User Reviews

"Dread" is a work that will remain in your mind for some time after watching the movie. The movie will make you feel sick in your stomach, just like "Saw" and "Hostel", but what separates "Dread" from other movies in the same genre is the level of intellectual incorporated into this movie. Yes, I am talking about intellectual that is very sick, but again, there is no limit to humans intellectual.

Cast wise, I don't know anyone. I have no idea whether they are small timers or novice at all, but all of them did a very good job. I have seen low budget independent movies starring actors who don't even know the basics of acting, just pretty faces. But "Dread" steers itself clear by its cast, which does a very good job.

The best thing(or rather, sick thing) about this movie is that even though it lacks the blood, gore and violence of "Saw" or "Hostel" or "Texas Chainsaw", you still feel sick by the events in the movie. Cause, "Dread" showcase human's limit, when faced with the thing they most fear, in a very naturalistic way. The dark setting throughout the movie greatly adds to the overall sordid atmosphere.

Overall, watch this movie. But one thing, it's not for faint hearted. Even though it's not a horror movie with creepy creatures and gore, it will disgust you for sure.

My Verdict: 7/10

Taking a glance at the cover in the video store, I almost arrogantly assumed it would be a terrible slasher flick, due to it's title and the lack of pictures, and also due to the fact that it went out of it's way to mention that Jackson Rathbone, "Star of the Twilight Saga", was in this film. I felt a little uncomfortable until I glanced a bit longer and noticed that it was "From the mind of Clive Barker". But alas, this is a review of it's content and not it's cover.

I'm glad I did pick it up however because it turned out to be a decent psychological thriller, more so than it was a horror film. The characters are convincing, in particular Quaid, the protagonist bad guy, who we feel isn't all right from the very beginning of the film. I feel as if I was led to question whether the motives of Quaid were inherently bad or environmental, due to a childhood of significant psychological torment. When an audience is opened up to the possibility of these influences, immediately it changes from a horror film to an intellectual psychological thriller, that borders existential exploration of the human psyche. I couldn't help but feel as if some scenes of the film kind of reminded me of Fight Club, as Quaid attempted to groom Stephen in to his mode of thinking, but unlike Fight Club, this was unsuccessful and we saw the further polarisation of the characters involved in the college project from Quaid.

All in all, Dread is a film which won't cater to your grisly, sleazy gore driven desires, mostly due to the fact that a lot of the gore is paced out through the film and used tactically in order to keep it relative to the conceptual element of the film, and also to keep the suspense. For those who enjoy psychological thrillers, college sociopathic sadists and existentially driven plots, will enjoy Dread. Fans of Clive Barker can rest assured that Anthony DiBlasi has effectively captured Clive Barker's depiction of the story and doesn't buck to the sleazy needs of Hollywood gore and torture-without-reason films (Saw) and manages to effectively convey the terror, torment and disorientation of Dread.

I actually have to get some Clive Barker books and read some of his stories. This is again one of the adaptations of one his stories and it's a pretty decent effort. The idea behind the story/movie is pretty great and has to do with human behavior/fear. While other movies might have exploited the "torture" part of that more, this movie is more subtle.

Of course you could see this as a bad thing, but I quite liked the movie. Even/despite characters, that are all more or less not likable. You are not really rooting for one of the characters that much, they are all human, with flaws (some psychological, some physiological). The good thing is, that the movie does stir away from the books ending. Some saw it as something bad, but I like when the movie takes a chance (and succeeds in my opinion)!

This movie was a real positive surprise. It felt both original and well done. Simply a real good movie to watch.

It's perhaps hard to place this movie in any particular genre. Psychological-horror would be the best way to describe this movie. It plays on the deep rooted fears of people but please don't expect from this movie to give you plenty of scare moments, or anything of that sort. It's not really an horror in the classic most common sense of the word. The drama plays an important part as well, which only strengthens the movie its psychological-horror aspects. In that regard alone this movie already works out as an original and interesting one.

