Il killer della notte

Night School (1981) Genre: Horror Sub Genre: Slasher Thriller

Night School is an excellent slasher film, with a lot of things to recommend. This is one nasty film, with a lot of well done, very unsettling kills and setups. The main score is nicely done, but the kill track combined with the kills, is extremely effective. It certainly makes you sit up and take notice, as does the unnerving presence of the killer with the black motorcycle helmet. Very, very unsettling. All I'll say is, I'll never look at Daft Punk in the same way again... *Screams in terror

Night School is best described as a serial killer thriller with slasher movie and horror elements. The plot revolves around a kill spree of local women being beheaded and the police are on the case to stop it at all costs. Nothing new here you may say, but how it's done is what really sets Night School apart from the competition.

As said, what makes this such a successful slasher in my opinion, is how well the shots are done. There is plenty of build up and suspense, a whodunnit angle and a great twist. The atmosphere running through Night School is creepy with a capital C. By far one of the best slashers films I've seen.

What is particularly impressive, is the original elements this film has. The main score which takes you into the film already lets you know, this isn't going to be just another rubbish samey slasher film. There is an element of class and craft here, completely devoid in many of the other slasher films. I am largely surprised I haven't heard more of this film, as Night School is that effective in what it does well, it deserves more acclaim. Totally ignore the 5.5 rating on here, Night School is a far more accomplished slasher movie than many have given it credit for.

Night School uses suspense extremely well and the kills and setups are memorable. Night School gets a very well deserved 7 rating and is highly recommended to horror and slasher film fans.

Ranking: 7/10

#FilmReview #FilmReviews #NightSchool #NightSchool1981

RATING SYSTEM:

10) Untouchable - Marry me 9) Excellent 8) Great 7) Good 6) Average 5) Bad 4) Very Bad 3) Irredeemably Bad 2) An abomination 1) WTAF have you done?

This really is somewhat of a hidden gem among slashers, which as you will know if you are a slasher aficionado, is a valuable find. I went into Night School not really expecting much for some reason. Well, I say 'for some reason', but let's face it- even if you are a hardcore slasher and/or horror fan, you can't deny the fact that most of these films can be unoriginal at best and downright trash more often than you'd like to admit. Especially 80's slashers, i'm sad to say. But every so often in our sojourns we find a pleasant surprise that makes the hours spent watching awful movies worthwhile. Night School is one of those movies. This film, while really not too original, is still head and shoulders above most of its peers. Beholden more to the Italian giallo of the decade before than its Halloween inspired contemporaries, Night School makes up for what it lacks in plot with atmosphere and campy situations and dialogue. I say campy, but I mean campy in the way that films such as Suspiria or even Friday the 13th were campy; the dialogue can be peculiar and silly but it contributes to an overall sense of dream logic. The London setting also adds to the overall atmosphere. In conclusion this film is a good (but not great) one by my standards, but don't go into expecting a typical 80's cheesy slasher. I enjoyed it once and I'd probably enjoy it again; I'd say it's definitely worth a re-watch. Oh and as a little side note all of that talk about anthropology and ancient cultures practicing beheading and cannibalism gave me an intense urge to watch Fulci's Zombi 2 again... seek it out and watch it if you can get your hands on it, that one is highly recommended if you like Italian cannibal exploitation films.

It took me quite some time to find this pre-cert copy of TERROR EYES mainly due to the fact that it never got re-released after being thought a little too gruesome to be suitable viewing material and therefore it was banned in the United Kingdom way back in the early eighties. Surprisingly enough Kenneth Hughes directed it, which came as a real shock because his greatest cinematic conquest prior to this was the children's classic CHITTY, CHITTY, BANG, BANG! Here in his last movie before his demise in 2001, he attempts to join the ranks of Hitchcock and Carpenter and create a harrowing portrayal of a city in fear from a psychopathic headhunting assassin. But does he succeed in jumping from one end of the movie chain to the other without getting a little confused in-between?

It's all set in Boston, around ‘Wendell College', a suspicious night school where it seems a sadistic and ruthless butcher is targeting a number of the students for headless (!) assassination. Lieutenant Judd Austin (Leonard Mann) is put on the case and finds a prime suspect in professor Millet (Drew Snyder), a flirtatious anthropology lecturer who seems to have quite an interest in the young attractive female co-ed's extra curricular activities! However the police are left with no clues and no witnesses to each bizarre murder and find themselves struggling to come to terms with the fact that they are dealing with an extremely intelligent serial killer. Before long decapitated bodies begin to turn up all over town and Judd realises he must do everything in his power to stop this deranged butcher from striking again…

I'm having trouble finding out when this was actually released. The Roman numerals on the cover of my print state a production date of 1979, the IMDB say it was 1981 and the ‘All Movie Guide' reckon 1980? At a guess I'd say '81 but I may well be wrong. I'll do my best to try and find out more…

