Freakshow (2007 Video) User Reviews (50)

Slow moving and VERY misleading!

[true787 · 3/10 · 2 February 2007]

I am a huge horror buff and found myself looking around my local Blockbuster the other night. After a short while I stumbled on to the DVD entitled "Freak Show". Immediately I was drawn to it because the cover art states "Banned in 43 Countries"! Also, the back cover art reads "one of the most horrific movies of the last few years" or something of that sort. Well let me be the first to tell you --- This is a complete SHAM.

The movie starts off very slow and bored me to sleep in the first 30 minutes. Because I am a huge fan of B-rate horror movies, I managed to down (3) of my favorite energy drinks in hopes of pulling through to the end. I will not ruin this awful movie for you, but I will let you know that I will NOT rent or buy anymore Asylum movies after this rip-off. How can this movie be banned in 43 countries, yet have ZERO amount of gore until the last 10 minutes? Not only was there no gore, the movie lacks anything that resembles something suspenseful or scary! The last 10 minutes of this film is the high point, and that falls very short of the films potential.

If your interested in seeing a low budget version of HBO's series Carnivale, then this is the one. If your a horror fan and want to be completely ripped off by false advertising then go ahead and rent this one. You too will be as irritated as I am. The production value of this film was excellent, but the plot was very boring and there is absolutely nothing scary about this one. This was a complete waste of time. It amazes me how they can write that this film was the most "horrific and disturbing film in years" and "banned in 43 countries" yet give no sources or credits. Total BS!

You won't be getting my money anymore if you continue to mislead the public. Even the low budget horror fans can say enough is enough and shop elsewhere. There are too many other fine films to see, than to be ripped off by flashy cover art and totally false and misleading claims. TWO THUMBS DOWN!

Watch the original

[Caz1964 · 2/10 · 4 April 2009]

I've always been a big fan of the film Freaks and think it was very ahead of its time although in its day it was thought disturbing. Freakshow stays near to the originals plot but as a story it loses its moral,in the original you care for the unfortunates of the title and they are the heroes of the film.In Freakshow there is very little character development and you really couldn't care less about them,as they are neither likable or admirable and towards the last 10 minutes of the film they turn out to be bigger sadists than those who portrayed the villains,so i really couldn't see the moral of the story,it all seemed more like a film of revenge and sadism. The last 10 minutes of the film was so unnecessary with the girl Lucy {baring in mind she hadnt actually killed anyone herself}being gruesomely hacked at so that she could be turned into a freak,i thought they were just going to cut her tongue out but oh no that was only the beginning,i couldn't believe how long this scene went on for or what they were going to stop at.It was also silly really as no one would survive all that blood loss. Very pointless

What a rotten mess

[mrush · 3/10 · 13 December 2009]

Well once again a DVD box at the rental store drew me into a wasted night.Who could resist a movie that claims to have been banned in 37 countries?So ,even though by now I should know better,I rent this thing and take it home.

So we have a traveling circus and one of the attractions is the freaks or strange people as I think the sign on the tent said.Also traveling with the circus is the support group of guards and mechanics etc.Anyway a few of these support guys and a girl decide to rob the circus during it's travels.The group decides that the girl should cozy up to the owner and trick him into marrying her where the group of plotters will have access to his fortune.Apparently the owner of this fleabag circus has big money somewhere although looking at him you'd never figure. The owner is a repulsive mess,bad teeth,greasy hair and big yellow boils all over his body.

The boil covered owner of the circus feels more at home with the freaks of the show than he does with normal people.He considers them his family.His family protects him as one of their own when they feel he is in trouble.Therein lies the main plot I guess you'd say.

This movie really sucked bad.It was just too much for me to believe that the beautiful young women would have sex with the oozing nasty owner for all the money in the world.She was so hot she could have found a much cleaner and less repulsive sugar daddy.The sets were lousy shots of tents and the Ferris wheel was shown over and over.There never seemed to be any people at the circus and all the workers just sat around slurping beer from bottles that somehow came with no labels on them.And the sound track was the most irritating soundtrack of any movie I've ever seen....one after another of bad fakey attempts to recreate old scratchy songs like they sounded on records made in the 20's and 30's.On and on these miserable songs went until I was nearly mad.

