Addict Movie Review

Written by Steve Pattee

A Bublenutz Production

My name's Eric Chasta. I'm 22. And I'm an addict. – Eric

Written and directed by Jason Patfield
2006, 30 minutes, Rated R

Jason Patfield as Eric
Ivy Patfield as Jenny Walker
Alex Gonzalez as Spanky
Tom Lodewyck as Mr. Walker


In 2004, the Syndicated Mafia moved into Dreadville (population 1,506), bringing Jax, a highly addictive drug, with it.

Eric is a Jax addict and, up until she called him and had him meet her, assumed his addiction was the reason he and his girlfriend, Jenny (Ivy Patfield) had broken up. She wanted to get clean, he didn’t.

Turns out that wasn’t the case at all. She wanted to raise their baby drug free, and couldn’t do that with Eric around. Now, she wants Eric in her and the baby’s life. But, as with most things in life, there’s a condition.

He’s got to get clean.


About four months ago, I reviewed Distraught, the first of a six-part series that takes place in the town of Dreadville. While I liked the story of Distraught, I didn’t like much else. The editing needed work, the acting was shoddy and the special effects were pretty bad. After my review, I received an e-mail from its writer/director, Jason Patfield. I have to hand it to Patfield. He was incredibly humble, thanked me for reviewing the movie and said he’d be sending me part two as soon as it was done. I have to respect that.

Addict is part two in the Dreadville series, and, admittedly, it’s a slight step up from its predecessor.

But just a slight one.

The movie suffers from many of the same problems that plagued Distraught. The editing has the same quick cuts in the same scene — meaning an actor starts walking across the street. Cut. He’s in the middle of the street. Cut. He’s across the street. In addition, there are some “wavy” scenes that didn’t quite work in Distraught. Here, they kind of work because of the nature of the film — drugs and the effect of them — but due to either the execution or the equipment, it still seems unnecessary.

Addict’s special effects are also a small step up from part one. The effects in Distraught failed miserably, for the most part. However, in Addict, they are passable, for the most part. Where they pass is when they aren’t dwelled upon, or are shot in such away where you can’t exactly see what they are, but you get the idea. Yet there is a scene in crack house where they are just bad. In the scene, a dealer is shooting up, and the makeup on his arm looks incredibly fake. And the camera does not move from his arm, which magnifies how bad it looks. Tom Savini once said something along the lines of never dwell on your effect or it loses its impact. That happens here.

On the flip side, the acting is certainly a step up (Patfield himself plays the role of the junkie, Eric) and the rest of the actors are passable — except for the kid in the crack house who rocked in the corner with a goofy grin on his face. He distracted from the scene more than anything else. But Patfield’s performance makes up for it. He isn’t stellar, but he’s more than passable and he gets it done. Sometimes that’s all you need.

What really saves this movie, though, is what made Distraught watchable. The story. Once again, Patfield has come through with a decent story that comes full circle in a believable way. On top of that, I noticed an actor in Addict that played a major role in Distraught and, after verifying it with Patfield, it’s not just the same actor, but the same character. Kudos to you, Jason, you piqued my interest.

Like Distraught, Addict is far from perfect. But the growth between the two, while small, is there. And, considering Patfield’s story-telling capabilities, I have faith he’ll continue to get better.

Video, Audio and Special Features:

Video, audio and special features will not be graded, as this is a screener.


Video: n/a
Audio: n/a
Features: n/a


Addict would be a one-star movie had I not seen Distraught. But not only did the story in Addict come back to its beginning like it did with Distraught (which is what I really liked about it), Patfield managed to tie the two movies together.

There’s a lot of potential with this series, and if Patfield concentrates more on the story, which is his biggest strength, and a little less on some of the camera tricks that distract from the viewing, it could really be something.

I’m looking forward to seeing what part three has to offer.

This page includes affiliate links where Horror DNA may receive a small commission at no extra cost to you.

Want to comment on this review? You can leave one below or head over to the Horror DNA Review Forum.



Join Us!

Hit the buttons below to follow us, you won't regret it...