Terror

I'm a sucker for "Alien" ripoffs, so of course Norman J. Warren's cheesy 1980 homage, "Inseminoid" (a.k.a. Horror Planet), is a fave of mine.

Considering the relatively high production values of that flick, I thought I'd give the rest of his early horror movies a try. I obtained the Anchor Bay UK (R2) coffin boxset, which contains "Terror" (1978), as well as two previous horror flicks lensed by Warren ("Satan's Slave" from 1976 and "Prey" from 1977).

To give proper perspective to "Terror," I think it helps to compare it to Warren's earlier horror films in a chronological fashion.

But in case you don't feel like reading this entire post, here's the upshot: Norman J. Warren's straight-up horror films spiral downward in quality as time goes on; since "Terror" is one of his later films, it stinks the most. Sorry, but the stench cannot be covered up.

Without a doubt, Norman J. Warren started on a high note. His first full-length horror feature, "Satan's Slave" (1976), regardless of the absurd title, is a real gem of mid-70's horror (woman meets her evil uncle for the first time when her parents die in a car crash; uncle decides to use his stranded niece in a ritual to reincarnate an ancient witch). Maybe I was in a particularly receptive state when I popped it in, but it occurred to me that "Satan's Slave" was a real independent 70's gem with some poetic photography and some solid grue. It felt like "Let's Scare Jessica to Death" or even the lesser "The Legacy" at times. The film is caught somewhere between the then-dying Hammer Gothic style and the rise of contemporary horror films. Its carefully crafted and moody jazz-ensemble music, and its isolated, wintry English country manor setting make it a real fun time. They don't make them like this anymore. (And I thought I had perused every worthwhile 70's horror movie ever made. I was very grateful to be wrong.)

Then came "Prey" (a.k.a. Alien Prey, 1977). Shot in a week or two and with little money, the film has an interesting premise (alien with Wolfman Jack fangs crashes on an English country estate; he is here to scout out whether or not humans are edible). It effectively uses some claustrophobic settings, and the plot takes some well-timed twists. But it doesn't begin to stand up to the moodiness, and especially sympathy for the characters, that "Satan's Slave" generates. "Prey" is hampered by only having three players. The conversations seem to go round and round confusingly amongst the two lesbians and the disguised alien, and the tension is very on-again off-again. The film is inconsistent; it drags terribly in places; the photography seems rushed or crudely framed. And there's the infamous slo-mo drowning scene in the dirty pond--that goes on and on and on...

Then came "Terror" (1978), the absolute worst of the lot. The film (witch lays an ancient curse on a family which comes to pass as we watch) is apparently an homage to Argento's "Suspiria" (though I'd never, never be able to tell). Trust me: I live for confusing horror movies pasted together with hoary clichés, but this "film-like product" lacks basic structure. The characters are so thin that they seem to disappear when they turn sideways. I couldn't even remember their names, which is never a good sign. Scenes seem strung together at random; telegraphed red herrings abound. Nudity just thrown in...because. There is a "film within a film" motif used to some effect, but we've seen this done much better by others. The film is populated by characters we don't care about because we don't know them in the most rudimentary ways. I had no problem going to the fridge during this one.

It is interesting (indeed, fascinating) to juxtapose a gem like "Satan's Slave" against Warren's later "Terror" (which actually had a bigger budget; by that time, Warren had earned a bit of a name for himself too, but apparently that had little effect on quality). Take my word for it: "Terror" is by far the weaker film, thinner, less interesting, less nostalgic-feeling, less moody, less filling. It is, without question, the lowest point in the UK boxset.

OK, now that I've fulfilled my IMDb obligation, I can go pop the next DVD of the boxset into my player: A widescreen version of "Inseminoid!"

I'm easily pleased, a late night horror film doesn't have to make a lot of sense to keep me watching but Terror(1979) was a film I genuinely struggled to watch to the end. It opens with a home made horror film being screened and its makers tittering over it. What follows is no better and certainly no more convincing. Excruciating acting abounds as an ancient curse returns..yawn. It sums up everything that is truly awful about 70s horror films. The women in it are 'naice' girls who have clearly had little experience acting and emote their every line and show uncertainty by starting to talk, pausing and then starting again. The awful bonhomie and hipness of the male characters is equally awful. It really does make little sense either. I especially liked the part where the girl returns home and is seen washing copious amounts of blood from her hands but her flatmate, who she barely knows, doesn't think to mention this to the police. There's clearly a rational explanation of course. Another outstanding part is when a woman is chased through the woods by a man with a knife. She takes refuge in a shed which he briefly attacks. Less than a minute later she decides it is probably safe to go outside (as you would of course) and is stabbed to death in perhaps the least enthusiastic attacking scene ever put to film. In short there isn't even any comedy value to be gained from this as a bad movie, it is just dire and is one of the least interesting films I have ever seen.