But above all things, it's also a really well done film. It has a good build up and narrative, some fine actors and the movie has a good look over it as well. It's not a big budget movie that had a big cinematic release anywhere but you can't really tell that, judging by the movie its looks or just overall greatness. Actually hard to believe that this was the first ever movie for director Anthony DiBlasi, who was also rumored to direct the new Hellraiser movie for a while. He would had certainly been capable of it and he had worked with Clive Barker, the creator of the Hellraiser franchise, before, which was on this movie actually, that got based on a short story by Clive Barker. His approach of the horror and more serious story aspects, which he shows that he is capable off with this movie, would had been great for a new Hellraiser movie.

The movie has a story that steadily but slowly progresses. Yet the movie becomes never a boring or dragging one because it is capable of getting you involved with the characters and their stories. It's a real intriguing movie to watch and because it's being so original, you also can't really predict all the time what is going to happen next in it. No, not everything works convincing or works out as strong and effective as it could had but still this movie feels like a breath a fresh air and is perfectly watchable.

A nice, original, well done little film.

7/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

A chance meeting between smart, sensitive Stephen Grace (Jackson Rathbone) and charming, mysterious Quaid (Shaun Evans) results in a college project to study the intimate fears which people have. With the help of fellow student Abby (Hanne Steen), the advert is placed and the camera begins to roll on a series of interviews as the trio start to document their findings. However, each of the three has their own fears to deal with, not least of all Quaid whose childhood is stained by a terrible trauma...

Having never read the original short story by Clive Barker ("Hellraiser", "Lord Of Illusions") that "Dread" is based upon, i wasn't certain what to expect from this movie. Last year we were given the impressive (and criminally overlooked) "Midnight Meat Train" also based upon a Clive Barker story, and "Dread" continues the trend of incredible horror movies adapted from his work.

"Dread" takes its time setting up its premise but i hesitate to call it slow-moving. Every scene is important to the story, and the chemistry between the three leads ensures that you keep watching. There is a real tension in "Dread" as Quaid's behaviour becomes more erratic whilst his obsession with the project starts to grow to dangerous levels. By the point at which the taped confessions are no longer enough for him, the audience has spent enough time with the characters to feel uncomfortable at what might occur next. It's rare to find a horror movie where you feel genuinely sorry for the victims.

It's also good to see a movie about students which appears to be set in the real world rather than a stylised Hollywood version of it; these are multi-dimensional young adults rather than catalogue models reciting hip dialogue to one another. The cast is excellent without a bad performance to be found. Evans impresses as a character who is capable of moving from charming to dangerous without blinking, but the stand-out would have to be Laura Donelly who plays a girl with a gigantic birthmark covering one side of her body. Although initially brimming with confidence, her heartbreaking vulnerability gradually rises to the surface and you can't help but emphasise with her. Jonathon Readwin is also fantastic in a smaller role as one of the trio's interviewees.

Don't be fooled into thinking that "Dread" will be your average teen-stalker horror movie. Sure, there is blood and death but this a more cerebral effort than usual; a bone-chilling descent into madness and obsession with a careful and deliberate pace. There are no sudden scares to be found here; only a creeping sense of foreboding and a third act that will stay with you long after the credits have finished rolling. Make no mistake; the final scenes in this movie are ruthless and nasty, but they are also very well-written.

"Dread" is a solid effort. If you are a serious horror fan, this is certainly worth your time.

