trashgang I have seen so many flicks coming out the hands of The Asylum and the latest were full of cheap CGI. Luckily, this one doesn't has any CGI. The effects used are done on-camera. So far so good, but there are still some problems. The story itself is a pure rip-off of Halloween (1978). A killer returns to town to do some killings on Halloween night. But just have a look toward the killer. He's a mixture between, Jason (Friday the 13th) and Michael (Halloween). But it's so easy to see that the burned face is just a mask. So on part of the make-up it's rather ridiculous. But what did surprise me for a Asylum flick is that it do has some gory shots with intestines being teared out and throats being sliced on-camera. Not only that, there is also a bit of juggs to see here and there and some lesbian love scenes. Some parts are boring and doesn't add a thing, others are word picking up. Not that bad at all for an Asylum flick.Gore 1/5 Nudity 1/5 Effects 2/5 Story 2/5 Comedy 0/5

morrison-dylan-fan When a friend of mine recently asked me to look round for some fun looking horror films,i,spotted a pretty good looking DVD cover to this film.Though now i have seen the film,i feel that it does not live up to what i was hoping to see from the cover.This is partly due to some of the worst shot slasher/killing scenes that i have seen in a while.The plot:A guy who has been held in a maximum-security prison for ten years,kills two guards and,decides to go back to his old house.Where as a kid,he saw his mum get brutally raped and murdered.But,unknowingly to him,in the ten years that he has been in jail for,the house has been turned into a place for students to have Halloween parties!.For this years party,one of the students is planning to scare everyone at the party,by having him and a few of his friends pretend that there is an insane killer on the loose in the area.When the real killer returns to his old house,the prank starts to go very,very wrong...View on the film:The first thing i have to highlight is the guy that played the troll,who blocks the entrance for the party goers,that injects some really good comedy moments into the film,with a fun performance.To my pleasant surprise,i actually enjoyed seeing the section of the film where the prank is played out.With the gun standoff being pretty entertaining.Sadly,the rest of the film seems to try every thing it can to crush any good horror moments out of the film,by having all the murder scenes,including the two creative ones (one involving a clothes hanger,and another with a seat belt.)being cut in a very badly done way,with the all the killings looking like they were filmed on a budget of 20p.The main thing that i was shocked about with the film,was how badly the story lines had been written,with parts of the plot making no sense at all (such as the "killer" being held in prison,even though everyone knows that he did not kill his mum,and there being no sense at all in the flashbacks of him killing anyone at all!!)Final view on the film:A film with some very badly made slasher scenes,and a poorly written plot.

Garp023 It's too bad that the makers of "Halloween Night" didn't submit the cover art to their DVD to IMDb. It's awesome: an evil looking jack-o-lantern has a hand gripping a butcher knife coming out of the top of it. The hand is covered with pumpkin guts which, if you look closely, has the bodies of the killer's victims blended into it. It is far and away the best thing about the movie.But now, if you will, consider the rest of the DVD box. It claims to be based on a true story. The plot has a young boy see his mom raped and murdered in 1982. He is horribly burned in the attack, but ten years later he escapes from an asylum and returns to his home, where a huge Halloween party is going on, steals a costume from a victim, and infiltrates the party. Because the party involves a huge prank, no one realizes he's actually a killer, even as he goes around murdering partygoers.So...based on a true story, huh? Apparently one of the producers used to throw Halloween parties involving pranks, and once someone escaped from an asylum while one of his parties was going on. But the escapee never came it to the party and no one was actually killed, making the 'based on a true story' claim even more meaningless than usual. It's kind of like me making a movie where I marry Sarah Michelle Gellar and say it's based on a true story because we were both alive at the same time. Sub-moronic.The cover art also says, "In 1982, Christopher Vail was sent away after his family was brutally murdered...10 years later, on Halloween night, he returned". The back cover elaborates: "Based on the terrifying true story that started it all! Based on the actual events on Halloween night, 1982, an inmate of a maximum security medical facility escapes after brutally murdering two guards. Upon returning to the house when he was born, he goes on a killing spree that will make him Southern California's greatest mass murderer".And let's break it down. The true story that started what all, exactly? If the events occurred in 1982 or 1992, that's still years after such films as "Halloween" or "Friday The 13th" used similar story lines, so I doubt it inspired them. And again, nothing like this ever actually happened, so how is he Southern California's greatest mass murderer? And why limit it just to Southern Cali; why not just say California since the whole thing is a lie anyway?Most confusing is the fact that the film, according to everything the cover art claims, takes place in 1992. Yet everyone drives modern cars and uses cell phones and laptops of models which were not around in 1992. There's a lame reference to Melissa Etheridge when two lesbians take the screen; the singer didn't actually come out until after the release of 1993's 'Yes I Am' album.Some other things:The killer (supposedly burned, clearly wearing a bad mask) stuffs a rag into a girl's mouth but doesn't tape over it, yet the girl is unable to easily push it out with her tongue.A body is hidden in a closet; someone then boards over the door frame and covers it with what appears to be contact paper. Despite the fact it doesn't match the pattern of the rest of the wall, sticks out a good three inches from the rest of the wall, and has a smelly, decomposing corpse in it, no one notices it for ten years. I would assume, since two people were murdered there, a cop might have noticed it at some point.When a girl taking a bath has her throat slit, blood dribbles out of a make-up appliance on her neck which doesn't even match her natural skin tone. Yet two seconds later, the tub is filled with blood.A blonde bimbo is somehow able to disarm a cop and shoot at someone over his shoulder before he can react. In addition, most of the gunshots leave exit wounds that splatter the walls but have no entry wounds.The cops set up roadblocks and have photos of the escaped killer, but never think to check his old house to see if he might be there.As for the rest of the film? It was filmed pretty well and had a couple of decent effects shots. But there is zero suspense, the acting is simply atrocious (I'm talking sub-porn level here, which makes sense because I'm guessing most of the actresses came straight from that industry), and the film's tone veers between boring and improbable (my favorite scene has one the lesbians, while naked, kicking the killer's ass). Asylum Home Entertainment is quickly becoming to go-to company for really bad, cheap rip-offs of better movies, and "Halloween Night" shows why.

stephaniemosley I have to agree. The guy who plays "David" in this movie is one of the worse actors I have ever seen. The effects were good, the storyline was OK, but the acting really sucked for this guy. Even the killer, Chris Vale, did a better acting job than this David character and he didn't even have any dialog in the movie. Shows how bad of an actor this David character really was. I have noticed that the guy who plays David has directed a few B-movies. I think this guy should just stick to directing and leave the acting to the professionals because he totally get a thumbs down for me. The other characters in the movie did an OK job. Now, the woman who plays David's girlfriend, Shannon, her acting was OK, up to the part where she gets tied up and starts squealing like a pig. That was the annoying part of the movie. But everyone else in this movie did pretty fair as actors.