User reviews

Okay, make no mistake - this is a pretty awful film, but I actually thought it had a couple of creepy scenes and overcame its pathetic budget every now and then. At the very least it's unintentionally funny in spots and has a definite air of creepiness and discomfort (a face burning scene, the part with the disfigured bride). This baby falls into the "so bad it's entertaining" category to me, and for that alone I would give it a star. The effects are terrible, the acting is abysmal, and the whole thing looks like it was shot in a day. You gotta love that toy ship at the beginning, too! It brought back childhood memories of seeing this on late night TV many years ago. While the Alpha DVD print looks weak and as though it was recorded directly off an old television broadcast or something, I actually liked that in this case! * out of ****

My bad film guru (and the president of the Exposed Film Society) sprang this one on us last week. There was no denying the demented gleam in his eye as he pulled it out of its brown paper bag and announced what he had in store for us: "The Most Dangerous Game", filmed on a budget of about $2.95.

Of course, $2.95 went a lot further back in 1962, but still...

Anyway, there is certainly a lot to dislike about this film. It abounds with serious technical gaffes (my favorite was the 'repeating musket' that fired twice in two minutes without benefit of a reload). The hero is a wuss who stands by while his wounded friend fights the henchman and gets killed.

More? OK -The plot is a shambles with no continuity to speak of. The movie wastes five minutes with a 'special guest star' who serves as the physical embodiment of the villain's madness and paranoia, but never shows him again. The hero is choked unconscious by the henchman but makes no mention of it when he wakes up and first meets his host. The mute servant girl is captured, put on the rack...and then the movie (and the hero, who put her in this predicament) just sort of "forgets" about her.

More? Well, the sets are cheap, and the special effects are cheaper (the makeup is an exception to this). Much of the plot is carried by the narrator's droning, monotonic voice-over, which carries less dramatic impact than the menu recital at Denny's. Most of the dialog is simply ridiculous and stilted , as if it was translated from Japanese. ("I demand that our conversation be pleasant!!!") And the color values tended to shift violently from shot to shot, as if cheap film stock and problematic lighting equipment were the order of the day. (Note - this last may have been the fault of a bad print, rather than the camera crew).

But there were a couple of nice moments here and there. The makeup effects were startlingly good in contrast to the rest of the film, the actors were LOOKED interesting, especially the mute servant girl and the Countess. And in spite of everything, there was a definite creepy atmosphere to be found, very nasty and disturbing.

So what was the deal with this movie? I thought about it a bit, and realized that director/writer Pat Boyette basically tried to put a story from of the old "EC" horror comics on film. That would account for the stilted dialog, the sketchy character development (in a comic, physiognomy = character even more than in film), the loopy interior logic of the story ("EC" horror stories went out of their way to include a nasty "shock" ending and weren't big on psychological realism), the over reliance on the narrative voice (which belongs in captions over the panels), and the interesting makeup effects that mimicked the grisly pictures that the old EC artists did so well.

In fact, I'd be willing to bet that when Boyette saw his leading man during casting, he instantly saw that the fellow was as close to being the equivalent of the lanky, shambling figures and caved in faces that artists like Johnny Craig and Jack Davis drew as an actual human could be and still exist in the real world.. He used costumes and lighting to emphasize the cartoony aspect of the visuals and turned everyone into living EC comics characters. (See: the leading lady's blank beauty, the Count's strong bony features, oddly bronze skin and sharp chin, the platinum 'do on the tall, bony black henchman, etc.)

This would explain the movie's failings. Boyette knew how to 'frame' things, but he didn't know how to deal with three dimensions and moving bodies. Boyette knew how to tell a creepy story within the confines of a comics page, but the nuances of film and live actors escaped him. He wouldn't be the first person with this problem of course - look at what Joel Schumacher did to "Batman". But he didn't have a big budget to hide behind.

In any case, I'm imagine that Boyette walked away from this train wreck and probably spent less time thinking about "Dungeon of Harrow"than the folks who post on this film's message boards. He did, within certainly vague boundaries, what he set out to do, and you have to respect him for it...even if you don't care for "Harrow".