And the acting was bad.Terribly bad.And I'm not even sure this movie had a script as many of the actors seemed to fumble for their words.Or maybe the budget was so tight that re shots weren't allowed?The freaks themselves weren't really all that freaky except for the one that looked like a miniature version of the Toxic Avenger.Special effects were minimal,little bit of gore near the end but for the most part this movie was just people doing mostly talking.A couple of women showed their breasts but they were small and uninspiring.I think I gave it a 3 mostly because of the breasts because really this movie was probably a 1 or 2 at best.

It's very apparent that this movie was nothing more than a sad weak blatant rip-off of Tod Browning's "Freaks".This mess is totally forgettable and I probably wouldn't have even finished watching it had it not been a cold rainy day with nothing else going on for me to do.

The only way this crapola was banned in 37 countries was for being so bad.Skip this crud fest and watch Browning's original.

Save your money!!!

[boba_frett · 1/10 · 17 February 2007]

I can't believe this is compared to Todd Brownings Freaks! Sure the storyline holds some similarities but thats it. A terrible long drawn out movie, with a feeble attempt at a plot. Bad acting, bad special effects, just a all around bad movie. I couldn't wait for the credits to roll up the screen. If "C" movies exist then this would make the "D" category. The acting is so bad in this movie, that it makes you work double time on trying to follow the really horrible plot. The ending is the worst I have ever had to be put through in one sitting, when the girl has to be remade to fit into the "Family" for betraying them. The longest "meat fest" in film history,People we get the picture, you don't have to show the family hacking away at this girl for 10 minutes for us to understand what is going on. Please lock this movie away in a lead sealed vault, weld the hinges and bury it 300 feet deep within the bowels of the Earths surface, and please,please,please....Never direct another film as long as you live.

Banned in 43 countries is a complete lie.

[thethinice133 · 1/10 · 18 September 2007]

I was dumb enough to rent this movie just because it said that on the cover and I wish I had paid more attention and realized they didn't say where this quote came from. They obviously just put it on there and its completely false. There was nothing shocking, nothing exciting, and nothing entertaining in this movie. It was one of the absolute worst movies I have ever seen as there was no character development, bad acting, bad dialogue, and it moved very slowly. Do not support this movie. You will be very disappointed. For the record, I enjoy B-horror movies. This wasn't even good in that B movie, funny kind of way. Awful all around.

As much fun as a real freak-show, without salted nuts.

[Abztrakt · 2/10 · 28 May 2009]

I bought this movie without any high standards set for it. I originally bought it to see the ending that had so much hype surrounding it. To briefly put it, I got what I expected.

The story was... well.. nonexistent. The story was, I believe, about an outsider who worked for the circus as the ticket sales-lady. The owner had fallen in love with her, and she wished to marry him. Assumably, she only agreed to marry him for his wealth, which is what caused the rest of the movie to fall into the pieces it did.

After a good, hour, hour and 10 minutes, of absolutely nothing happening besides low- grade sex scenes, and persistent cussing, the "banned in 43 countries" violence began, which I can honestly say didn't satisfy my blood lust, but it did leave me saying "Eh, good way to end it."

The sex scenes were very frequent, but they were very boring and plain. Honestly, the R. Kelly video where he pees on the young girl, is a lot more interesting than the sex scenes in this film. I could have made better sex scenes with just myself.

The violence began decently cartoonish, and evolved into an Eli Roth styled partition.

As for film qualities, the acting was fair. Wasn't too impressive, but I have definitely seen worse (*cough* Trolls 2 *cough*). The film production was honestly, very well done. The filming styles and camera angles were nothing new or too fancy, but they definitely set the mood of the film. The soundtrack was very suitable, kind of an old-school styled sound which fit the film grain and the feel of the film.