The general description(s) of this movie sounded interesting, so I decided to give it a try, especially since the theme of the movie - fear, anxiety, dread - is something that concerns everybody. But I was extremely disappointed and had the feeling afterwards that I wasted two hours of my life on this bad thing. What especially annoyed me about this movie were three things: a) The verbal contents: what first seemed to having a good start – some smart phrases about fear and our human relation to it – did not go much further and remained, all in all, at the surface of this theme. Shallow, I would say. b) The gore stuff: there is some needless display of extreme violence, which could have been easily avoided, contributing by avoidance to the atmosphere of this movie. But by displaying senseless moments of blood-happy gore-feast the movie lost much if not all. c) The overall meaningfulness as dimension of a movie in this one is quite low. It appears to be just another splatter-ridden trash movie, "enriched" with some common phrases about fear, anxiety or dread. In my mind this movie is almost totally meaningless. So what is the point of this movie, if there is one at all, and what was the point of making it? My impression was, that someone turned-on by pointless violence has lived-out once again his own lecherousness about human suffering. I presume that already the producers must be persons who love to see other human beings tortured, which speaks for the sado-masochistic basic trend or underlying core-current of this movie. If someone never thought deeper than the common surface of fear, anxiety or dread he might find the shallow words put into this film maybe interesting, which rather serve as disguise for the real motives or justification for making the movie. And if someone also loves bloody gore, senseless violence and humans being tormented and tortured by other human beings, then he might actually like this movie. Since I am though neither sadistic nor masochistic, I truly disliked and despise this movie. We all know already what humans can do to fellow human beings. We don't need to watch it over and over again.

I haven't been very impressed by movies based on Barker's work as they tend to be on the silly side and so it is with some apprehension that I watched this low-budget flick, shot by a first time director and based off a short story by Clive Barker.

The movie starts in a pretty conventional fashion and along the way, the plot is fairly conventional but things do pick up. I like how director Anthony DiBlasi doesn't shy away from horrific scene yet doesn't feel the need to overly polish the gore and special effects. A lot of films this decade (one only has to think of the Saw series) have raised the bar to show in minute details of body mutilation in their glory. DiBlasi takes a middle of the road approach. Part of the gore is suggested and left in the shadows, part of it is shown.

This is obviously a film on a budget and corners were cut. The lead and supporting actors are doing their best but uneven from one scene to the next. The action scenes are done as well as DiBlasi probably could on a budget as a first timer too but you will have seen much better.

The main weakness in the movie is the implausibility that authorities are never involved. It just doesn't seem to make sense from a plot point of view and also seems weird from the characters' point of view as well. There is also a vague sense that you've seen all of this before, even though it is definitely its own story.

DiBlasi also wrote the screenplay for the movie and I wish someone else had given it another pass. Stronger characters and a few more story details might have covered the flaws in this movie but overall, it picks up very well in the second half and unlike most low-budget movies, I was not bored to death by this one but started to care more.

Worth a solid 5.

Three students decide to study people's fears for a video documentary college class as sort of a "fear study". Initially they simply interview their subjects but then one of the students progresses to setting up situations where the subjects are forced to confront their fears.

Pretty much universally positive reviews from horror magazines and websites were given to this film, and I feel bad that I cannot be as supportive. While I think this film has a lot of strengths, and may be better than the average film, it also has some weak points, too.

I have to say the film is very admirable with regards to the gore on the topless dancer, and the dismembered girl in the bed. Other gore scenes were also decent, and there is no short supply of blood, and a special effects that shines beyond the budget. I also enjoyed the gritty sex scene, reminiscent of the style of "Derailed" (though the sex scenes are quite different).

The film as a whole has a lot of sexuality to it, which I find to be a flaw. I liked the painting of nude woman, with the addition of her blue hair, but soon realized it was just he first step towards more and more nudity. Usually, I am the last one to frown on nudity, gratuitous or otherwise. But I felt this film was using it as a crutch, that despite having a strong story, they felt they could not get by on merit alone. And that is a shame.

As far as being compared to recent Clive Barker films, this one is clearly better than "Book of Blood" (which was just boring), and on par with "Midnight Meat Train". I may like "Train" slightly better, but both have their strong and weak points. Barker's original story is roughly 40 pages, including some casual references to Kant and Bentham (and unfortunately Dickens). The film tends to ignore these intellectual touchstones and veers off into more pornographic territory. They do, however, take the "fear of meat" to a new height.

"Dread" was chosen as the 2010 horror film of the year by HorrorHound contributor Dave Kosanke (with Jon Kitley agreeing). Kosanke thinks the film is "primordial and raw" and "even manages to one-up the story". Another HorrorHound contributor, Aaron Christensen, disagreed and felt the film was too long and would work best as an anthology coupled with one or two other Barker stories. Incidentally, he chose "Black Swan" as the year's best.