Buyer beware. The Alpha Video release uses a print that defies description. The movie was shot in color but you wouldn't know it for the first 25 minutes or so. The print that is used is so faded and decrepit that it appears almost sepia toned. After 30 minutes some color seeps back into the print but from there to the conclusion the color comes and goes. Keep in mind, even at it's best the color is pale and washed out. It looks like the print was recorded off a television that wasn't getting the best reception. Adding to this travesty is the most plodding delivery of lines that I can recollect. Even the voice over narration is stupor inducing. Every line is delivered in this irritating plodding demeanor. I found myself wishing that they would hurry and get the words out. For this reason I couldn't wait for this movie to end. It's one of those so-bad -it's- good movies but I wish that someone would find a half decent print. Adding notation December 2010--Sinister Cinema offers this title and it is struck from a pristine print. This version still has the nude scene censored.

I agree with some comments made previously and I also disagree with a few comments. I concur that this movie has the feel of something from the 1930's that somehow got filmed in color. In my opinion that's not a bad thing cause I love the old suspense films from that era. Make no mistake, this is a C film working with very few resources. Its not a huge stretch to compare this movie with The Terror, the Corman/Karloff/Nicholson epic. There are similarities. The action takes place near the ocean in a creepy old castle with a creepy old man, there is a mysterious and very lovely girl, there is a mystery about the old man's wife, etc. etc. Dungeon of Harrow is sorta and even lower budget version of that low budget classic which I actually loved. There are some very cheesy moments which would have best been left out. The shipwreck is lame, the skimpy Santa Claus outfit Mantis wears is kinda really dumb, and the painting of the Manor is pretty weak.

It doesn't help much that the leading man has zero acting ability. He does kinda look the part which helps. Also, the film moves very slowly at times. However, the overall effect is sorta like watching some surreal play while doing acid. Not a bad thing!

The big payoff for me were the scenes when the leading man is tossed into the dungeon which was more like a massive tomb. What he encounters there actually manages to bring the audience a few moments of rather stark anxiety. The scenes in the "tomb" were awfully effective, I was creeped out.

I am familiar with some of the Director, Pat Boyette's, comic book illustrations. The man had an imagination and the ability to create weird visual images. At the end of the day this movie is one of those "what might have been with more money, real actors, real special effects, and a more experienced director." However, it still manages to be rather watchable for its bizarro value and some out of the box experimentation. I gave it a five because I did enjoy it reasonably well. Its quite a trip if you're into stuff that is sorta "out there." Check it out, its still showing somewhere out there on Planet Weird.

The basic idea behind "Dungeon of Harrow" isn't all bad. The acting, however, is bad. The lighting is bad. The music is bad. The scenes of torture are without emotion. There really isn't much there to recommend this film. You know what kind of a movie you're in for when the credits say "Special Guest Star" and list someone you've never heard of. Might as well say "Rex Hamilton as Abraham Lincoln." because there's really no one in this movie you can identify. There are one or two decent moments, mostly toward the end and I think the basic plot outline may have contained an original idea, but that alone is not enough to keep you awake through this otherwise inept yawner.

This movie tries to be more than it is. First of all, the acting is horrible. You have to get past the incredibly bad delivering of lines and terrible emoting. The plot is quite interesting. A shipwreck occurs (apparently because it was made out of strings and balsa wood), and a couple of guys find themselves on shore. If this weren't bad enough, some guy named Count de Sade is living there as well. He lives in fear of pirates and has gone utterly insane. Anyway, he has a large slave, a young woman, and some dogs. There's another woman who doesn't speak and his wife, who is a leper. Anyway, things get bad as these men have to deal with this nut case. He is arrogant and likes to pose and deliver lines. The rest of the movie involves an attempt to escape. It has an ironic ending which I won't reveal and it kind of rescues the film. I wouldn't bother if I were you.

Aaron Fallon (Russ Harvey) and a ships' captain (Henry Garcia) are the only two survivors of a shipwreck. Washing up on an isolated island, they become the guests - or is that prisoners? - of the primary island resident, a maniacal Count named De Sade (William McNulty). Assisted by a simple-minded Dennis Rodman look-alike dubbed Mantis (Maurice Harris), The Count likes to regularly torture people. Eventually, Aaron and The Counts' young companion, Cassandra (Helen Hogan), try to make a break for freedom.

Filmed on the ultra-cheap in Texas, "The Dungeon of Harrow" plays as if it weren't a 1960s film, but something made during the 1930s or 1940s instead. It has that sort of feel about it. It's not without strangeness and atmosphere, thanks to co-writer / director Pat Boyette. (He actually had a solid career after this as a comic book artist; his credits in this capacity include Howard the Duck.) But, far too often, his story is VERY dull and VERY talky. "The Dungeon of Harrow" commits one of the cardinal sins of movies by being boring most of the time.