Honestly, I would only recommend this film to 12-year-old boys who are desperate for nude scenes. If you are a fan of horror, or B-Horror, or Independent films, please, stay away. It will not please any of your senses, because anything "positive" from this film has already been done.

I gave it a 2/10, and that's me being generous, and for the ending.

Tod Browning (if he's still alive) should sue

[mlspaur · 1/10 · 30 January 2007]

On the DVD's cover of this straight-to-video mess is the hype, "In the Tradition of Tod Browning's FREAKS." As bad as Browning's opus was, it was a masterpiece compared to this 2007 version. Oh, sure, there are similarities between the two freak flicks. Both Browning's and Bell's exploitation expos are badly acted, technically inept, and appear to have been edited with hedge shears (some of the scene shifts in "Freakshow" are so badly constructed, the viewer has no idea what happened).

Anyway, "Freakshow" does follow (read: "steal") the plot of "Freaks" (a white trash non-freak chick attempts to marry a circus freak to get at his money). In the original, the horny mark was a midget, but in this movie, the "victim husband" is a guy with bad teeth and covered with boils. The viewer gets to meet a large variety of physically and mentally deformed characters (none of whom could act) in the original. In this remake, there's a bunch of freaks, too; one armless dude, one legless guy, a handful of dwarfs and a bunch of extras in bad make-up and cheap masks (none of these people can act, either).

"Freakshow" meanders on really not reminding the viewer of Browning's flick until the pre-wedding party scene where the freaks induct the bride-to-be into their world. If you remember that wonderful scene from the original flick ("One of us! One of us!") you're going to hate the way it was re-imagined for this movie. And then there's the ending.

Tod Browning's final scene revealed that enigmatic and jaw-dropping "duck-girl." The viewer had no idea how she got that way, but they knew that the freaks had turned the unfaithful woman into the greatest freak of all. It seems that Keith Leopard, "Freakshow" scribe, decided that anyone who plunked down four bucks to rent this turkey deserves to see how... perhaps, I've said enough. Suffice it to say that the reason the film had no production values to speak of was because they had spent all of their money on the special effects for the last 10 gut-wrenching minutes. A lot of times, an "unrated" tag on a film is nothing more than a marketing tool. Those last 10 minutes take "Freakshow" way out of "R" land.

Tod Browning's "Freaks" really was nothing more than cinematic filler leading up to the final, quick glance of duck-girl. "Freakshow" also wants the viewer to be amazed at the final denouement.

But, you are going to be soooooo disappointed.

Horrible

[CazMcGovernMcKinnon · 2/10 · 22 December 2007]

This is simply not a movie I am extremely broad minded when it comes to films and I adore low budget movies because it enhances the meaning of art behind the process of film making. This movie is perverse, it provokes a feeling of sick to your stomach and not in a good way- I'm not even conservative when it comes to these things. It also has no plot except to make you want to vomit. It is one long cheap gag and not worth even putting on for five minutes. If you like movies with substance or at least some kind of plot or real scare do not watch this if you are however, looking for something to scream at this is perfect for you.

Ripoff remake of a classic

[kthoran · 2/10 · 18 November 2007]

This movie is a really poor retelling of Todd Browning's 1932 classic Freaks.

It is essentially the same story of circus folks (offend one, offend all, etc) but instead of genuine freaks you get heavily tattooed people into body modification as the main freaks. Guys with stretched-out earlobes and excessive tats do not a freak make.

The only redeeming feature I can recall is the "cannibal girl" who is notable for her beauty and is not a freak in any way other than being freakishly hot. She is the only reason I did not bestow a rating of 1 on this movie.

The original Freaks movie was great because it had all those genuine circus freaks in it and was very controversial at the time of conservative film making.

This flick borrows, nay, steals heavily from the 1932 Freaks and even steals it's "banned in X countries" logo from the original. The only reason this modern Freakshow movie might be banned from anywhere would be for plagiarism.

