I saw this dud on Amazon Prime under the title HOTEL HELL. It's a patience-testing horror anthology containing three stories told via a paranormal investigator. The medium is the found footage format and a creepy clown which appears in one of the segments makes it onto the video cover. The first story is another boring spin on the haunted house genre, PARANORMAL ACTIVITY style; the second story is about a psycho who dresses up as a clown to revenge himself on some former bullies; the third story is about a TV crew faking some Bigfoot evidence running afoul of real evil. The running time is interminable and the intermingling stories are exceptionally poor. The very bad production values make this a struggle to sit through.

It's really not as bad considering the limitations and money these guys had. I've seen a lot worse efforts. They obviously spent more on certain stories than others which is to be expected. The connecting scenes were the worst and probably the most rushed. The sound, direction and acting leaves a lot to be desired in these segments but I'm presuming all the money and time went into the stories which I would imagine were filmed first. I admire independent film makers making a go of it with very limited options and this one gets a decent amount right albeit not on a high level.The first story is the best and was genuinely quite creepy and had a good sense of suspense and scare moments. It's wasn't a new story, but executed quite well considering. The actors were fine, apart from when she had to act a bit weird because she chose to overdo the oddness..especially with her eye-line, which when you consider they were newlyweds and knew each other pretty well, her behaviour at those moments would ring enormous alarm bells with me! It would have worked better if she was more subtle with it. The ending was a bit naff, but the substance of the overall story well executed.The second story is an well worn story of revenge, but it definitely had it's moments, especially when the 'victim' meets the bully in 'heavy breathing silence' before the act of violence. In these sorts of stories, for it to succeed you need to create a certain amount of understanding with the revenger and I thought, in the short amount of time to convey this, the writers did an OK job. The Director gave it space and pace at the right moments. The scene with the parents watching the cartoon was very good, since it encapsulated everything about them in a very short space of time and you kind of realised what sort of life he'd had with them very quickly.The third story was the weakest and I imagine they might have shot it in one day! Slap hazard and not particularly well thought out and also unrealistic. You can tell this by the way she grabbed the knife...I mean really? Also, the decisions made by certain characters were 101 of how NOT to do things when considering a discerning viewer audience.The connection to all this was the hotel. I understand the title was changed to Hotel Hell which isn't really what it is about...it's not about the hotel...the hotel is just a place used a conduit for the main character to act as a catalyst for the stories. You could argue that that is why it is a hotel of hell...because of the telling of the stories..but it just doesn't quite work. Yes, the final eiplogue to the anthology is based there but it's still not about the hotel...it's about the characters. The final scenes are disappointing and the fact the lead actor is in the final story..and very easily recognisable from that story means there isn't any surprise and it's all rather obvious. Also...bit plot hole...the videographer gets attacked by the clown....which goes against what the second story is about. It's about revenge against those who have done him wrong. The videographer hasn't done anything to him,doesn't even know him, so it doesn't really make sense. It's feels like a cheap afterthought to finish the movie.However...really not that bad an effort when all things are considered.

Now the cheap part you can expect. Horror movies are made for many reasons. One is because you can achieve making them with little money and there is a big market for them. If you also put more than one story into your movie you are bound to attract a bigger crowd. The thing is, that the whole story does not make a lot of sense. Even when it tries to tie things up at the end.It also doesn't help that you have people involved mostly that couldn't act if their life depended on it (and at least their characters life is depending on it, so fail). While it does have a couple of good scares and maybe a moment or two where it almost shines, the overall verdict is: Stay away from this. Doesn't mean that the filmmaker here may not be able to pull something off. Maybe his next movie, with better resources will show better results

I'm a fan of well-executed horror anthologies, especially the classic ones. I was hopeful for this attempt and I was willing to give it a chance (based on the other reviews). While I hate to be a naysayer and embrace negativity, I would truthfully grade this as a "C+" student film, at best. The only time a character showed any emotion instead of just reciting lines was during the third story. That just isn't good... Film-making is (very) hard work and every director has a starting point, but compelling characters and/or a decent story can make up for many shortcomings, including poor special effects and slow pacing. While this movie attempts to tie together three "vignettes" in a meaningful way, it would have fared better if the director had just plagiarized a throwaway script from a Syfy-channel reject. Rule number for any film project should be to solicit feedback from outside your immediate peers -- that would probably help cut down on the rampancy of overused movie tropes.All in all, this is a rather amateurish effort marred by clichéd dialogue, questionable casting choices, sloppy editing and poor cinematography.