Nightmares

This is a rather strange early Australian attempt to ape the American slasher films, but it is only really interesting in the places where it deviates from them. It's one of a small number of slasher films that is set in a theater during a theatrical production, which not only provides a good setting, but also a lot of very worthy victims (theater actors, directors, critics, etc.) as well as a very believable reason why no one notices the initial disappearances (theater people being as self-absorbed and narcissistic as they get). Unfortunately, the back story is very lame, involving a young acting ingenue (Jenny Neumann) with a vague, troubled past (her mother died in a car accident after a sexual tryst). When she is cast in a new theater production, people start being brutally murdered. So who is the killer? Unfortunately, it's probably EXACTLY who you think it is.

The director of this movie was an unknown (at least outside Australia), but the co-writer/co-producer Collin Eggleston gave the world both the idiotic sex film "Fantasm Comes Again" and underrated nature-gone-amok thriller "Long Weekend". Jenny Neumann also appeared in American slasher semi-classic "Hell Night" where she played the English girl (you know, the one who WASN'T Linda Blair)who spends her entire screen time in bed with a guy without ever actually taking off her underwear. Regrettably, she doesn't get naked here either, but pretty much everyone else does. This movie stands apart from the rest of the slasher films in the sheer gratuitousness of its gratuitous nudity, including a LONG scene where one corpulent Aussie lass is chased butt-naked out of the theater and into the street by the killer. In this respect the movie kind of resembles Pete Walkers sexploitation/early slasher film "The Flesh and Blood Show", but it's not a patch on that one.

The film also compares pretty unfavorably with Michel Soavi's film "Stage Fright" with which it is often confused, and a lot of the decent, if micro-budgeted, horror films being made Down Under in the late 70's/early 80's. On the plus side, it's a lot better than "Cut" and some of the crap that has been seeping out of the country more recently. See it if you can find it, but don't go out of your way.

Heavy on style and wacky P.O.V. shots, but very low on anything resembling a cohesive story. We're essentially told who the killer is from the start of the film, but the script tries to pretend like we don't know and keep it a mystery, but it's so obvious that it makes you wish they'd just throw any mystery out the table and just show the killer as they're doing their slashing instead of filming nearly all the murders in P.O.V. mode.

"Nightmares" is a dire, tedious and dirty attempt at a slasher movie that can't even be bothered with a twist in the tail.

The only thing - absolutely the only thing - that you'll remember about this movie is the sex. It has more of that than probably any slasher movie I've seen, and it's quite graphic, including a close up shot of a man's hand mauling a woman's pudenda.

Aside from this nothing in the movie connects because it is so stupid and absurd. The 'action' is set around a play where people keep getting murdered. All of the killings happen from POV shots except for when the killer raises the murder weapon - a shard of glass - in the air. More than once they kill their victims two at a time, so why isn't there any attempt to fight back? They scream, recoil, and get slashed up. Blood goes everywhere, but the killings are not particularly graphic. The budget went on actors willing to get naked, it seems, and allowed no room for visible wounds, so all we end up with is fake blood smeared on naked bodies.

I could hardly wait for this movie to be over, so I contemplated things like how the play could continue while its cast of only five people is already missing two actors, at least one of which has been discovered murdered in the theatre itself. The effort to find the killer is so lax that detectives allow the other cast and director into the crime scene so that they can watch from the seats as they go about their job of questioning one of the actors, and then disappear from the movie permanently so that subsequent performances can happen, minus the actor who got killed. Presumably the public has heard about the murder. Why are they so keen to enter the theatre where someone was brutally murdered yesterday and no one knows who did it?

This is the kind of movie where people take a long time to die from POV shots so that we can see them scream, get slashed up, run away, get chased, continue to get slashed up... but then other characters die immediately from one stab if they happen to be in a crowded place so that no one around can tell they've been killed. It's as though the filmmakers realise no one who watches such a movie will care enough to notice such inconsistencies and unrealities. Or perhaps they think the audience isn't bright enough to get it.

The existence of such a movie, therefore, is an insult to anyone who has to sit through it, on top of everything else.

I don't know why, but this one is a guilty pleasure for me. It's bad edited, the make-up FX are weak, the actings are cartoonish, but it simply works for me. I guess I like to think about what this movie's plot could've been with a bigger budget and a better writer.

I certainly didn't have very high expectations and I still was disappointed. Production wise pretty good, actors were not bad, the plot wasn't any worse than in any other movies of the kind, but.... no. It was tiresome to watch through, waiting for anything at all to redeem this movie, but ... no, nothing really. Only psycho sexual slasher thriller cliches used a million times already in the early 80's, following unoriginal plot to the uninteresting end. Even the nudity and sex was was boring, and though I had hoped Brian May score would've been interesting, even that was unfortunately generic and merely ok.