Another terrible straight-to-video/DVD piece of low budget horror crapola!

[poolandrews · 3/10 · 24 December 2007]

Freakshow is set in a circus where Lon (Christopher Adamson) runs a freak show, scheming blonde tart Lucy (Rebekah Kochan) & her slimy boyfriend Lee (Mark Preston Miller) decide to rip him off. They devise a plan where Lucy seduces Lan, gets him to propose to her & then kill him off leaving her to inherit all of his money so she & Lee can live happily ever after, simple eh? What could go wrong? Well, Lucy gets cold feet & her murderous plan is discovered & the freaks want revenge...

Directed by Drew Bell & although uncredited & unacknowledged Freakshow is a remake of Tod Browning's controversial classic black and white horror flick Freaks (1932), not wishing to put to fine a point on it Freakshow is frankly crap. The script by Keith Leopard is pretty faithful to Browning's original but with several changes, the basic story of a 'normal' person trying to exploit the freaks by marrying into their number is still present & correct but it's the character's which are the main difference. In the original the Lan character was a midget called Hans & he is presented as a naive lovestruck child, someone to sympathise with & feel sorry for, here in Freakshow Lan is depicted as nothing more than a dirty old man who wants a nice young blonde girl to give him a blow job when he wants, motivation which just doesn't entice the same sort of feelings towards him. In the original the Lucy character was named Cleopatra & again in a way you could see that she was evil but wanted a good life of her own with her boyfriend, here Lucy is just a slut who is used by both Lan to get a blow job & by her boyfriend to help him steal Lan's money & she falls for it. In the original the freaks themselves were proper character's, here they are just a collection of amputees missing various limbs, dwarfs, retards, a strongman & a half-man half-woman thing who barely feature. The dialogue is poor, the character's turn the original story from a sometimes moving piece involving real people into a standard low budget horror where you don't care about anyone & to top it all off it's seriously slow & boring with virtually no exploitation or gore at all. There's one bit in this I don't get, Lucy refuses to drink out of a bowl that the freaks had just drank out of fearing drinking their spit, however it is also shown that Lucy has no problem having sex or giving a blow job to a man old enough to be her dad & literally covered in warts & boils!

Director Bell does nothing to make this watchable, the entire circus consists of three tents, one carousel & a ferris wheel which no-one ever visits! This film has the most number of slow, boring & utterly pointless fades to black at the end of a scene I've ever seen in a single film, it also has some utterly awful gramophone style 20's & 30's music constantly playing on the soundtrack to maybe try & evoke an atmosphere like the original 1932 version? The film is also shot in a sepia tone (again maybe to try & mimic the original black and white original) which gives everything a candle lit orange type hue, like yeah that's original isn't it? There's very, very little gore here, the filmmakers hired some of those masochist type guy's who hang themselves on hooks which piece their skin & can be found just about everywhere to do several hooks piecing the skin on their backs type scenes, there's a bit when someone cuts a girls scalp off, someone head is bashed in (off screen), someone is hit with a wrench (off screen), someone is stabbed with a knife, someone has part of their throat bitten out & the end sequence which doesn't last that long & is again full of annoying slow fade to black shots when Lucy has her lips sewn shut, the skin on her body sliced off as well as the skin on her face in a scene which is much less effective than a similar one in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (1986).

With a supposed budget of $1,000,000 one has to say Freakshow felt like it had a lower budget than that & I wouldn't be surprised if it was. It looks grubby & cheap with horrible music, annoying editing, poor special effects & a circus which consists of about three tents in a field. The acting sucks as well.

Freakshow is a terrible film to be sure, it's one of those films which promises much but delivers nothing. There's no gore for 80 minutes, the character's are awful & if you don't think that matters watch the original again & see the difference. It's throughly boring to sit through as well, one to avoid.

We saw the Freaks and the Freaks Are Us!

[Yolose · 8/10 · 10 February 2007]

We Saw the Freaks and the Freaks are Us!