That's not to say that it doesn't have its amusements. Examples: the hilariously campy performance by McNulty. He manages to save the film, at least whenever he's on screen. And the pronunciation of De Sade by the characters (it's done phonetically) is good for some mild chuckles. The effects, and matte shots, are so crude as to be priceless. Not all of the performances are that great, however (although that's to be expected): Harvey is an extremely, fatally insipid leading man. And Harris joins him in his brand of stiff "acting". Actually, with the exception of McNulty, and TV horror host Lee Morgan as a ghostly "Captain", nobody looks like they WANT to be here.

This viewer wanted to enjoy this a bit more, due to his soft spot for cheesy midnight movies, but this can be a real chore to get through at times.

Four out of 10.

"The mad Count De Sade lives in his families' (sic) castle located on a remote island. Count De Sade keeps his wife locked up in a dungeon below the castle and his insanity strike (sic) fear into the staff. After a terrible storm, a ship's captain and the son of the ship's owner find themselves washed ashore on this lonely isle, not knowing the danger they face from the evil Count De Sade," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

This hilariously awful spoof of "The Most Dangerous Game" could obviously be better, with a bigger budget and more directorial flourish. But the script, by Pat Boyette and Henry Garcia, is quite wittily written; and, the performances are delivered with appropriate tongues-in-cheek. Although its satirical intent serves to negate it as a "so-bad-it's-good" movie, "The Dungeon of Harrow" should appeal to followers of that genre.

***** The Dungeon of Harrow (1962) Pat Boyette ~ Russ Harvey, Helen Hogan, William McNulty

Words fail me – well nearly. Never heard of this one but it could well be a contender for one of the worlds worst movies – yes, it's that bad. Thankfully it's also great fun with a good few laugh out loud moments and i must say by the end i had a warm spot for it – no i don't mean Hell. Direction, photography, editing, performances all stink like week old fish but oddly the script has, in between plenty of crap dialogue some wonderfully lucid and poignant lines that could have come straight from the pages of a 19th century novel by M.R. JAMES or some other notable genre scribe of the period. The story itself is quite strong and given some money, a decent cast and crew there was a good movie waiting to be made here. Certainly worse than anything EDDIE WOOD ever did and i suspect this is what an ANDY MILLIGAN picture might look like – i've only seen trailers of that guy's .....'work'. At least originally it would have looked nice enough having been shot in EASTMAN COLOR – alas the print here ( on YOU TUBE ) had very faded colours.

This film just screams cheap-jack 60's horror comics ala Creepy and Eerie, and I mean screams with a capital S, and no surprise really, being director Boyette was a well-known horror comic scribe/artiste. Where "Creepshow" failed in really capturing that "EC-vibe", "Dungeon" succeeds 100% in getting that surreal budget label Charlton Comics thing down to a tee! I say, turn it on, shut down you brain and just soak in the oddness, and this film is way odd, dreamlike really, and best watched while slightly groggy after 1 AM (it has a similar dreamy quality akin to the classic poverty row noir "Detour" in this regard, call me crazy)...that said, though, I really only recommend it to hardcore genre fans, regional horror obscurity weirdos (like myself, especially fans of Texas-lensed regional oddities), and retro horror comic fans, so if this sounds like you, Dungeons is pure gold. Now, if someone could please find Boyette's lost film "The Weird One's" my life would be complete.

I've seen me a lot of bad movies, and I've seen me a lot of low budget movies.

Note: those two are NOT necessarily the same! I shouldn't even have to say this, but everyone who has watched at least a few movies (and that includes almost everyone in the United States), has had this experience; you go to a theater or turn on a movie channel. Sometimes you get a huge budget major studio film that is oddly hollow, perfunctory and disappointing. Sometimes you get a film that is entertaining in spite of its low budget, transcending its limitations.

The latter is what we get here. In the world of low budget film-making, there are a few "cheats" that can be used to make up for a lack of sumptuous screen images. One is great acting. Another is great writing. We are not treated to either of those in DUNGEON OF HARROW.

