You have to be logged in to comment! If you don't have an account register now for free! Your account allows you to post comments and reviews, upload videos and images, access or our forums, write personal blogs, and maintain your profile.
i was sorely disappointed. for being based on and filmed in waverly hills sanatorium, it was one of the worst films i've ever seen. it was basically a bunch of chicks who were chosen for their boobs instead of their acting skills running around an old building in lingerie, killing each other. it was terrible.
i thought the movie was awful, just enspeakably bad there are literally no redeaming features what so ever just plain awful acting is horrofic and the story just so boring there are no words to describe it, throw this film in the bin and walk dont run to your nearest video store and go get session 9 the movie this film should have beeen
I might get ripped apart here, but I’m going to try and stand in this film’s defense a bit. “Death Tunnel” is exactly what everyone here is saying it is: a predictable, poorly made, hipped-out modern piece of trash, so let me get the bad out of the way first.
In “Death Tunnel,” we have a group of college kids who decide to have some sort of initiation party in a supposedly “haunted” asylum. So, the guys blindfold a bunch of girls, separate them, throw them into the place, and film the whole fiasco. Needless to say, things go south rather quickly as the scantily clad women are picked off by ghosts one by one. Ok, so let’s start with the acting. I was embarrassed for these people while watching this. Really, it sent goosebumps up my arms. It’s that bad and unbelievable. I know that slutty young girls in horror movies are SUPPOSED to do dumb things (otherwise they’d all survive and we wouldn’t have much of a movie), but this is too much. Would you play catch with a half-rotten ghost child? Not me, man. The other thing is that the plot doesn’t make too much sense. Not to be a spoiler, but if their grandparents were working in this place circa 1900, these kids would be older than 20. But that’s a fairly minuscule plot detail that’s easy to ignore.
Now, for my [foolish] defense. The whole concept, although perhaps unoriginal, is pretty cool. Unless you really, REALLY mess things up, a haunted asylum almost never fails. If I’m not mistaken, I believe they filmed this on-site at a very old hospital. In fact, according to the directors you can see actual ghosts flashing across the camera at certain points. But regardless of whether or not you believe this, the sets and the atmosphere are fairly effective overall, and pretty believable. The evil doctor and the speech he gives later on is damn chilling, and the big guy with the crazy mask that runs around with the cart is totally badass. Unfortunately, he doesn’t really do anything, and they wasted this cool villain, who could have been a solid redeeming factor for them. There are a couple of good jumps if you have the volume up high enough. In fact, one of them nearly put me through my roof, so they are very well-placed. In fact, I think the scares here are much more well-placed than in many of the lamer, bigger-budget films I’ve seen recently.
Of course, all of this is not to say that this is a “good” horror movie by any means. The bad overcomes the good. If you really like modern horror and sit down with a cold one not expecting much, you might enjoy yourself for 90 minutes. But don’t dust off the ol’ checkbook for this one. Your time would be much better spent elsewhere.
Posted By: spilnkspawn at 12:21am, January 24, 2009
Both versions of Death Tunnel are okay, yet I still feel that it is more of an experience for those that don't know that much about Waverly Hills Sanitarium. You know about the 80,000 people that died there, or about the nurse that hung herself, or about shadow people, or about the little boy seen countless times playing with his ball in pictures from the 40's and 50's, and also now in pictures taken today. . . research it, the actual place is more interesting.
Wow, I honestly enjoyed this movie when I saw it a few years ago. It was a new, fresh idea at the time. Kept me interested for the majority of the film. I do remember the ending being pretty disappointing though...
This is a film with a great idea, but no idea of how to pull it off. Death Tunnel (who's title doesn't really figure into the plot at all) is about some sexy, large-breasted teens that work their way around a spooky, abandoned/haunted hospital (with the occasional obligatory shower!).
The fact that this film could been good doesn't save the overlying fact that this isn't a good film. It's like Sky 1 and Hello magazine had a go at a horror film. A bit voyeur here, cliche there, something somewhat original over there, but it's a bit of a mess.
It'd take for more breasts to save this film! If they ever remake the film, watch that. But save your time on this film. It's a shame that the idea went to waste. Could've been great. Completely missed opportunity. I don't think it's terrible enough for a 1, jeez! Send some of that flack "The Ruins" way etc.!