Why are we afraid or repulsed by those who are different then us? Why do we cringe when we see human "oddities" doing mundane things? Recently I visited the "Freakshow," 2007, IMDb comment page, there I saw so many negative comments. Some said that the freaks of Freakshow were fakes. Some of the comments were filled with hate, and I wanted to know why was there such a reaction to this movie, "Freakshow" by The Asylum Studios.

The movie it self, even though not the best film out there, was not that bad. So, why is there such an unreasonable hostility toward this film? Because, I realized, they are not angry at the movie, the real live Freaks in the movie terrifies them! It's this fear of what is different, out of the norm for them that make them so incensed toward "Freakshow" (The Asylum, 2007).

You see, this century there have been other movies with the same theme, one called "SideShow" (Full Moon Pictures), another one called "Freakshow" (Arrow Home Entertainment Inc. 2001) and people loved them, however, these movies did not have "Real" freaks. The movies had gaffs and grifts, made up freaks.

"Freakshow" (2007) has "REAL" freaks. Tom Devlin is a great make-up artist and FX guy. But with all his talent, Tom did not make Jim Gold Man (The Great Riwami) into an armless wonder. Bill Quinn (Chef) needs no special effects to appear legless. Jeffrey Allen, (The Strong Man) is truly built that way. Margaret the Cannibal Girl, played by Amanda Ward, smiles as bright in real life. McKenna Geu, AKA Little Kimmie, is really as adorable. The suspension guys' hooks really did go through their flesh, and their tattoos are real. How about Mighty (Curtis) Mike? Yes, he is real dwarf, and proud of it. The tooth you see sticking out of Lon (Chris Adamson) is his real tooth. Larry "The wolf Boy" Gomez was born with hypertrichosis. That facial hair is 100 per cent real! And, speaking of faces. That is the outside talker's (the barker) real face. He could be hiding somewhere, or covering his face, a face that only a wife could love, but he is brave enough to go out in public that way. Even appearing in movies and talk shows to show that it is "okay" to be different. But I digress.

Why are they so angry at these freaks, these disabled or unusual people? Because they realize that if not for fate, choice, or accident they themselves could have been one of these freaks. And that terrifies them. Thus, their fear turns to hatred, as they are not able to express their fears, or unwilling to admit that the freaks makes then uncomfortable.

They do not want it to be known of the prejudice toward those of us who are different, they turn their anger toward the movie.

Having grown up in the sideshow, performing with other special people, AKA freaks, I saw this hatred. Not while we were performing, No, they paid money to see us. However, when we were out in the "real" world, shopping, playing, going to the movie, etc. That's when we saw their prejudice toward us. You see. Some people would like for us to go away. Locked up somewhere where they do not have to see us. Where they do not have to think of us as "people." We are people. We are like most of you. We have feelings, we fall in love, we have families, we cry, we laugh, we go on diets, and we even have "cell phones!" As Shylock said, "If you prick us, do we not bleed" or feel pain? Well, actually, if you are the "suspension guys" (piercing people) the answer may be, no.

Instead of hating us, give thanks that you are who you are, as we give thanks that we are alive, able to work, support ourselves, our families, performing in the sideshow, circus, even movies.

What I am trying to say is, enjoy "Freakshow." You are we, and we are you.

The Beauty and the Beasties

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 24 July 2008]

In a side-show circus owned by Lon (Christopher Adamson), the greatest attractions are the deformed people that are bonded with Lon as family. When a group of five outsiders join the circus to work in security, they actually are criminals that intend to steal one week ticket sales. However, the greedy and sexy slut Lucy (Rebekah Kochan) finds that Lon owns a fortune and convinces her partners that she could seduce Lon, get married with him and later kill him to become the heir of his fortune. When the youngest freak is murdered by the gang, the side-show performers seek revenge and join forces to hunt each criminal. Then they capture Lucy and transform her into the next attraction of the show, the Worm Woman.

