It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

I have absolutely never seen anything like this movie before. You have to see this movie.

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

ASYLUM OF DARKNESS is a typical indie mix of the horror and thriller genres, low key and shot in a non-gruesome fashion. Cast-wise the only interest is Richard Hatch, who has been making dodgy films for a couple of decades or more now. The story is about a guy who wakes up in an asylum and has to quickly figure out his situation. He manages to escape but still finds himself haunted on the outside. This one goes for the psychological approach but is generally uninteresting thanks to the hackneyed plotting and infuriatingly insubstantial plotting.

Okay I am not sure what I watched and don't know if I am giving away plot spoilers. I felt like the first time I watched "Naked Lunch" after watching "Twin Peaks." Dwight Stroud (Nick Baldasare) is in an institute for the criminally insane, a patient of Dr. Shaker (Richard Hatch). We are informed Dwight used the insanity plea, but Dwight claims he is innocent while not remembering anything. He has hallucinations and is aware of the fact. He also is friends with a fellow inmate, Van Gogh (Frank Jones Jr.) who paints the future. Dwight manages to escape and oddly finds his conscientiousness in a new body, that of Artemis Finch, also someone who was committed. We are given clues, the soul is like water taking the shape of its vessel.We are told "being insane allows us to see the true reality." May take a second viewing. Not for everyone.Guide: F-word. Obscured shower sex. No nudity.

Some will not like this movie. It's allegorical in nature and requires a lot of patience. But if you're in the right frame of mind, what you end up with is a lot to chew on. My girlfriend and I had a two hour discussion on the various merits and flaws of this film. We agreed that the performances were outstanding. We thought the direction was solid as well. It kept our interest and the movie flowed in a sort of dream logic that made it a surreal experience. I've pretty much decided it's a low budget masterpiece. My girlfriend agrees, though she thinks it's flawed because of budgetary limitations. She loves the ending wherein the hero finds redemption and chooses love over madness. I just think it's a helluva interesting ride. Not sure what it means but it leaves a lot to ponder.

I haven't seen a film this strange in a while and appreciate it's attempting to be different. Does it succeed as a good movie though? Depends on what your looking for. Positives: the lead performances were all convincing for a low budget genre title. Nick Baldasare had the arduous task of portraying a person on the edge of sanity. His performance could have warped into a lot of cliché "crazy" type acting, but he made it believable. Richard Hatch also delivers the goods in one of his final roles. I thought the look of the film was also a plus and the effects, while old school, had a nice retro feel that added to the fun. The only negative was the film's length. I thought it could have been cut by 20 minutes and been a little better experience. All in all, you will like this movie if you don't need details and plot points spoon-fed to you. Expect the unexpected and enjoy!