User reviews

This movie looked so promising in the beginning and had potential, but it was never given chance to fully become what it could have.

The movie is dark and gloomy, which is nice for this type of movie. And the creatures in the movie looked cool, although there was far too much inspiration "borrowed" from Clive Barker's "Hellraiser" franchise. And also the big creature in "Necromentia" seemed to be a replica of the "Nemesis" monster from the "Resident Evil 3" game (and/or "Resident Evil: Apocalypse" movie).

As for the cast and acting, well nothing bad here. Good performances all together.

The story was fairly good up until halfway through the movie, then it lost its breath and the movie suffered horribly from it. The movie grew stale and boring at that point. But I still sat through the entire movie.

The ending? Well it did tie up the circle of the story throughout the movie. But nothing breathtaking or spectacular. And also there were no scares throughout the movie. I was constantly waiting for something grand to happen. Unfortunately, it never did.

"Necromentia" is not one of the better horror movies out there, and it certainly is not among the worst either. Just below mediocre. Suitable if you are bored an evening and got nothing better to watch...

Necromentia is a nice little underground horror movie that is taking a bow for Clive Barkers mighty Hellraiser. The basic concept of people fiddling with the occult to take a peek into the beyond (except for here they don't use a Rubik's cube but rather S/M body carving and occult symbols), the music, the demons with the hooks and chains on their faces... I guess its pretty obvious. Anyway, Necromentia is not a plain rip-off. It deals with the fate of 3 different characters whose fates are connected as you understand by the end of the movie which is kind of told in a reverse fashion. The movie is rather slow but tends to break out into some gory face bashing and twisted body-modification stuff. The visuals are gritty and green-tinted like in so many movies nowadays but the look of the movie is pretty cool. There is also some pretty twisted scenes here like the fore-mentioned S/M carvings (which in one scene start like your typical torture porn just to turn out to be a chick paying to get cut up by some kind of male fetish dominatrix) or a demon with a pig mask seducing people to commit suicide. The whole setup of these scenes is really great, so I was rather disappointed to see hell and its demons presented in such a low-tech fashion. Basically all hell visions are filmed in a dark corridor with steam pipes. In the beginning it works and the eerie feeling of the flickering lights looks great until you see every demon in this setting. The demons are pretty straight and often remind of a Marilyn Manson Video with gas masks and all the typical gimmicks... nothing special except for one which looks really messed up.

There is really some potential here but the way they presented the core of the movie, which is hell, as well as the plot that pretty much leads nowhere are a real let down. So the interesting story telling devices and visual are just not enough to get Necromentia above the average.

Gotta admit, I was pretty excited to check this movie out. Combine the weird cover with a positive user comment here that said it's one of the sickest flicks he's seen, plus seeing a couple stylish screens of the film....I was ready for some Necromentia. Son of a bitch.

The story plays out as this anthology dealy, with basically three characters all interweaving with one another in some way. And to be honest with you bozos, it's nothing special. I'm already forgetting how they did connect, and I must say, that's a good thing. Instead of describing each character and his dilemma I'll just say the film revolved around revenge, love, redemption, and some silly nilly torture and necromancy.

Thinking about the flick I really can't think of anything truly memorable. The film even though wasn't my cup of tea, I can see that it was a labor of love. It's camera-work was stylish, the make-up alright, and hell, even during the credits they had cool symbols scrolling with the names. The acting and writing was all very mediocre, and at times boring. Not a good thing for only an 82 minute flick.

I'm a sucker for sing-a-longs, so that scene with the suicidal pig man....that was some good entertainment. Instead of going down this silly necromancy, demon realm (in a dumb tunnel) thingy, they should have maintained the focus on the truly bizarre. As that pig man scene was something altogether different and well-done.

Necromentia isn't anything I'm recing out anytime soon. The story was kinda dull, the characters unlikeable, the writing weak, but the flick had a touch of love, a splash of style and a sprinkle of originality that shows that the film-makers do have some promise.

I love the idea of this movie but the logistics don't work and that kills the final product for me. Told in a Pulp Fiction piece-it-together style, it tells the story of love, betrayal and resurrection but leaves out some fairly important information. How did the parents die? Why does their will not provide for adequate care of their children? And even *if* you're a junkie, how, when you run an underground scarification business, do you NOT charge your clients enough to survive on? Seriously. That ran through my head throughout the whole movie. Also - how do you cut off a client's finger and just continue on as if nothing happens? For me, this shows that no matter how much thought went into the movie (and it's an interesting premise), in the end Reginald choose cheap gore-points over an actual vision. The movie just...ends without a major plot point resolved.

The performances work well and the direction is decent. The pacing needs tweaking so as not to allow the viewer to actually think about the plot holes. While consistently a little too dark, the movie looks fantastic which is why I kept watching after the questions started popping up.