The violent and graphic "Freakshow" uses the same storyline of Tod Browning's "Freaks" (1932) and is a good remake of the classic, with a modification of the plot and characters. The make-up is excellent and the production is also very careful with the music score. This movie is absolutely underrated in IMDb, maybe because the voters are influenced by the negative propaganda that was written about this film or maybe by the inhuman and extremely graphic conclusion. Anyway, I believe that real fans of harsh slashers will like this horror movie. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Freakshow – O Circo dos Horrores" ("Freakshow – The Horror Circus")

75 minutes boring 10 minutes good

[zitzy2000 · 2/10 · 3 February 2007]

Come on now. You cant expect someone to watch a movie just cuz it is said to be banned in 43 countries can you?? Well I was victim to that. Thats the only reason why I rented. Stuck it in my DVD player hoping for a half descent movie. The nudity... ahhh its OK.. not great, but its alright. The acting????? There's no need to comment on that. The freaks?? Yeah OK they were real sideshow performers, but I thought that for example the wolf man, or wolf boy played by veekay, was really a wolf boy/man... but apparently he just had a bunch of hair stuck to his face.. So it didn't lie when it said using sideshow performers, but it wasn't what you would have expected. Like the elephant man, if there is one out there why not use him.. but it was a mask.. The make up was excellent I will give it that, but these days, its easy to make things look real. The only good part of the movie, was just gross. Im not a squeamish person, but I had to say.. wow.. looked real. And to someones comment who said "Im wondering if they used a real person or not"... what the hell are you talking about? Do you really think someone is going to get killed that way on camera for the sakes of a shitty movie?? Some people are soooooo stupid.. just for that person.. its called PROSTHETICS....

Anyways, movie was bad, acting was bad, banned in 43 countries.. more like..rejected from 43 countries cuz it was soooo FREAKing boring (haha) only good part is the 10 minute torture scene but don't rent it for that, rent something you might enjoy, like The hills have eyes.

Stunningly bad. Then considerably worse.

[cynical_si · 3/10 · 31 January 2007]

I just don't know what to say about this film, it was so bad on so many levels that at the end of the 90 minutes I feel a mixed emotion of disappointment at time wasted and a curious wonderment as to if I've actually seen what I think I've just seen.

Now, I don't know the movie Freaks however I wasn't expecting the story line to be particularly original but it was worse than that. A clichéd storyline only marginally bolstered by an unusual setting. It may have been carried by some reasonable acting, but if the word had been defined by the standard in this movie then I think actors would still be waiting tables as it bought in a higher salary.

The production values were awful as well, with an dire soundtrack and even more abysmal editing. I assume the sound and costume were supposed to give us a feel for the era of the film as in itself it did little to set the audience expectation. But the soundtrack did little more for me than want to smash the damn gramaphone to splinters (you'll see/hear what I mean).

So what then made this a horror? Well it was those last few minutes. Although the concept, the hook if you will, was quite gruesome and to some extent deserves a little merit. Now the imagination can create a disturbing empathy given the right nudges and it made me feel uncomfortable so job done! Right? But still, even though the idea was great in the end it was the ham fisted execution of the concept that will probably make any self respecting movie go-er recoil in horror the most.

What was I thinking!?

[happygolucky84 · 1/10 · 31 January 2007]

This has to be the worst movie I have ever seen. First of all if it was supposed to be a tribute to Tod Browning's Freaks then I would feel like I had been slapped in the face. The acting was terrible! The story line is completely lame. I was excited when I heard the movie had been banned in 43 countries; this prompted me to rent the film. I was looking for some kind of spark in the film... the only shocking moment in the film was the single torture scene which to my notion is the only real acting in the film. I will say the last scene in the movie is the most brutal I have ever viewed and say I am still wondering if that whole scene was performed on an actual human being. No offense to anyone involved in the film, just not my cup of tea.

I give it a 0 for acting scale 3 for story line 10 for gross out factor.

If you like pointless suspense, poor acting, and one gory scene you will love this film.