Unlike many of the genre films from this period, this manages not to imitate HALLOWEEN too much, but instead owes more to Italian Giallo movies and Hitchcock's PSYCHO. Hughes makes us well aware of his love for the later by including a remake of the notorious shower scene from that movie. Here Rachel Ward is washing, when all of a sudden in the background the door opens and through the curtain we see a silhouetted figure creeping up on her. It's effective in showing us that the director was well aware that he was making a slasher movie and he enjoyed using the obvious clichés that were apparent even that early in the cycle. You immediately notice that the guy behind the lense is a man with an experienced past, it's competently shot and surprisingly well budgeted. He also manages to pile on some suspense in a number of scenes, my favourite being the aftermath of the brutal murder of a female café waitress. The next day the owner turns up to find his restaurant in a mess. We already know by viewing the first two murders that the killer submerges the decapitated heads of his victims in the nearest pool of water, so we're already expecting him to find a shocking sight somewhere or other! As he begins clearing up the tables and chairs, two builders arrive and ask him to heat up some food for them. He places a large saucepan on the hob, which is filled with stew and warms them up a snack. They tuck in, and one of them finds a hair in his bowl! By now you're cringing thinking surely it wasn't in there…was it? The chef continues chatting and pours the remainders of the pan down the sink. You're on the edge of your seat expecting to see a blood-splashed head roll out at any minute! I wont tell you what happens, but the tension it creates is excellent.

The bogeyman has got to be one of the most violent slayers that I have ever seen. He repeatedly slashes his victims with a large machete before beheading them. In one bit, he cuts one unlucky girl to shreds, splashing pints of her blood all over the clear white walls as he goes! This must've been the scene that helped get the film added to the video nasties list and I can see why, it's one of the most disturbing things I've ever witnessed in a horror film. (The CHITTY, CHITTY, BANG, BANG similarities were wearing pretty thin by now!) He looks pretty creepy too, in shiny black motorcycle leathers and tinted helmet to conceal his identity. There are some genuinely macabre moments on show, including him dragging his machete along a wire fence creating an eerie clanking sound and one unlucky teen finding a gory head in her toilet! It's also worth noting that Dario Argento lifted a number of parts from this for arguably his greatest ever feature TENEBRAE from 1982. This is most evident at the beginning, when the demented worker guy follows Rachel Ward's character home from the café. It's almost identical to an early scene in Argento's flick, right up to the dog jumping up and barking at a wire fence! That in it's self is a huge compliment for any director.

Sadly though, what really came close to being an unsurpassed classic is let down by poor cinematic balancing. Though the murder scenes are brutal, effective and brinking on the verge of ingenious sleaziness, the rest of the runtime feels sloppy and meritless with some comically inept scripting and dialogue. There's no real plot twist at the end and the butcher's identity is far too easy to solve, offering no challenge for all the junior Agatha Christies among us! The general acting is also mediocre especially from Ward who doesn't manage to excel herself in her first silver screen role. She certainly had the looks, but all the charisma of a dead fish! I'm afraid that these minor problems prevent TERROR EYES from shinning as much as it could have done and it's a real shame.

The net result is an above average thriller with some interesting ideas and some chillingly effective set pieces. Unfortunately it falls slightly short of true greatness and fails to live up to its at times all too sleazy surroundings. However, it still comes highly recommended to any slasher follower as a neat example of the genre's peak period and many a horror fan will find fulfilment in the brutality of the demented bogeyman. It's not bad, but just at times a bit of a disappointment

Probably best recognised for being the debut feature for of the ravishing British actress Rachel Ward, but "Night School" deserves a little more credit for that lone reason. I wasn't expecting it be as good it was, but while it's your by-the-numbers mystery psycho slasher it managed to resourcefully up the suspense and intrigue in some well presented set-pieces. The usual revelation behind it all doesn't come as much as a surprise (where we seem to be quite ahead of the clueless detective/s scratching their heads), along with the second twist (which is even more foreseeable), but then it ends with a neat final one which seems to be a mock send-up of the typical shock closing. "Don't you ever take your job seriously". I'm kind of surprised by its middling to poor reputation, as I found it more than competent than its 80s crop. Good atmospheric, authentic locations are masterfully framed by cinematographer Mark Irwin. His expressively flowing camera stages some inventive frames and effectively helps building up the tension before the initial shock. He films the ominous looking killer (decked in black leather and bike helmet) quite well. Director Ken Hughes' slick touch lets it flow, nailing the terrorising tension with a real sting to its tail. Hughes style kind of reminded me off Hitchcock, but the modern unpleasantness is evident (slicing and dicing with ritual decapitation on mind, but little is seen) and lurking within is a sneering sleazy undertone. The black and white story remains interesting, due to the solid performances (Leonard Mann, Drew Snyder, Rachel Ward and an amusing Joseph R. Sicari) and particularly sharp script. Brad Fiedel composes the score in an understated manner, but it eerily works. A modest psycho slasher offering.

An excellent slasher/whodunnit you might not have heard about.Brutal killings,attractive women.attractive men,big knife,Freudian Symbolism,shower scene and red herrings.Even a surprise ending,although one that is a bit out of place especially compared to the rest of the movie.It's all there.So how come Night School isn't a more popular title? Your guess is as good as mine. But it could be that it has to do with the relatively late release on DVD. The pacing is a little uneven at times which does hurt the tension slightly. And the ending could be considered unsatisfying.It's one you will see coming and at the same time not at all. Very inventive I have to say although like I said earlier a bit out of tune with the movie overall. Honestly,I had fun watching since it does most things right.And to see Rachel Ward's bottom in all it's glory can't be that bad,now is it?