Cauchemars à Daytona Beach

The infamy of "Nightmare" no doubt largely centers on the fact that the film's distributor faced prison time for refusing to cut down one scene from the film for its release in the United Kingdom. I mean, after all, how many horror films have that under their belt? The plot follows a disturbed schizophrenic who escapes from his experimental psychiatric hospital in New York City and heads down the coast to Florida, where his wife and children reside, killing along the way before making an attempt at his final hometown hurrah.

With "Halloween" and "Maniac" being obvious influences here, "Nightmare" feels much more like a '70s picture than it does a product of the '80s, and its confluence of influences might be precisely why. The film's formula is fairly straightforward, although its subject matter is remarkably dark, insofar as it has to do with a man who can't help but want to slaughter his own children— it's a macabre affair all around, and the grindhouse aesthetic only bolsters the film's sinister tone. It's part slasher film and part psychosexual thriller, with leading man Baird Stafford playing the villain who's entire distorted existence seems to hinge on his childhood experience of witnessing his father's affair (and subsequently slaughtering both parties in their bed). The film does meander a bit between the realms of dramatic thriller and splatter epic, but it's an engaging watch none the less.

I'd be lying if I said that the real attraction here for most people is the remarkable gore effects, which were controversially credited as being the work of Tom Savini— turns out Savini was apparently just a friend of the effects director and didn't actually work on the film, but regardless, the film showcases a plethora of elaborate murders with some remarkably nasty special effects; throats are slashed, people are stabbed, and heads roll, and Romano Scavolini makes sure his audience has front row closeups to all the nitty gritty details. The special effects work, though dated in some regards, is still surprisingly effective.

Overall, "Nightmare" is a deserved cult classic that would appear to have come from the drive-in era of the late '70s; despite the fact that the film was made in the following decade, it retains a gritty exploitation feel in which violence is the central spectacle. Like I said, it's a dark movie— and a gratuitously violent one. It's the kind of thing you watch and then want to shower after. Like after a humid Florida evening, the film leaves you feeling slightly grimy, but that's what it sets out to do from the first reel. 7/10.

Trying to bring the Italian giallo genre into the then-popular American slasher genre, Nightmare is a half-clever attempt. Those two extremes don't seem like a good fit, with the typical slash-and-hack, one-by-one structure of the slasher genre mixing a bit awkwardly with the more flamboyant, open-ended and director-focused giallo film movement. "Nightmare" isn't particularly coherent and can feel a bit half-hearted at times, but it has enough startling moments and a truly twisted (and brutal) view of sexuality to at least be interesting beyond it's initial viewing.

Often considered a Grindhouse staple, it shares the qualities of many other films of that "genre": lousy dubbing, horrid acting, completely conspicious continuity blunders, a soundtrack and film print that makes the viewer feel like their head is being held under muddy water. It's also unusually bleak and morally ambiguous for an American film, a telling sign that this was directed by an European. There's also a sense of the American-slasher puritanism, as noticed by the Killer's view of promiscious adults around him, but it's not quite as black-and-white as many of the like-minded films at the time. Largely because we're asked to look at the film's largely unseen killer with a more subjective eye.

"Nightmare" may be poorly made, although a few cat-and-mouse sequences are well-staged and engaging enough, but it's far from useless. It's cross between American DIY ethos and lavish, fetishitistic European flavoring is uneven and sloppy but always weird and alluring enough to keep you watching. The film's modest cult following is understandable.

Nightmare may not be on anyone's list as 'one-to-watch' with the abundance of new Hollywood horrors that swamp our DVD shelves and VOD highlights, most of which are barely worth the rental, but for any fan of horror, more so that of real horror from the 80's when it was about being real, then Nightmare surely still holds up as one of the most gruesome pictures of its day, and still is!

Slightly dated, but only in looks and acting, the tension and thrills behind Nightmare still stands strong complete with some infamous and disturbing FX scenes that hailed it as a video nasty back in the day, leading to its cuts by the BBFC and lack of distribution.

I'm surprised a remake hasn't already surfaced, but then again, possibly glad at the same time!

Nightmare is twisted, but with a good dose of realism to it based on certain links in the story, characters and outcome.

Well worth the watch, but most definitely not for the squeamish!

OK i'm a little rusty right now when it comes to reviews as I haven't written one in years.

I won't bother explaining the plot, courtesy of the IMDb plot profile and other users you should be able to get a rough idea about it yourself.

So lets get down to the nitty gritty. Nightmare(s) (in a damaged brain) is kind of like the horror film you watch through the eyes of a child. Remember when you were a kid and horrors weren't so much entertaining as they were (mildly) traumatising? That would give you sleepless nights for quite some time? Well nightmare is one of those films that can have that effect on you AS AN ADULT.

Imagine the original 'texas chain saw massacre' but a lot more psychological and involving children, and A lot more gore, and you get the rough idea of what this film is all about.

Now I'm a big fan of horror, I can sit through (almost) anything but I've seen this film one and a half times (the uncut version) and have had it for quite some time. And thats NOT because the film is bad, its cause its so frigging' creepy. First time was a curiosity as I'd heard so much about it and was desperate to see why it had been banned, the second (half) time was because I hadn't seen it in a while and fancied giving it a second go. I couldn't do it! It really is one of those type of horrors thats hard to sit through, its tone is so sinister and you feel almost perverted and sick and evil for just watching it, even though there are no real animal killings or anything like cannibal holocaust/ferox and it's only a movie and nothing more.

Anyways, if you like genuine, creepy, under the skin horror then this one is for you. If, however, your not a fan of the whole 'grind-house' scene, don't like films with low production values and risible acting and prefer your horror to be modern, over produced and polished, then avoid this one.

In either case its very underrated as being 'one of the scariest horror films of all time'.

A mental patient (Baird Stafford), who is troubled with horrible nightmares, has escaped from his hospital. Now on the streets he cannot help killing innocent people. But there is one family he is more than interested in and when he tries to kill them, he finds that it is not that easy.

First of all, to properly enjoy this film, you need to see a good copy of it. Although I have not seen it, the Code Red DVD is apparently the best and as clear as could be wanted. The version I watched was pretty awful, grainy and discolored. This took nothing away from the fun, but made it seem even cheaper than it needed to be.

The plot is a bit disjointed, incoherent, and the editing is not flawless. Maybe Code Red fixed this, but it is most likely just a part of the film. The plot still makes sense, but trying to figure out who all the characters are and why they matter might take a bit of work even if you pay close attention. A second viewing (or third) could not hurt.

The best thing about the film is either the gore (which is great whether or not it was done by Tom Savini) or the kid (C. J. Cooke) who plays CJ. When he faces off against the "bad guy", the whole scene is priceless and well worth the build up.

Although Romano Scavolini has been directing since the 1960s, this is his best-known title and he has never really made himself a big star from his work. Baird Stafford has only one other credit, appearing in Scavolini's war film "Dog Tags" (1985). C. J. Cooke never acted again... a real shame.