Thankfully, none of them picked "Harpoon" like Aaron Crowell did (that film had few things right going for it). And I have to agree with Christensen that "Black Swan" easily trumps "Dread" (though I think Adam Green's "Frozen" was also a worthy contender). I would not put "Dread" in my top three for 2010.

I would, though, not necessarily endorse Christensen's idea that this be squeezed into an anthology. While "Book of Blood" clearly ran over its needed time, this film seemed to go over by mere minutes for me. The writer added enough to the original story to really have it stand on its own two legs. I would say that it could be trimmed five or ten minutes, as some scenes just went on too long for me. But it has enough story and depth to really be its own film.

Ultimately I do not see this being one of the strongest films of recent years. The gore effects are amazing, and I hope the crew behind that goes on to bigger things. The cinematography is also stellar. But beyond that, I do not know. I feel it went on a tad too long, and what should have been a story about "dread" became too exaggerated for me. It pushes the level of realism too hard and enters a surreal stage. And that is not dreadful. Psychologically unstable, maybe, but not scary.

This movie somehow failed to live up to my expectations, maybe because I heard something about Clive Barker being involved in the project? Anyway, the story has an adequate build up of suspense, but doesn't really deliver. There were some few scenes that were very nice, but something was missing from the entire feel of the movie.

The characters in the movie have good background stories, especially the parts of Abby and Cheryl. The most impressive part about the movie, in my opinion, was Abby's character and her story.

I think the part of Quaid was maybe miscast. I didn't really buy into his acting.

Without giving anything away, there was some nice story twist towards the end of the movie, especially with the main character Stephen.

The good part of the movie is the take on motives and what drives people to do thing. I was expecting it to be horror, but it is more of a psychological thriller.

You know those movies that start with some seemingly innocent and carefree character meeting some shady looking guy who's smoking a cigarette in an alley? Yeah...you know that eventually this will not end well. Fortunately for the viewer the same is true of Dread. While I didn't really grow up watching Clive Barker's movies (still can't stand Hellraiser), I've grown an appreciation for him over the years. Even though he didn't have much to do with the making of the actual movie, I'd like to think it's very much what it would look like if he had.

This film is kind of hard to define. It's not really what you'd call a horror movie in the traditional sense, although it definitely has horror elements. I guess it kind of walks a fine line between a psychological thriller and paranoia horror. Sure, there's a bit of gore here and there, but the film isn't relying on it. There's also some scenes of what some would call torture, but there's more of a point to it than films like Saw or Hostel. So in a way you'll feel like you've seen it before, but you really haven't. I suppose a quick and dirty summary of the plot would be "seemingly normal but slightly eccentric guy slowly becomes crazier than a craphouse rat...hijinks ensue".

All said and done I quite enjoyed it. Not the best thing I've seen from Clive Barker, but far from the worst. I guess in a strange way you could compare Barker to Lovecraft. People will always be trying to turn his stories into movies and they'll probably succeed admirably or fail horribly. Here's to hoping for the best.

Starting out with Goth, shadows, back-lit silhouettes, lots of them to the point I started to develop a head ache and all I wanted to do was find a way to up the contrast and add a little brightness just to the screen mind you; it was obvious from the start that there would be no brightness to the story or the tone. The goal was to frighten the crap out of the viewer but since the movie commits the Cardinal Sin of horror by showing the monster or the monstrosities very early on, there was absolutely no way to top the opening gore.

Think Saw, Hostel, typical torture porn made all the more torturous with freshman level 6 Buds and a Bong philosophizing about touching The Beast, Dread If you can't pirate this movie do not spend money on it.

"Dread" is an adaptation of a story by Clive Barker, and it starts out on a very interesting premise: exploring our fears. That's Quaid's motivation for his thesis study: he decides to interview people and have them tell their most vivid memories of being afraid. Quaid has a deeper, darker motivation for this: when he was 6 years old, he saw his parents being murdered by an axe killer. In his quest he will team up with Steven, an agreeable fellow student, and with Cheryl. Each of them has a personal story of haunting fear, too. Of course, as is expected, Quaid's childhood trauma and dabbling into people's darkest fears do not mix well.