But we are treated to a creepy, hallucinatory atmosphere which is quite effective, and gives the viewer a bang for the buck infinitely out of proportion with its tiny budget. Remember, this is (to speak simplistically) a period Gothic horror film shot in Texas in 1963 for a budget under $50,000. Keeping that in mind, the filmmakers and actors have come up with quite a laudable final product. Fans of CARNIVAL OF SOULS can expect similar chills on a small budget, though COS is a much better film.

For a couple of bucks, or in a cheap DVD box set, this film is well worth your time if you like late show type horror thrills.

UPDATE: This film is in the Public Domain. Readily available on YouTube or other streaming video options for free.

Here we have a film that looks like it was filmed over a long weekend. We know right away what we are in for during a storm-at-sea scene when the ships captain (Henry Garcia) bangs on a passengers door and the whole plywood set shakes. This is followed by a shot of a miniature ship in someones swimming pool. Stick around, this one has just GOT to be fun. Sure enough, the captain (Mr. Garcia who also co-wrote and co-produced) and Mr. Fallon (Russ Harvey) son of the ships owner, find themselves washed up on the island of Count DeSade (Bill McNulty). The Count has a little problem . . .he's crazy and terribly paranoid, believing everyone who comes to his island is a pirate. The captain soon finds himself imprisoned in the castle torture chamber while Fallon and Count DeSade's nurse Cassandra (Helen Hogan) try to plot a way off the island of madness. Directed by Pay Boyette, the artist who drew "Howard The Duck", this is the sort of movie Drive-In Cinema managers lived for. An early scene stresses how insane Count DeSade is. He sees a ghostly figure (Lee Morgan, a late night TV horror show host who gets "Guest Star" billing) who claims to be a physical incarnation of his own madness and sees snakes and giant spiders. The prolonged torture of the captain gets pretty tough to watch as the film goes on but the encounter between Fallon and DeSade's leprous, mad wife (Eunice Grey) is truly nightmarish.

Performances are . . .well . . .everyone does the best they can, which sadly is not saying much. Michele Buquor is okay as Anne, mute servant girl. In a nod to the 1960's she is miniskirted and barefoot like a time transplanted hippie chick. Standing out is Maurice Harris as Mantis, the count's devoted servant. he gets some of the best dialog in the picture and his line just before he dies is a sleaze movie classic. Lovers of low budget scary movies owe it to themselves to see this one at least once. No, make that twice; you'll want to see it again to make sure you weren't hallucinating the first time.

That distinction has to go to THE DUNGEON OF HARROW. At least Ed Wood's misguided attempt at making a quality science fiction film had the dubious "star" power of Bela Lugusi, Vampira, Tor Johnson, Criswell and Lyle Talbot. THE DUNGEON OF HARROW has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. What could have been an interesting and suspenseful plot about a marooned aristocrat on a leper colony, perhaps in the style of THE ISLAND OF DR. MOREAU or MYSTERIOUS ISLAND, is trashed by the heavy dialog and mono tonal acting of amateurs whose lines sink like lead weights into a sea of stupidity. The "special effects", which took place in someone's bathtub, further doom this film to the dung heap. Even the treatment of leprosy is something out of a Victorian interpretation of the Bible. The fact that leprosy can not be contracted from an individual in its last stages belies the plot line that the aristocrat Fallon and his lady, Cassandra contract the disease and end up as the original occupants of the Castle De Sade, doomed to insanity and inhuman cruelty. It is interesting to note that not one member of the cast made another film. No wonder, talent begets talent; lack of talent begets oblivion, which is where this film should find its deplorable end.

This had some of the worst acting in the annals of acting. The ship captain was a horrible actor. The main character was almost as bad, while he narrated his way through this $H*T (ala Tom Neal in 'Detour'). There was a goof who played a ghost of the mansions master; and he was just that, a goof. The dungeon woman with plaster on her face (an idea of making her look weird) did one of the worst dying efforts I've ever seen, when getting stabbed by, a letter opener? from the token beauty. And the music, sometimes, seemed like it came from a b-western. The only good part (if you want to decide to laugh at this movie) was the black servant who looked to be dressed like Mrs. Santa Claus when she was in her hot-to-trot days. Unfortunately, he was pretty bad at dying, too, after the master (the old man who proved to be in better physical condition then the strapping black dude-during their pursuit of the main idiot character and the beauty) shot Mrs. hot-to-trot while he was pooped out - talking with his face in the dirt. I think this was made by some guys in Sandusky, Ohio: using Lake Erie as an ocean, and having fun with thinking they were somebody.