I think this film is closer to a 5 than it is to a 4.
If i could give this a zero i would
this was the worst movie ive ever seen
horrific acting
it has no real plot to speak of after the initial set-up its just complete nonsense
the director deserves a kick in the balls
I don't even really know where to begin describing how god-awful this film was. It was so bad that I eventually even got bored with cracking jokes about how bad it was.
To start with, the back-story relates to a mythologised and wildly exaggerated version of the Waverly Hills Sanatorium, where victims of the fictitious 'white plague' were confined in the 1920s. 63,000 people died at the facility and doctors performed bizarre experiments on inmates in a desperate attempt to find a cure. A 500ft tunnel was constructed for the transportation of dead bodies, to hide the appalling death-toll from the public. Many of the urban legends surrounding Waverly Hills are incorporated into the film.
Having thought up this promising setting, the film's writers then opted to churn out a fairly standard haunted house story: Five really hot (and scantily clad) chicks have to spend the night in the Sanatorium as part of an elaborate practical joke/hazing ritual, which goes horribly wrong when people start dying. Not very original, but the movie still could have been a lot of fun. The costume and set design was pretty cool too.
Unfortunately, the combination of bad writing; bad direction; a cast with all the acting ability of a spanner (and who all look pretty much alike); an incoherent plot (I'm still not entirely sure what happened in the end), the fact that it wasn't remotely scary; the fact that I'm pretty sure it only actually contained about 30 minutes of original footage, which they kept re-using; and a complete lack of exploitative sex-scenes, make it a total dead-loss from an entertainment point of view.
The only thing I found remotely scary about the film was the guy who played the Sanatorium's head doctor (can't remember his name, and can't be bothered looking it up). It wasn't that he put in a particularly good performance. It's just that he bears an eerie resemblance to a young Richard E Grant. A young Richard E Grant, with a Southern accent, who can't act. It was like watching Grant do a bad impression of himself.
I'm a great fan of the so-bad-it's-good, video-nasty school of horror films, and rented it *because* it had a picture of five busty women in negligees on the cover, and even I hated it. The worst thing is, it could have been soooo good.
The acting is awful, the plot is ridiculous, the scares have been used a million times before.
The worst part about this is it's barely a movie. The whole thing is nothing but cuts. I couldn't find one full scene in the whole running time. I suppose the director was just trying to make everything look scary and cool, but it just ends up looking extremely sloppy.
Amateur, and not worth anyone's time.
Ignore the BD review. It's way way off. Just look at the other user reviews.
It's not even bad-fun, just uninteresting and poorly though out.
Don't watch this movie.
Posted By: PromNight2008 at 8:37pm, September 7, 2008
I watched this last night on the Sci-Fi Channel, after having seen it quite a while ago and not remembering anything about it. Well, I deeply, wholeheartedly regret the decision to re-watch it. The beginning was very good (until about the two-minute mark), then it seemed to drop off and crash to its death on some jagged rocks (to create an image of just how bad it declined) from there, transforming into one of the most horribly structured messes I've ever seen. Absolutely god-awful.
I have to say that the fact the BD review gave this a good review has almost completely destroyed any faith i had in them to know good horror. I mean i usually trust the reviews on here. THis is without a doubt one of the worst movies ever made. The girl who wrote the review needs to be more objective and forget her visit to the actual location in the movie. The movie has no script, is awfully edited to the point of complete trash, and seriously, i couldn't explain how bad this movie is. It's not scary. It's stupid. It has bad acting(which was actually the best thing about it), it has virtually no real dialog, it's ridiculous, and i just kept asking myself after an hour of watching, does this thing ever start. It's like watching a two hour trailer of a movie. Seriously. That's how chopped up the dialog and scenes are.
The reviewer who gave this a good review needs to see some serious films immediately. This is an awful film. One skull would be too much. Note: If you've ever seen the dreadful "Ring around the roses" movie...this is pale in comparison to that trash. These guys should never ever touch a film again. Ever. Maybe they can edit with supervision. But the movie is complete garbage. And I can't even say one thing about it that would make me think otherwise.
Seriously. You almost should watch it to know that you should never trust this reviewer again. You'll see why.
