, then "Castle Freak" is a rather enjoyable and entertaining horror movie.

Now, a movie based on a H.P. Lovecraft story has some pretty high stakes to live up to, and I will say that director Tate Steinsiek actually rose up to the occasion and delivered a movie that was entertaining, but also at the same time managed to bring to the screen a sense of cosmic dread that H.P. Lovecraft was known for. So in that sense, then the remake is actually a worthy movie of bringing such an iconic horror tale to life on the screen.

The acting in the movie was adequate for most parts. Some of the people, though, felt like they were just wrongly cast for the movie, as it felt like they were out of place in the movie, not really bringing any soul or spirit to the character.

The special effects in "Castle Freak" were good, and there was even enough gore and mayhem to keep a seasoned gorehound like myself entertained.

There were also a lot of nice small details in the scenes and sets of the movie, lots of nods towards the Cthulhu Mythos, which was definitely interesting.

One thing that I didn't really enjoy about the movie, was the sex scenes and nudity. Now, I am not a prude or anything, but it just brought a whole mid-1980s horror feel to the movie, unnecessarily I might add. The movie would have been more impactful and outstanding if director Tate Steinsiek had opted to leave that sleaze out of the movie.

The 2020 remake is a worth addition to the horror genre, just as it is an entertaining horror movie of cosmic dread, and it is a rather enjoyable remake. I am rating it a solid six out of ten stars. And the stars are right...

Could have been much better.

[homerj2000 · 3/10 · 5 December 2020]

A mix of classic Lovecraft elements, combined with characters that you could care less about, in an overlong movie where everyone makes stupid decisions leading to dire consequences: equals another remake that failed overall. Watch the original instead.

Sorry this was pathetic in every way!! Its more if a horror porn!! Terrible!!

[joiningjt · 2/10 · 5 December 2020]

Had its moments where I thought it was going to be a good horror movie and then we had gross sex scenes and a terrible ending. I'm giving it a 2 for the make up on the elder monster. I'm usually an easy 6 or higher on horror so that's how bad this was. You want a great necronomicon based movie watch the evil dead!!!

Terrible remake

[jamarr_69 · 3/10 · 27 December 2020]

Everything about this movie is terrible from the plot to the character dialogue makes any sense i don't even know where to begin the blind wife receivinga castle from a mother she never knew her husband who acts like a total duchebag the freak in the castle who is totally outta place the professor who is the same she as the cast members. The chick the wife hated the very same night she ended up blind shows up that's not a recipe for disaster or anything. So many things wrong with this movie

One of the worst films I've ever seen

[HorrorFan247 · 1/10 · 28 January 2021]

One of the worst films I've ever seen. Painful, Terrible SFX. Some of the most amateur makeup and prosthetics ever committed to celluloid. Do not waste your time or energy.

The production was peppered with scandals, a producer was charged With assault another producer Justin Martell harassed a critic, But that leaves no excuse for this utter garbage. Everyone involved should be embarrassed - avoid anything by these "filmmakers" in the future. Terrible.

Senseless

[numb023 · 1/10 · 26 December 2020]

Total senseless and dumb movie. Time wastage. If you want to make horror movie why you have to put nude scenes totally bad acting by all actor except the lead actress. Rest direction awful. Story is totally bizarre.

Garbage

[tiggnutz-126-496354 · 2/10 · 10 February 2021]

Really hard to sit through something I will never do again.

Lurid remake offers glorious gore

[ntj-film · 7/10 · 15 April 2021]

I truly don't understand why this remake is currently so undervalued here on IMDb.

Sure the acting is so so at best and there's a massive exposition dump involving the Necronomicon and a dweeb called the Professor. However - and this represents a good thing in my humble optics - the film is also excessively sleazy, filled to the brim with the kind of nudity and bloodshed we as horrorfans took for granted in the noughts, but which sadly have become less and less frequent in todays genre offerings.

So if you like the rough stuff, topped off by a insane, go for broke Lovecraftian climax, I wouldn't hesitate a second to recommend this nasty little throwback to a bygone era.

Hope you enjoy it.

Don't waste your time

[ants_co · 2/10 · 1 June 2022]

I grew up watching horror & sci-fi movies. This has to be one of the worst movies I've seen. You expect in a movie like this that some of the characters are going to get killed. I don't even mind if one lead characters gets killed. But the way the male lead got his skull crushed was stupid. If they wanted to kill him off they could have waited until the very end & sacrificed him to the alien-looking creature. It had good potential but for me it was a flop.

Solid enough remake with some likable elements

[kannibalcorpsegrinder · 8/10 · 8 January 2021]

Following a devastating car accident, a now-blind woman and her boyfriend decide to visit her ancestrally-inherited castle in Albania to rest up and look over the items left inside, but when they discover a stranger living inside its walls are forced to confront a greater evil than they ever expected.