Slow & Boring then Horrible and Uncalled for

[watchinuwatch · 1/10 · 12 February 2007]

I am not one for censorship and don't like the idea of banning anything, but honestly I thought it was very appropriate that this movie was banned in 40+ countries.

This movie is Slow and Boring with Bad Acting, Bad Mixing, Bad Sound Engineering, etc. It sounds like traffic in the background for most of the movie. The movie has no point, constantly repeated scene stills and short carnival clips, extremely choppy, even worse then your average asylum movie.

Then there is the last 20 minutes. When the violence starts, it is your average gore fest. However, The last scene where the woman is turned into a worm is one of the worst things you could possibly see. It is not entertaining, It is not enjoyable. It is completely uncalled for. I would even understand if someone threw their rental disk away and paid the fee just so it wasn't put back on the shelf. Extremely bad taste. Even if you love horror movies like hellraiser, freddy, hills have eyes, hostile, etc. nothing is as disgusting and awful as this movie. Don't waste your money on this crap, and it's time we stop supporting asylum, they are sick people that don't belong in showbiz, and on top of that they can't even mix down their movie right.

Quite possibly the worst movie ever made

[bnjmn87-1 · 1/10 · 14 March 2008]

This movie is awful. The plot is shallow and underdeveloped and the "horror" is just useless violence. The costumes of the "freaks" are obvious and not made well. There was random information thrown in that led to nowhere. The movie was utter crap. My friends and I feel like we wasted and hour and a half of our lives watching this "movie" don't waste your time. Below are some choice words describing this movie. Nonsense, Pointless, Unnecessary. Reading the cover of this movie is even wasting time. Milking a cow would be more entertaining. The producer of this movie should be shot on the spot for even thinking about this piece of trash. If you want some slasher movie just watch Saw.

a bad, bad movie

[wtf-42 · 1/10 · 29 January 2007]

This movie is sadistic, cruel but meaningless at the same time.

I think that the director of the movie needs a psychiatric checking and further advice from a doctor!!

I cannot describe in words the aberration that this movie is.

I am myself a fan of horror movies, but this one is the lowest of them all.

It should not get to see the light of a cinema!!

I only saw it until the end only to see how far can stupidity and mental illness can go and listen to me, the answer is: far, far away......

But that's a one man's opinion....

Stupid f*en movie

[acv6406 · 1/10 · 20 November 2007]

Last 10 minutes of the movie were completely unnecessary... It was like watching a surgery, a nasty surgery... n btw I'm sure a person could die from that much blood loss, or at the very least pass out.

I don't particularly like scary movies, and this is a perfect example of why, because they're stupid, but I wanted to see this because I do like the original Freaks. The success in that movie was they left the gore to the imagination, and otherwise told a story-- that's something today's movie have no concept of. Everything is all shock appeal, and the success of a horror movie is merited to the one that makes you want to vomit the most.

The other comments were right, there is zero character development. Characters get hurt, and die gory deaths, and you really don't care, there is no effort in the screenplay to pull the movie watcher into the film; they just want to gross you out. I forced myself to not be grossed out by the last 10 minutes because I didn't want to give the makers the satisfaction of achieving that from me for this stupid movie, which had the potential to be a lot more.

what I like of Freakshow

[malumalu · 5/10 · 31 January 2007]

what I like of Freakshow was to see the man wolf. Since he responded according to the situations. The movie was very confused and difficult to follow and the continuity was not there. Makes me feel that something was missed the editing of the movie in order to maintain that of form cohesiveness. It was not so bad a movie, but I entertained for a while. The freaks were interesting to see. But I would like to know a little more about the main characters. Maybe I hope there may be a director's cut coming latter on. What I want to know is was Hank story not

inside the movie as a story. Why did wolf man only helps the Kimmy girl. Why did the people not cry for her dead. I want to know why the half man person only acted like the girl. Maybe you or someone can answer the questions.

