Watch Boardinghouse For Free

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

A fancy abode that was closed down in the wake of a series of murders gets reopened as a boardinghouse by clairvoyant Jim Royce (the supremely sleazy John Wintergate). Pretty soon the killings begin anew.Man, does this hilariously horrendous honey possess all the right wrong stuff to qualify as a real four-star stinkeroonie: Hopelessly all-thumbs (mis)direction by Wintergate (who also wrote the talky drawn out script), lousy acting from a lame no-name cast, tacky gore, a plodding pace, shoddy (far from) special effects, a redundant hum'n'shiver synthesizer score that sounds like it was culled from third-rate John Carpenter outtakes, a meandering narrative, fuzzy'n'ugly shot-on-cheap-video cinematography, cheesy computer graphics, clumsily staged murder set pieces, and such stock characters as a creepy 'Nam vet gardener and a painfully unfunny comic relief drunk. On the tasty trashy plus side, several foxy babes bare their hot bodies with pleasing regularity. An absolute schlocky hoot and a half.

Boardinghouse (which calls itself a horror movie, though that's true in a bad way) is just plain bad. Bad in a way I don't like. Like the all-time horrible classic "Manos: The Hands of Fate," this movie has almost no coherent plot other than the title haunted house itself. Unlike the latter, this movie makes slightly more sense.To me, the "horror" in this movie was so artificial that it was comical instead of frightening. There's a scene with a brunette sitting on her bed and a frightening-looking hand reaches out to grab her. In the chest area, of course! But a careful observation will show an uncovered human arm attached to said frightening-looking hand. This movie is full of such.Basically, what this movie is is a lot of naked women and a lot of fake blood without any sense of timing or structure or even artistic thought. The director (who also starred, etc.) cuts scenes far too early and it's hard at times to keep track. But that's not the point.If you like a lot of young naked women and fake blood, then this is for you. Otherwise, there's plenty of far more graphic horror movies that are easier to follow and enjoy. I only recommend this movie for those who find such horror hilarious. Otherwise, skip this one.

This movie is not just truly awful, but its also historically significant in its awfulness because it was the first shot-on-video horror movie and as such actually contributed to the slow decline of the low-budget horror genre. Let me explain. By the early 80's the traditional venues of horror movies--drive-in theaters and inner-city grindhouses--were disappearing. These movies SHOULD have dominated the emerging video rental market, but this didn't happen and one reason was that a lot of unscrupulous individuals said to themselves, hey, if they're going straight to video why bother shooting on film, using professional actors, or having and kind of production values when we can just take a camcorder out in the backyard? It worked for porno right? Never mind that it was impossible to create any kind of horror atmosphere on 80's video. Never mind that fake blood looks a lot more fake on video than the, uh, real bodily fluids spilled in porno movies. Never mind that horror fans are infinitely more discriminating than porn enthusiasts (you don't see anyone shelling out $30 for the widescreen special edition of "Jenna Jameson Does Everybody" or some other obscure porn title do you?) The result was that unsuspecting horror fans who got stuck with amateurish shot-on-video crap like this more than once simply quit taking a chance on renting obscure horror titles on video and the whole market (and genre) eventually went south.OK, this movie is slightly better than other contemporary SOV crap like "Blood Cult" (a rip-off of "Blood Feast" which makes the latter look like "Citizen Kane") or "Stuff Stephanie in the Incinerator (which made me want to stuff Troma's Lloyd Kaufman and Michael Herz in the incinerator after I rented it). It at least has a lot of nudity in it unlike those other two titles, but if you want SOV nudity, rent a porno movie for christsake. I can honestly say that not only could I make a better horror movie than this, but I HAVE made a better horror movie than this (sans the naked chicks)with my friends and my dad's camcorder back in high school. But I had the common decency not try to sell it to people it as a REAL horror movie. Total garbage. Avoid it like a social disease.

Surprisingly watchable shot-on-video horror flick about mysterious happenings at a boardinghouse where people have been dying in various OMEN-like ways. Enter a psychic dude who takes up residence at the place and all hell breaks loose.Apparently made by people who usually produced porn but decided to try their hand at horror for a change, and it shows.Nothing about this movie is anywhere near "good", but the filmmakers show a sort of mischievous enthusiasm for their work, and two or three scenes deliver on an amusingly adolescent level.Basically, it's a showcase for some second-rate gore effects which are preceded by a William Castle-like gimmick consisting of a flashing neon image and an electronic zinger sound. Yes, it's extremely dumb, but at least it's never boring, and it's far more entertaining than other straight-to-video crap such as BLOOD CULT and THE RIPPER.