From Norman J. Warren, the cult horror film director who also graced us with "Inseminoid", "Satan's Slave", and "Prey", and screenwriter David McGillivray, known for his collaborations with another cult icon, Pete Walker, comes this decent supernatural shocker that buffs consider to be something of a knock-off of Dario Argento's "Suspiria". (However, "Terror", distributed stateside by Crown International, would fare better in theatres than "Suspiria".)

Much like that Argento film, it's more about its sometimes palpable atmosphere and its various set pieces than its story. However, the story really isn't that incoherent, although it is a little thin. A filmmaker named James Garrick (John Nolan) is intent on telling his own family's macabre legacy on film; it seems that a witch had cursed his ancestors and their subsequent generations (this is related in the opening film-within-the-film). Now, a mysterious force is out to murder anybody with a connection to James.

Some of the set pieces in "Terror" are really quite good. Granted, less than patient viewers may fidget while Warren and company mark some time to prepare for getting to the good stuff. There is, at least, a delightfully naughty bit of business with the "Bathtime for Brenda" scenes. When the true horror sequences come, they truly are impressive: Suzy (Sarah Keller) having car trouble during a storm and being frightened by a creepy mechanic (Peter Mayhew, Chewbacca in the "Star Wars" franchise), Viv (Tricia Walsh, eventually to become better known for her Internet appearances) getting brutally dispatched by an unseen attacker, Philip (James Aubrey) terrorized inside a studio, and especially the experience of Ann (Carolyn Courage) while she's out in a storm and the car she's in actually levitates.

Overall, the movie IS slow at times, but redeemed by some game performances and the genuine spooky ambiance of some of its scenes. It's a good if not great movie that delivers in both suspense and gore departments. Its opening is effective, and its resolution is very much to the point: once this movie is over, it's OVER.

Seven out of 10.

British exploitation filmmaker Norman J. Warren sure knew how to lay on the gratuitous shocks -- thick and fast. On "TERROR" he doesn't disappoint. In what is definitely the most fun, I've had with a Warren film. With that in mind, his previous 1977 "PREY" would still be my favorite. It's hard not to think Warren was influenced by Dario Argento's "SUSPIRIA", in what clearly looks a crude, downbeat and cheap knockoff.

Anyhow, Warren does the best, with what's in front of him. Working with such a stringy plot where clichés form the basis. It's easy to see what we get are set-pieces looking to shock and thrill. As the build-up of those highly-charged moments (with an ominously dynamic electronic score) are far more enticing, than that of the thinly detailed dramas in between. Well, outside of a few amusing moments caught on a film-set. The actual central story involving a witch cursing the family descendents of those who burned her at the stake remains an afterthought --- almost becoming a shadow to the mean-spirited violence and nightmarish absurdity. I must say best not to delve too deep into the narrative, as making sense is the furthest thing on mind. Even the lead performances of John Nolan and Carolyn Courage are fairly po-faced, but, I guess, it's only natural when there's no escaping your foretold doom. At least there are colourful minor supports, like Glynis Barber and Elaine Ives-Cameron. Another bright inclusion was the posters of "THRILLER: A CRUEL PICTURE" (1973) and Warren's "SATAN'S SLAVE" (1976) making their way into a few shots. Sure the former poster would bring a smile to cult-fans.

Like most of Warren's presentations, pacing can be bumpy, yet his nonchalant handling, atmospheric lighting and use of authentic locations pays off. What starts slow and conventional by playing out like a slasher / giallo --- gradually begins to go off the rails when the supernatural fury of our string-pulling entity comes to the forefront, where each death madly outdoes the last. It's well worth-the-wait, as during the creative third act when the action returns to the cottage, there are some crazy stunts, like the evaluating car and maniac light-show climax.

A witch's curse causes bad things to happen to all the people involved in the production of a horror movie and the witch herself might have possessed one of its stars.

Clearly inspired by the work of Dario Argento, Terror is one of those movies where it's best to leave logic at the door and enjoy the gory set pieces and colorful lighting. It starts off slow and even frustrating since there's not a lot of plot or character development to latch on to, but something happens midway through where, if you just turn off your brain and go along for the ride, you'll have a good time.