Don't listen to the negative reviews

It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

I first saw this on a VHS in the mid 90s. Revisited this recently on a DVD. Well the movie hasn't aged well. It wasn't scary at all. The film is about a family which suffered horrible tragedy due to the fathers alcoholism. His son died and his daughter was blinded. The father just inherited a castle in Italy from his late aunt n he moves to that castle. The castle houses a dark secret... The acting by Combs and Crampton is good. They were convincing as the couple breaking up. Stuart Gordon managed to create a gory and Gothic horror tale. Gordon makes good use of the castle's ominous atmosphere and he also gets wonderful performances from his cast. The movie was shot on location in a genuine Italian castle which added a sense of the Gothic feel. The gore is too much, breasts are bitten off, eyes are gouged out, thumb bitten off, vagina bitten off, body being whipped to death by iron chains, cat been devoured, etc. But the problem with the movie was its story n lack of tension n suspense. Also the body count ain't that high. The freak is one of the most frightening monsters but he is as much a victim as a villain. Sometimes u feel pity for it, especially when its revealed that its penis has been severed. Also ther r too many flaws, i mean how could the freak survive for so long after being chained n locked up. Nonetheless, a one time watch considering the director n the lead actors.

I've been curious about this movie for quite some time. As an avid fan of RE-ANIMATOR and Lovecraft's writing, it seemed this was a natural, but as I skimmed sites like this for user reviews they always seemed to be quite mixed. After finally viewing this movie, it makes total sense why the reviews are mixed because the movie itself is a mixed bag.The basic premise of the movie is a standard horror trope. A family that's already being torn apart by familial strife due to some past trauma finds themselves in the middle of some supernatural terror. In this case, an alcoholic Combs, his pretty wife and blind daughter move to a castle in Europe that he finds he's inherited, but may already have a resident deep in its' bowels. The problems start with the look of the film. The viewer can see that Stuart Gordon (the director) has some genuine talent when it comes to creating a shot, with a heavy inspiration from the Hammer era of horror. The movie evokes, images of dark, romantic paintings and has moments of pure shivery chill. It's all ruined, though, by a muddy, dull color palette in the film itself. This thing looks like 80s PBS drama and gives the movie an appearance of being far older than it really is. The film quality ends up spoiling any true beauty.The problems continue into the acting. I am a huge fan of Combs. His roles in THE FRIGHTENERS and WOULD YOU RATHER are some of my favorite characters in horror. He brings an intellectual insanity to his villains that is fun to watch. On the other hand, he's just given too much room here and too much drama. The same goes for Crampton. Large chunks of the plot in this movie steer away from the terror in the dungeon to focus on the forces tearing the family apart (alcoholism, loss, infidelity). I didn't find either actor to be completely up to the task of pulling off these moments of dramatic dialog. Some of the weight of that error falls on the script itself, too, which is clunky.What saves the movie from being a disaster is the "monster", the titular freak. He is gradually shown in slow reveals that lead up to the inevitable unmasking and he's a well-done creature design. The makeup looks good on camera, even in spotlight, and he inspires some terror. The movie isn't afraid to shed some blood, either. Buckets full of gore are thrown around, complete with raw, torn up skin effects that look great for low budget horror. WARNING to those who may be sensitive or unwilling to push the envelope some, there is a scene about halfway through the movie that will tarnish your images of oral sex, much like Gordon does in REANIMATOR.

If there was any justice in the world, everyone would hold director Stuart Gordon in the same high regard as genre greats George Romero, John Carpenter, and Tobe Hooper. He might not have such a well recognised 'classic' in his resume as those guys (although Re-Animator comes close, I suppose), but it could be argued that the overall quality of his output has been consistently higher than these better-known horror luminaries (who, let's face it, have had their fair share of turkeys over the years).If you don't believe me, check out the director's dark fairytale Dolls, his twisted Lovecraft adaptations From Beyond and Dagon (and Re-Animator, of course), and the gritty shocker King of the Ants—all solid films worthy of a place in any self respecting horror fan's DVD collection. But better than any of those, in my humble opinion, is Castle Freak, a splendid Gothic horror that really does deliver the goods in practically every department: it's stylish, atmospheric, sexy, emotionally charged, scary, gory, and more than a little perverse, and even features the classic combo of Jeffrey Combs and Barbara Crampton amongst its cast.Combs plays John Reilly, who along with his estranged wife Susan (Crampton) and blind daughter Rebecca (played by teen hottie Jessica Dollarhide), has travelled to Europe to take up temporary residence in the 12th century castle that they have recently inherited. As John sets about writing an inventory of the castle's contents, Rebecca explores her new home, unaware that a monstrously deformed freak lies chained up in the dungeon, and he's very, very hungry...In the hands of a less daring director, this could so have been an instantly forgettable piece of cheesy B-movie hokum, but Gordon's unique, twisted approach elevates it way above your usual direct to DVD fare, and guarantees a few eye-openers along the way. Be honest, how many horror films do you know that offer full frontal shots of their creature's mutilated genitalia? And can you name more than a couple of titles that depict a woman's nipple being bitten clean off? Or have you ever seen Jeffrey Combs bury his face deep in a hooker's crotch before giving her a quick knee-trembler? I'm guessing that you answered 'no' to at least two of those questions.

I have high regard for Gordon's brand of film-making, and CF doesn't disappoint. Although it lacks the gore and special effects of Gordon's other films like Dagon and Herbert West - Reanimator. In fact, I thought that this too was based on a Lovecraft story, but came to know from the credits that this Gothic plot was penned by Gordon himself.Its difficult to decide whether CF was the oppressor or the oppressed. An individual who is manacled, castrated and left to rot in a dungeon since childhood, coupled with frequent lashing with a cat-o-nine tails, cannot hope to grow up into a normal human being. And when such a person breaks free, he is bound to create havoc, since his alienation is total, because he has no sense of right or wrong. And so it happened with CF in the film.As usual, Combs rocks, and the female characters: the prostitute, the mother and the daughter, all display their hot bodies with aplomb. The yelling of the mother got on my nerves after a while, and my only regret is that she was not ripped apart by CF.A point of confusion: Just how long was CF in the dungeon after his crazed mother died? How did he survive without food and water for so long, till Combs' family arrived? I know that its futile to search for logic in a horror film, but still..Watchable, at least once, but certainly not a collectible. And yeah, the irritating, selfish mother, most definitely deserved to be messed up a bit by CF..