The pay off isn't worth the time invested. Worse, you really need to pay attention and that makes the ending even more disappointing.

I watched this with my flat mates last night and after it finished we all thought "What the hell was that?". It's nothing but a bad mix of Hellraiser & Saw in a plot that doesn't make sense at all, plus the gore was not very convincing. No wonder I didn't feel the need to throw up.

There is one positive though: the make-up for the demons is well put and it's not as bad as Alone in the Dark, but still wouldn't recommend it.

It'll just be a waste of time.

2/10

Demons, suicide, necrophilia, transcendence through drugs and mutilation, all ingredients to whet the appetites of any self respecting fan of nastiness. Necromentia is a film well stacked with the good stuff and it has the right intentions to use it, but when all is said and done it comes in beneath its potential. It has the structure of a sequence of linked vignettes, the sequence of events avoiding a linear timeline in favour of unwrapping the mystery of how everyone is connected. A hip approach that film-makers have been fawning over since at least Pulp Fiction, it works here because everyone is connected and there isn't too much of randomness to things. The structure makes it fairly fun to get to the bottom of things and the ride is made all the better by the style on display, this is a very visual film with some sweet morbid imagery on display. The palette is predominantly dark (lots of shadow, grey and cold metal), the sets and shots cluttered and the art direction focused on chains, hooks and tools of pain, it's a horrific world on display and one so overpowering that the flesh tones and lighter colours of its characters come across as alien, an intrusion that inevitably leads to horrors as the darkness of the world around interacts with the flesh of the characters. If only the film had substance and emotional heft to support its style, but it sadly doesn't and the characters are a significant part of the problem. The acting is perfectly reasonable, with Layton Matthews conjuring an inscrutably sinister presence, Chad Grimes grimly determined and mentally frayed enough to do anything and Santiago Craig appropriately twisted and slightly pathetic. The trouble is that the film has a tight cast with most people connected, and pretty well everyone is so twisted, so tainted that empathy is impossible. The lack of balance wouldn't be so bad, since the film is clearly aiming to be something of a deeply macabre side-show, but in a film where no one is likable and the emphasis is on nasty stuff going down, things need to be seriously, impressively messed up and in Necromentia, they come close but no cigar. The visuals have imagination but lose their impact after a while, whilst the gore is kept mostly to a bit of splatter, skin carving and intestine play. The scenes are generally brief and not quite convincing, grisly but not grisly enough. So in the end the film falls somewhat short, a bit too much frustration making some of the cheaper looking scenes more noticeable and the overall hellish ambiance less interesting or effective than it could have been. This means that in the end the audience can't connect with the characters and isn't shocked by the grue, thus ends up slightly unmoved by the whole affair when it becomes apparent that it has little to offer beyond its ideas and atmosphere. Still, its watchable enough and a decent little independent effort, so a fair 5/10 from me..

I've seen virtually every major horror film and a number of B-rated ones as well, so have a pretty good versing in the genre. My tolerance of low budgets and wandering plots is high, but this one is off the charts.

It earns two stars for the lighting and makeup. The cast also does a reasonable job with what they're given, but this meanders between tedious and pointlessly disgusting.

My guess is the "writer" had WAY too much peyote and has lost the ability to write anything remotely comprehensible.

Avoid like the plague.

The plot: A man seeking to resurrect his dead lover runs into a shady occultist who claims to be able to help him.

Necromentia is clearly one huge homage toward the works of Clive Barker -- Hellraiser, in particular. As a huge Barker fan, I was both excited and a little disappointed. The film is grotesque, gory, and beautiful, but almost everything in it is directly "inspired" by Clive Barker, making it a bit less original than I might like. Still, it has some truly striking visuals, and some scenes that you might remember long after the movie ends.

Necromentia is slow-paced and atmospheric, and people who are more used to modern, MTV-style filmmaking might end up being bored. The budget is clearly very low, but I thought they did an excellent job with what they had. Sure, some of the set design was a little underwhelming at times, but I was not nearly as disappointed as many other people seem to have been. There are many twisted and disturbing scenes, some of which end up with a very absurd, surreal vibe. Although not really a candidate for "most disturbing movie ever", it still deserves an honorable mention.

There some original ideas here, but the themes are as old as dirt, and, admittedly, becoming a bit clichéd in horror movies. If you're looking for something more than a Hellraiser clone, I can understand how you'd dislike this movie. Despite its issues, I still enjoyed it, and I think that other Barker fans may, as well.

I saw this film not knowing what to expect. But by the time I had finished this film I had gone down a Vintage Clive Barker style Hell Bound Heart Journey into the minds of a small group of tortured souls. The Story narration is broken and reformed at the end (ala Pulp Fiction) but if you get as immersed as I did you will want to watch it again to see how the pieces fit together a second time.