"Dungeon of Harrow contains sequences so degrading that they surpass your worst nightmares"… Ha ha, right! Behold some of the lies and nonsense they dare to put on DVD boxes in order to lure unsuspecting horror fans. The only things "Dungeon of Harrow" contains are dreadfully overlong and boring sequences, practically inaudible dialogs, semi- processed sub plots and a budget so small the crew probably couldn't even afford cream in their coffees! This is seriously one of the most infuriatingly dull and incompetent movies I've seen in a large number of years, but for some incomprehensible reason, it still appears to have a modest cult-following. This is mainly because its writer/director Pat Boyette was also a comic book artist. I'm not familiar with his work, but I sure hope it's better than his filmmaking skills. The film opens with two men, an obnoxious aristocrat and a sea captain, washing ashore an island as sole survivors after their ship got wrecked in a storm. The island belongs to the utterly bonkers Count Lorente de Sade, who has overlong conversations with his evil persona whilst his wife is rotting away from leprosy in the basement. De Sade also has a couple of loyal servants, including a large black man with white hair and a cute brunette. The voluptuous blond illustrated on the DVD-cover naturally doesn't appear at all. Anyway, the castaways naturally run into conflict with the crazed count and end up in the torture dungeon. Sounds very exciting and all, but we actually don't get to witness any torture. Worse, in fact, the entire movie doesn't even feature a moment of suspense or a glimpse of morbidity. The only nice touch is the leprosy sub plot, but Pat Boyette doesn't even have the courage to properly exploit that controversial theme. The cast is an assembly of amateurish volunteers. The guy depicting Count de Sade shows a resemblance to Boris Karloff in that period, which is probably why he got the part. c

A couple of men are ship-wrecked on a remote island. They are then captured by an insane count who lives there with a small group of servants; while in the castle dungeon lives the count's unfortunate leper wife.

The Dungeon of Harrow is pretty much a hack job of a movie. The amateur actors all sleepwalk through the film while an annoyingly insistent score continually plays in the background. The various bits of action are all filmed in an incredibly unenergetic way; in fact the film in general is completely lethargic. It just seems to drag on and on. And even though the ending isn't too bad you will be hard-pressed to care by that point. As an example of 60's Gothic horror, this is strictly a bargain basement example. I sadly can't recommend this one really.

Some reviewers have called this a turkey, while others have tried to elevate it to a surrealist masterpiece. I found the film to neither be as bad nor as bizarre as they have made out.

It brought to mind Roger Corman's Edgar Allan Poe adaptations (e.g. House of Usher, The Pit and the Pendulum) and Mexican and Italian Gothic horror films from the same period, but done on a shoestring budget. The story, which borrows loosely from The Most Dangerous Game, was actually pretty good, and with a clever twist ending; I'm not sure why some reviewers claim it is incoherent, because I had no problem following it. While there may have been a few draggy bits, I found Dungeon of Harrow to be fast paced overall, which is surprising for an almost completely dialogue-driven movie. The worst that you can say about it is that some of the acting was wooden and some of the props (like a giant spider) weren't exactly state of the art. Given the tiny budget he was working with, I think the director can be excused for not hiring Vincent Price to be the lead man or for using cheesy props.

Some will think it's boring, but personally, I find obscure films like this that were made outside of the studio system and major cultural centers (Hollywood, New York, London, Rome, Paris, Berlin) to be fascinating.

My true rating is 7 out of 10, but I'm giving it a 10 out of 10 because I find the current IMDb average of 2.8 to be unjustly low.

For many years, my wife has marveled at my ability to finish any movie I watch...even if they are really horrible. Well, truth be told, I've met my match with "The Dungeon of Harrow" as I found myself unable to finish it, as the movie is just amateurish and stupid. I can clearly understand why they allowed this film to pass into the public domain.

The film was made in the filmmaking Mecca, San Antonio, Texas and is about a family of weirdos that our boring hero meets after becoming shipwrecked. From the second he and the Captain of the ship land, you hear the hero's thoughts...and they sound EXACTLY like a 12 year-old trying to write a Gothic horror story...and a not particularly talented 12 year-old at that! The film is incredibly talky and has some of the worst narration and dialog I can recall. It comes off, like the acting, as very amateurish and silly. In fact, that is about the nicest thing I can say about the film...amateurish and silly. Not especially frightening...just boring and very poorly made in every possible way.