One of the most pathetic and deceitful things a movie producer can do is promote his/her crap film by exploiting the name of a famous and extremely popular veteran actor and then subsequently only cast the popular veteran actor in a role that isn't much larger than a cameo appearance. Jeffrey Combs is incredibly popular among horror fans – mainly for his role of the demented Dr. West in the "Re-Animator" films – and he's one of the most regular & prominent actors active in the genre, so linking his name to a new film is guaranteed to attract more viewers. Combs' name is the first on the DVD-cover and the first one to be displayed during the opening credits, yet all together he only appears on screen for approximately three minutes of playtime in total! That's quite frustrating, especially because many people (myself included) probably feared already that "Satanic" would suck tremendously and hoped that Combs' performance would be the only worthwhile element. I just hope this isn't saying anything about Jeffrey Combs' career being in trouble or something. It's easy money, of course, but let's hope his career does not depend on paychecks like this. "Satanic" certainly isn't the worst horror film I ever saw, but it's dreadfully boring and the acting performances are incompetent beyond imagination. The basic concept of the film is somewhat intriguing, and admittedly I was pleasantly surprised by the end-twist, but the low-budget elaboration is very poor and amateurish. Following a disastrous car-accident, Michelle wakes up in a hospital and can't remember a single thing about her past and family situation. She carries around an eerie kind of Ouija-board soon suffers from nightmares in which her dead father comes to ask her bizarre questions regarding events that took place before the accident. Michelle is then moved from the hospital to a home for troubled teenagers where her tainted pas slowly gets unraveled. "Satanic" severely drags in places and none of the characters actually manages to say their lines properly. Especially James Russo and Diane Goldner are both horrible as the obnoxious owners of the Harmony House; the place where Michelle is sent after her treatment at the hospital. There's very little gore and bloodshed on display and most of the murders are incomprehensibly committed off screen. There's some hot female nudity and – as said – the denouement is admirable, but overall "Satanic" nearly isn't good or memorable enough to get a recommendation.

Very uneven lowish production values hurt, but there are some good ideas in the script and the Combs and Scrimm are fine in basically not much roles,probably lured by director Dan Golden's knowing them than by the material, though both have been in worse roles in worse movies. James Russo's part is almost as "big" but as Combs but they didn't have the guts to claim he stars in the movie. However using Combs name first on the box is exploitation in the worst sense he's barely in the movie. Scrimm has a bigger but ultimately no pay off role. Movie is about OUJA board more than anything Satanic other than the credit sequence in lava-hell landscape.So what's really bad about the movie is a slapdash editing and really crappy sound job and lousy music score that lifts a "cut to commercial" music signature bit from Charlie's Angels.Also the principal cast is pretty bad and much post production re-dubbing of voices sounds like it was done by one actor impersonating the the cast rather poorly. And if those are the actors voices, almost impossible, but if those are then the post production sound is even worse than I'm giving it "credit" for.The occasional crappy sets and pretty bad make-up further drag this down into the dumps. Some okay ideas from director Golden but usually defeated by one problem or another. But in the shameful hall of Lionsgate "pick up" movies this is for the most part not a total rip off, if you can overlook the sloppy editing. Sometimes shots linger just long enough to make you chuckle at a odd performance or a not so great effect, that would have been fine if it didn't linger.Sure it's shot on video, like everything will be soon, quality varies but there is far worse looking stuff out there, but the sound really really tries to bury this one in the ground, lousy demon voices and that music score, it's like, well how can I say, bad.

A teenage girl (who appears to be 30) is in a nasty car accident, loses her memory, and is placed in Harmony House with other "problem kids" where she begins to recall a past riddled with Satanic imagery and Ouija board fun.This film is truly awful. The opening scene is ruined by a horrible actor who reappears multiple times throughout the film, repeating the same lines (variations of "what did you do, Michelle?") and coming across as the worst actor in history. His presence, along with the way the director felt the need to splice his scenes in, really killed any hope this movie had of being good.Also, the film really drags. The same things happen over and over again. The flashbacks get on my nerves like you wouldn't believe, and even in the later parts of the film where the mystery begins to make sense, it's really stupid and tedious.I really wanted to like this film. It has horror movie legend Angus Scrimm, as well as icons Jeffrey Combs (one of my idols) and James Russo (who coincidentally also co-star in "Blackwater Valley Exorcism", see separate review). It has a shower scene and one of the hottest girls in horror history getting it on. And two teenage boys who I thought were pretty funny, arguing over a video game in what I could only describe as 1980s Atari commercial style. Yet, it fails miserably.Scrimm is okay, and Combs does fairly well as the detective (and why wouldn't he?). But neither has a role with much depth or range. Combs first appears in a scene where he has maybe two lines and 30 seconds of screen time, and I was quite worried they had used him just to put his name on the cover. While I still suspect this, at least he returned later on for another few minutes. Who are these people casting horror icons in such pointless roles?There is no reason to see this film. While not as bad as the film "Nine Lives" I subjected myself to recently, it certainly ranks as one of the most worthless of 2006. With this influx of straight-to-video horror I've been coming across lately, I expect a lot of crap... but seriously, who are the people greenlighting these projects? Is this the time for me to make a directorial debut?

This movie has it all: terrible acting, cinematography, scripting and so on. Simply painful to watch. The actors appear to be freshly from an under-funded over-acting school for over-30s who want to portray under-20s. Annie Sorell (Michelle) was particularly guilty here.Eliza Swenson obviously wants to be a great actor and apparently attempted to model her role on Angelina Jolie in Girl Interrupted. But falls miserably short, possibly because the role doesn't have much face time, but more likely a lack of talent.It was interesting to see the character "Commander Shran" from Star Trek Enterprise playing the role of detective here. Strange looking man - makes it obvious why he fits the role of blue painted alien so well. (No he isn't a blue alien here, that was his better suited role in Star Trek)There is way to much exposition; characters sitting there explaining or telling long stories when a nice little flash back or story scene would have been great. Instead we are given two mediocre unenthusiastic actors giving a recount of unnecessary detail. The editor must have been on holiday.The frights aren't frightening. The horror isn't horrible. Suspense is never built. Even the nude scenes aren't enough to save it. However this is an excellent movie for film students to see how a bad movie is made.Bleh, waste of time.