Much Better Then She Freak

[elvago13344 · 8/10 · 8 February 2007]

Well, I just finish watching the movie She Freak from 1967. My friend was correct. "Freakshow" looks to be more a remake of "She Freak" then of the 1932 Freaks. I comparing the two I can tell you with a certainty that Freakshow is much more a superior movie the "She Freak". "Freakshow" contained real freaks to give credibility to the movie. On the other hand, "She Freak" had a bigger budget, but no real freaks. "She Freak" went on forever before we had a chance to see any of the freaks, and when we did they were all fakes, and with lousy make up. In "Freakshow" we see the freaks right from the start, and we get to see them interacting with one another, performing and doing everyday tasks. My understanding from reviews and from the "Making Of" segment, "Freakshow" hired real sideshow performers. Between the two I'll take "Freakshow" anytime.

Freaks,Oddities,Whatever the moniker THEY ARE ENTERTAINING !!!

[guestar57 · 7/10 · 9 February 2007]

FREAKSHOW (theasylum.cc) Directed by Drew Bell, Starring Rebekah Kochan ,Mighty Mike and Christopher Adamson. Okay, Great music for soundtrack,Music box or player piano or something else magnificent.

The film just looks great and draws you in.The sets, Make-up and acting are a step above Theasylum usual fodder. This film takes place in a carnival/side show with the special people who inhabit that world, For whatever reason. The bad guys become victims and societies victim's become the ones in control. Drew Bell directs well, From commentary with producer I felt he LOVES controversy. Rebekah Kochan ( Pirates Of Treasure Island) does the best performance yet,We interviewed her earlier too. Mighty Mike Murga ( Evil Ever After) is probably the most charismatic of Special Performers. Christopher Adamson ( POTC: Curse Of The Black Pearl) has a fantastic screen presence, He is the Horror Icon we remember from our youth. Many of the fans may not know Director Fred Olen Ray is a huge fan of sideshows, This is one effort even he will appreciate. Most of the performers ARE REAL,But when make-up was needed(Especially) the finale, Tom Devlin and crew were enthralling. Welcome back,Theasylum !

Very Very Awful!

[iluc05 · 1/10 · 2 October 2007]

I would have to rank this movie as my top worst if not the worst movie of all time. I don't think it's worth wasting any amount of time in your life to watch this movie! It was one of the absolute worst movies I have ever seen as there was no character development, very bad dialogue, very bad acting, and it moved very slowly with very bad filming... Definitely not hostel, or the hills have eyes, or house of 1000 corpses, or Texas chainsaw massacre, or any other horror flick involved. This is just a horr(ible) movie! Watch it if you have lots of time to waste and nothing better to do with your life! That's why it was banned from 43 countries, because the countries would have to pay you to see the movie!

This movie is terrible...here's why

[mfranke-2 · 1/10 · 1 February 2007]

I won't give out any spoilers even though I hated this movie...but here's why!

-The storyline was crap. It makes no sense whatsoever and is plain stupid. -There was NO character development -The freaks were nothing special at all. With the exception of maybe 1 or 2 weird looking characters(whom you rarely see and never even hear speak)the freaks in that movie are way outdated...(as in nothing shocking) and it should have simply been called "Carnaval" instead of Freakshow. -The ending was completely disappointing. Actually, the whole movie was disappointing.

All in all, this movie is not worth buying or renting. Don't even waste your bandwidth downloading this crap(if you download movies).

Perhaps this film would be considered "gory" if we were living in the year 1970.

really bad wannabe scary movie.

[tif-taves · 2/10 · 3 February 2007]

The cover made it look like The Devils Rejects, the opening credits (images and choice of songs) made it look like The Hills Have Eyes, yet this movie wasn't like either. It wasn't even scary, the first hour and a half was just a waste, then they tried to pile all of the "Scary stuff" into the last 5 minutes. I had never heard of any of the actors or actresses before, and sometimes thats not a bad thing, but usually (and it was the case here) it means you're in for a low-budget film that really won't be that great. The whole movie pretty much left you wondering why you rented it in the first place. Definitely not worth the 4 bucks at blockbuster. If you want a scary movie, don't rent this one.