gozonuts The director and writer are one in the same - Daniel Simpson, shame on you! You borrowed clichés from other bad horror movies and put them the worst of them in this pile of #$%^ that would be alright as a student project in high school. You are presumably not a teenager. This particular scene ticked me off to no end : antagonist beat the heck out of the maniac only to find out that it is their friend they kill. I mean they beat the living bejesus out of him with a nail studded 2X4 and about 50 blows. When the antagonist does finally manage to immobilize the maniac, she gingerly pops him over the head and runs off like an silly cow, despite her friends lying in pieces all over the joint. She of course gets caught and killed. This kind of lame writing is physically painful and just insulting to the viewer, as it shows the writer/director is either uninspired and lazy or contemptuous of the viewer, or both. What sense does it make for the maniac to mutilate people simply because his father was killed in some horrible event in WW11? Who the hell wasn't involved in a horrible event then? The entire bloody war was horrible. This was just a lousy excuse for a movie and it all falls on Simpson's head; the actors weren't bad but what could they do with this script?

Michael O'Keefe Molly(Emma Griffiths Malin) and three of her friends set out to test their squatter's rights. The four London art students looking for a cheap thrill search for the perfect abandon building to squat. They come across a huge empty house that appears it is ripe to serve their purpose. Molly with Toby, Luke and Zoe break in and quickly start setting up a temporary home. Molly and Zoe are as attractive as the guys are annoying. Sleeping off their exhaustion the foursome realize they're sharing the house with something or someone on the upper floors. It will not take long for things to get very frightful, when they realize all access out is locked and boarded up. Something very evil will enjoy the trespassers. Obviously a very low-budget film, but does not lack violence and gore. Tension builds and the atmosphere gradually gets scarier. A real good choice to watch on a rainy, stormy night. I enjoyed; you need to give it a chance. Also in the cast: Reuben-Henry Biggs, George Maquire, John Regan and a very fetching Amy Noble.

ravenheart94 The movie starts out with a news report about an unsolved case of a missing little girl who disappeared many years ago. A bunch of grungy, homeless art students in England decide to take refuge in a (seemingly) abandoned house at night. They discover scratch marks (indicating a past escape attempt) and bloodstained clothes. Yet they still choose to stay in the house.Smart move. They wake up the next day with all the windows boarded up and barred with steel. They come across a key & hidden holes in the wall.Main victims/deaths. I don't remember their names so I just gave them nicknames: Grungemaster (gets his eye cut out and is unintentionally beaten to death by BKS and SBG),British equivalent of Kristen Stewart (ends up being the last girl and cannibalized), Bitchy Grunge Chick (gets her legs sawed off), and sniveling blonde guy with bad teeth (gets his hand cutoff).Long story short, the house is secretly inhabited by this creepy old guy. Creepy Old Guy has a lot of medical equipment which he uses to torture, kill, and dismembers people for random body parts.(The motives behind this are hard to get and all the audience is given is that it has something to do with his father's experience as a soldier in WW2.) One by one everyone suffers some kind of torture and dies. The "last girl" out of the cast who was close to making an escape is eventually dragged by Creepy Old Guy into a dark, dingy room. A feral-looking young woman lurks in the corner, who then crawls over in an animalistic manner, and (it's implied) eats her alive. The shocking twist DUNDUNDUN is that the cannibal girl is the same one who was kidnapped and presumed dead for years, and that she was the one who had left the keys/tools for future captives to try and escape. I wasn't expecting a whole lot since this is a horror movie, but they could have tried harder. It's very low budget and the acting isn't very good. This could have been a little better if they put as much effort into the story, production, and the acting as they did into the "shock" factor.

twomansoloband I'm not much of a horror film fan, as they tend not to frighten me in the least (is it wrong to expect to be frightened?). But this was a disaster. After convincing (dragging, may be a more appropriate word) my extremely scare-able friend to watch a horror film in the independent cinema with me, I was devastated when to find her laughing more at the film than I was. That film was Spiderhole.Of course I have taken into account the low budget, the inexperienced cast, etc.. But that is not where the problems lie in this film. I had no problem with the actors (save one), the cinematography was fine, good, in fact. The problem was that it just plain wasn't scary. Problem number two was that the script was poor. And number three; the plot was AWFUL. It was like it took random excerpts from umpteen horror films and just stuck them together in one big incomprehensible mess.I try not to slate films as I ask myself, with my inexperience, could I do better? Well... this time the answer is a crystal clear yes.