This movie makes one think of just what reasons would cause a person to go to Hell under their own volition?, It caught me on why some of the characters for no regards for their existences will learn in a cinematic way the price they would pay for their immortal souls.

This movie is a unapologetic horror film, no stupid jokes to kill the mood, no over the top Teen or 20 something actors to get kids and teenagers that shouldn't watch this fair to watch. No cliché overly predictable moments and no dumbing down of dialog to keep the A.D.D. crowd watching. If you have a short attention span and need a movie where you don't have to pay attention to get the story... you are not the audience for this film.

It's gory, Horrific, didn't use a lot of computer graphics (if any) and Well known actors to tell it's story but if you give it a chance as the modest budget film that it was and are a REAL horror fan you will be pleasantly surprised but taste is subjective.

Ignore the haters, the internet tends to breed this over the top critic mentality where hate for the sake of hate is the coin of the realm.

It stands very strong on it's own feet. Now when do I get some figures of the the Monsters from this film?

Woow.!!!The Funniest movie i have seen..Its so funny that @ the end you feel like throwing away the monitor.The horror stuff was real funny,a ghost or a monster with metal equipments who sometimes suddenly starts eating human flesh.I think it is a movie for high thinkers as it was no where near my head.The pig head man seemed to be a suicidal ghost. I had to fast forward in the middle,so i am not sure if i missed something real good..

Sorry folks(for those who liked it).I found it funny rather than scary.Specially those inspired glimpse and scenes from Grudge,Ring etc.Anyway you can watch and laugh for a while before you break the TV Set.I am rating is 3 because it made me laugh for sometime..

An off-world look at the superstitious repercussions of tattooing an Ouija Board on your body. Hagen, who has a dead wife believes that he can revive her from the dead. Travis, a man who lost his brother and wants to join him in the afterlife. Morbius, a bartender who is betrayed by those he loves comes back from the dead to take revenge. And a strange man only known as Mr. Skinny protects the secrets of the Ouija Board and how the stories weave and affect each other. (summary taken from the director)

Let me begin by praising this film before I explain why I gave it a mediocre rating. The best thing I can say is that this film has strong visuals, some appearing too quick to really analyze... but this works well, allowing the imagination to fill in the gaps. If there's a single redeeming part, it's the Mr. Skinny Show, especially the bouncing ball suicide song... who else can sing about the Easter bunny and sodomy? Also, there is a really nice score and soundtrack with a steady beat, and some industrial influences (not unlike Charlie Clouser's "Saw" work). I'm unclear who was responsible for this, or I would single them out... the music here deserves to be heard and be known.

But yet, despite the great visuals, other parts come across as shot with home video, with too much shadow and realism. The first ten minutes drags on... the barbershop janitor, Hagen (Santiago Craig), is quite boring, and his droning on is simply blah. On the other hand, the character of Travis (Chad Grimes) is interesting, talks smoothly and he has the look -- if anyone knows how to open the gates of Hell, it's him. His side business is fascinating. But one good character does not make up for a bad one.

The influences seem to be "Saw" and the work of Clive Barker. The skin map is kind of like Clive Barker's "Book of Blood" in a way, and others have compared this film to "Hellraiser". The plot is a bit sketchy, with the film focusing more on scenes of torture than much else... it seems heavily influenced by "Saw" with its traps (and the aforementioned music). While more artistic, it's not necessarily more disturbing -- a finger cutting scene did not faze me at all.

Can you really use ketamine (Special K) to get off heroin? I suppose it's an improvement, but a ketamine addiction is nothing to sneeze at, either.

While the visuals were great, the story was messy and dragged at times... I wonder if this could be fixed with the right editor? I would have to give this film a second viewing to properly review it, since I didn't grasp everything the first time through. But, unless my opinion radically changes, I think viewers would be perfectly safe in avoiding this title.

While trying to open a portal to Hell to retrieve a long-lost love, a man finds his quest of locating the designated victim to draw the symbols required to do so far more challenging than the Dark Angel who assigned it to him thought it would be.

An ultimately disappointing effort, this one was just flat-out flawed and not really that worthwhile. The main point of contention with this one is that it's just confusing and not all that easy to follow, tending to use far more flashbacks than necessary, most of those filled with going so far out of the traditional plot line (we do have about four or five of them, and none of them intersect until the finale) that overall it just becomes so confusing as to what's going on that eventually it just becomes moot as to what's going on. This one does have some wonderfully absurd images and ideas, as there's one scene with a pig you have to see to believe, and the concept of what's going on works when it's kept to a visual standpoint instead of trying to spell it all out, but that doesn't come close to justifying the rest of the flaws in here, and overall this one is just a jumbled, incoherent mess.

Rated R: Graphic Violence, Graphic Language and Nudity.

Four disjointed stories of horror loosely connected by a tattooed quija board.