"Dread" evolves as a psychological suspense -with moments of great intensity thrown together with scenes that are included just for shock value or, what's worst, as a rushed and stereotypical means of character-building (e.g. the scenes at the pub, at Quaid's studio or with the two girls that they hook up with at the beginning, where we're supposed to learn about Quaid's personality). Despite its ups and downs, though, it is a pretty solid suspense, with sobriety of characters, a compact and believable plot that follows well, and good subplots (e.g. Abby's story, with the best performance of the movie from actress Laura Donnelly). And one good point about this movie is that it is never boring.

The last half hour is the most intense, as the accumulating events and actions come to their conclusion.

"Dread" is, in my opinion, a quite good movie in its genre. It's not ground-breaking and it may remind you of something you have watched or read before. However, it has good points, well-done scenes that will keep your attention, and it's always entertaining. Warning: don't expect anything at all like "Hellraiser".

My score: 7/10.

Yet another dip in the brainless gross out horror pond. I generally despise this genre but this is a bad movie even for that. Without going into too much detail this movie sinks even lower with trying to gross out the viewer by showing somebody eat maggot infested meat, that's pretty much a new low in using cop out tactics that require absolutely no good writing or screenplay or atmosphere or anything that makes a horror actually scary or unnerving. Instead it resorts to self mutilation, torture and absolutely pedestrian tactics like what i mentioned above to attempt to gross out the viewer. This movie isn't smart at all, it's one of the dumbest horror movies I've ever seen to need to rely on such cheap gross out fare.

Speaking of writing and screenplay, it's fairly awful in this with characters not behaving in an even remotely credible way. One guy can meet somebody, have him forcibly remove his watch, smash it in front of his face for no reason other than to be a jerk nearly causing a brawl only to basically have forgotten it happened in the next scene and crash at said guys house and be all buddy buddy. That's just one example, from start to finish I was rolling my eyes at the completely irrational ways the characters acted solely for the purpose of plot convenience.

This is just another example of why horror movies have sucked on average since the 80's. Avoid this one.

Having watched around 600 horror and thriller movies over the course of the last 20 years. I have rarely come across a horror flick that has the intellectual prowess of "Dread". This is a very well done adaptation of Barkers short story, and has kept the dark and ominous feel of the original.

The cinematography is masterfully done while keeping an almost home movie feel. The flickering lights and dark sets lend an eerily dreamlike feel to the bulk of the movie so that when the brighter scenes appear the contrast is quite stark.To say this movie is disturbing would be an understatement. The decent into madness depicted here is powerfully dramatic and quite intense. Not only is there violence, gore, and blood, but a realistic view of trauma inflicted psychosis becoming complete madness.

The bottom line is this. The ability to suspend disbelief is the cornerstone of any good story and this one delivers in buckets.

Barker is not subtle. Therein lies the problem. The casting was, on the whole, quite strong; and Rathbone in particular gives a fine performance right up to the last twenty minutes or so. And even where I have quibbles (Evans . . . and Rathebone's last twenty), the problem is not the actor but the writing: everything is drawn in bold relief. The background to the characters involve BIG problems. The seething anger in Quaid expresses itself in a TWISTED manner. The victims choose radical self-help, rather than the more common-place choice -- like, the police or just GTFO, for example, etc.

But this itself points to a more fundamental problem: the movie itself is afraid of being subtle for an extended period of time, which is a shame as the camera work, direction, and editing are all really quite good. The core of the movie concerns psychological pain and trauma, and how we avoid discussing/ confronting this facet to ourselves. Yet, despite this deeply "realistic" and mature choice of subjects, the script always seems to veer in the direction of the most dramatic (and dare I say, conventional) route to address the subject -- right up to the Wagnerian strings and dark humor playing through the final scene.

This is a "could have been great" kinda movie. It attempts a great deal. I'm just not convinced that it gets us near that "great deal."