This was a far-better-than-expected remake. Among the better elements here is the rather impressive build-up done to generate a sense of sympathy for the creature. Featuring the early scenes involving the religious-fanatic caretaker trying to keep him hidden away with extreme prejudice and resorting to flagellation to deal with the guilt of the situation, the idea of him being a lonely, neglected individual due to his deformity and peer pressure comes through quite nicely. Given that this all comes across with the conditions of the house showing this to be a rather closed-off and religious-leaning environment makes his behavior all the more reasonable and rational. This manages to enhance the film's gothic atmosphere quite well to give this a solid feel for the most part. The ornate architecture, religious statues, stone construction and massive spaces filled only by candlelight leave it with a mix of grandiose foreboding and impressive setting that exudes Gothic ambiance. The fact that it serves as a logical setting for the type of scares and situations that show up throughout here is quite enjoyable, managing to generate some creepy scenes here with the constant noises behind the walls, her bumping into things and managing to come across the various clues hidden around the castle that build up the idea of someone inside. The last part to like here is the general air of sleaze and graphic bloodletting. Starting with the brutality inflicted upon the being which is only shown in enough shadow to hold off the reveal but still get an idea of what's going on, this gives a great idea of what's going to be offered here which is carried over into the other attacks on the junkie or the estate agent. Including the sensuality aspect in the cheating sex scene where it takes her place unknowingly for the sequence, the inclusion of this part of the film continues nicely with the true details of its conception and creation that leads into a solid finale which is quite enjoyable. These, for the most part, are what give this a lot to like. This one does have some slight issues. The main problem affecting this one is the languid and generally disappointing pacing that makes this one feel far too long for its own good. The first half of getting her to her condition is far too long, as is the extraordinarily long waiting around before the creature gets loose and starts on the rampage. Filled with generally bland scenes involving the two of them wandering around the castle, arguing about what to do with what's left to them or their friends showing up simply for the excuse to have a body-count. This all feels routine, cliched and highly uninvolved which makes this incredibly overlong, and alongside the inherently stupid decisions to stay in the castle after knowing something's there are what hold this one back.

Rated Unrated/R: Graphic Violence, Nudity, Graphic Language, a strong sex scene and drug use.

Forget the haters

[bradbear-65903 · 7/10 · 20 March 2021]

For any negative reviews, I gotta ask... Did you forget B movies from the late 80s.to early 90s? Barbara Crampton didn't, and thats why she produced this...This is a love letter to exploitation film from that era. The Lovecraft references alone are worth their weight in gold. Thanks for expanding an already classic (in my book)

An absolute waste of time

[set-lp · 1/10 · 2 May 2023]

Where do I start? I went into this without even knowing it was a remake, in fact, I had the title saved on my bookmarks to watch when I was bored, and I probably saved it because of the 1995 original movie and forgot. When I looked it up, this abomination came out and I didn't noticed it was the WRONG movie...

Anyways, as a lot of people already pointed out, the characters are completely unsympathetic, there ZERO tension, they sauffer from the oh so tiresome slasher trope of "stupid because the plot needs them to", they're a bunch of degenerates, etc.

As I see it, this movie is "dood, what if we make a slasher movie and give it a Lovecraft overcoat?".

Now, for the spoilers: Rebecca must be the most stupid woman ever, she stays with a junkie whose lack of self control and vices made her lose her sight, who we learn at the start of the movie constatly flirts with other women and even mistreats her AFTER the fact that she became blind because of him. Let's add to that the fact that this dopeass pothead constantly refers to the castle and the stuff in it as his, brought his useless good for nothing friends to said castle, etc, etc, etc... Overall, the worst character in the whole movie.

The rest of the characters aside for the professor are there just so the "freak" can have more people to kill, that's it, they and their paper-thin personalities add nothing to the plot and are pretty much cardboard cuttouts taken from any other slasher movie.

The special effects don't hold at all, very, VERY low budgety.

The only redeamable thing about this movie were the Lovecraft sporadic references and the post credit scene, THAT'S ALL.

All in all, I wish I didn't wasted my time watching this shlock, I even fell asleep twice and had to go back to where I remembered because of how dull and boring it was. Don't waste your time like I did, guys.

An awkward, aggressively unlikeable reboot of a beloved 90s classic!

[Weirdling_Wolf · 4/10 · 11 May 2022]

'Castle Freak' is another tiresome example of why all too many remakes remain such a questionable creative proposition in that they all too frequently tend to subtract from the original's uniqueness, very rarely adding anything worthwhile, which is very much the case with the clumsily 'reimagined' 'Castle Freak', yet another paltry, dully written, wholly unwarranted contemporary upgrade, thereby producing a lacklustre facsimile which has little interest to fans of the evilly atmospheric original cult classic! The major subtraction in this specific instance is in the glaring lack of sympathetic characters, with, perhaps, the exception of poor blind Rebecca (Clair Catherine), whereas one frequently felt enormous empathy for the original's increasingly beleaguered freak-haunted family, thereby giving an extra penetrating frisson of fear to the ill-tempered flesh-flaying castle dweller, whereas in 'Castle Freak' (2020) the entirely welcome slaughter of these irksomely insipid hedonists provide the film's sole satisfaction.

The film's mediocrity resides primarily in the episodic, uninspired screenplay, with its surfeit of disposable, vapid characters, wholly generic dialogue and a frustratingly fright-less climax, with the worthy contributions from maestro Fabio Frizzi's fine score and the remarkably vivid make up FX actively expressing any generosity of artistic spirit. And it takes far more than be-cowled stock B-movie characters monotonously disclaiming 'Yog-Sothoth is the gate!' to invoke genuinely chilling, Lovecraftian discords. Again, why write every character as an asinine, unlikeable imbecile? Unless it was to generate some additional pathos for the poor benighted, bedroom-peeping, catacomb-creeping creature? Perfunctory photography and poor set design failed to engender any tangible eldritch atmosphere, as the over manicured interior looked more like Jimmy Page's nookie parlour than the neglected mildewed nightmare that might suggest the malign presence of some sinisterly spawned wretch!

Disgusting

[p-mahmoudi90 · 1/10 · 25 February 2021]

This is just a disgusting, time consuming movie. Don't waste your time on that