Story one is about a guy who keeps his dead wife in a bathtub and tries to bring her back....or rather....keeps saying she promised to come back. No mention of when she died, but funny how there's no decay.

Two thugs come in and make an offer to bring the wife back. Something about gateways. But there is a fatal flaw with the plot. The guy doesn't choose his fate, as the narrative says...it's thrust on him against his will.

Story two finds two brothers -- one who appears to be a crippled mute. Mr. Skinny -- a fat guy with a pig mask pops out of the TV and the kid finds him funny even tho he's covered with blood. Lots of torture scenes here, but I couldn't follow it. It's all over the map and not one frame makes sense.

I THINK this 3rd story is about a guy who wants his brother back, but by this time all logic breaks down. The stories appear to be intertwined in a way that no sense can be made of them.

That's it for me. I don't even know what the 4th tale is supposed to be but it appears to be related to the first in a way and features an extraordinarily effeminate man who loves a woman a bit too much.

Net net -- this is a clunker.

If there's such a thing as "cliche horror", this movie is it. There's a vague storyline to this movie but it's not worth going into. Any potential is lost here mainly due to how unlikeable each and every character who appears on screen is. One after the other, they are all caricatures of both themselves and the same types of persona you've seen in a hundred other horror flicks. Gory - yes, but so is visiting a meat processing plant. Actually,that's more interesting than this movie and just as gory if you realize that eventually, you may eat some the things you see being prepared! The only thing that was the least bit intriguing to me is the masochist girl who pays for extreme pain to be administered to her. Don't worry, this doesn't spoil your plot if you know it. In summation, anything else you choose to do with your time will be a better decision than watching this movie.

The incredibly obvious desire to be like Clive Barker is all over this movie. It just doesn't quite work.

The acting is all over and the writing isn't overly great. They've definitely gone with style over substance here.

It's definitely been made to shock but it's not quite realistic enough to actually be shocking. Could of been great but just isn't quite there.

OK, so I picked this up in a charity shop (goodness knows who left it there) and the DVD has a blurb on the back giving a really inaccurate description of the plot (I seriously doubt whoever wrote it actually saw the movie) that began with the line: "Inspired by the works of Clive Barker"...

Which is fair, because the Hellraiser vibe is dripping off of this movie. But that's no bad thing. If anything, this is what the Hellraiser sequels SHOULD have been, a seriously messed up, gory, but ultimately relationship-driven ride through Hell-dimensions, torture and nightmares.

Good cast, good music, good script, but I've really got to hand it to the make-up and set-dressing people. For a low budget movie, none of this looks cheap.

I'm not saying it's perfect. It's nasty, bloody, ends a touch abruptly, it can be a touch ponderous and self-serious... But it is way, WAY better than it has any right to be and I would highly recommend it.

Wow. That's all. Just...wow. What else can you say about a movie that's sort of like Clive Barker meets H.R. Geiger on a really bad trip? That's pretty much what I took away from this movie. I mean...what else is there really? The story isn't too bad, but it does tend to bounce around a bit too much for my liking. You'll probably find yourself at certain points thinking "Ooooohhhhh, so that's where this was going". Some people might call this movie "graphic" or something to that extent, but I think it's an illusion. Sure, there's some horror movie type blood and gore, but all in all I think it's the atmosphere of the movie that makes it seem so much worse. Really, this movie doesn't approach the kind of schadenfreude you'd see in...say...Saw or Hostel. Oh, sure there's violence and torture, but it's not simply for your amusement, there's a point to it (ok, to be fair, it's a weak point, but at least they tried). I suppose I could go into the subtext of the plot...redemption, revenge, blah blah blah...but you really aren't watching it for that, are you? You're probably watching it because you think that, if viewed under the correct circumstances, it just might make your head explode. And maybe you're right.

If this was a "A" movie it would deserve its IMDb rating. It is not. Someone put some love into this! It shows. Top notch "B" horror and on 300,000? That is my 5 year beer bill! Acting ranges from Good to very good. Special effects are above average through out and never take you out of the movie with cheese, actually some of the effects are really bloody well done ( pun intended).Gore level is med/high b I liked the story à la the original Hell raiser ( this is better then 3 on by the way)The characters had some depth to them and to some degree you could empathies with them drawing you again a bit farther into the movie.

All in all , a hour and one half lost but not regretted.

Sick movie, really enjoyed watching it. Some effects are a little "cheap" but the general idea is way cool IMO :P

One thing i can't stand is i really like the soundtrack in the scene where Travis goes to his chopping up work for the first time in the movie (scene starts at 27.30 min into the movie, scene where the female gives him the bottle of poison after her cut up session). I've browsed the internet for a audio CD of this movie but i can't find it anywhere.

It's also the scene after you see the Mr. skinny show for the first time.

Anyone knows what band made the music ?