Nightmare Man

A woman is haunted by a "nightmare man" who fills her dreams with terror. When her medication runs out, Nightmare Man seemingly escapes her subconscious and enters the physical world. Hiding out in a secluded cottage (along with Tiffany Shepis and friends), she tries to stop the monster, but carnage ensues... can the beast be stopped without hurting the woman who carries him?

I really wanted to see this film for the Tiffany Shepis acting (and nudity) as well as the Rolfe Kanefsky writing and directing. Full disclosure: as part of my work as a reviewer, I have talked with both Tiffany and Rolfe and continue to exchange mail with Rolfe on occasion. So I'm a little biased, and I was more than eager to see this film (which in all honesty should have been released over a year ago).

What we have here is Kanefsky's trademarks. Good-looking girls in various stages of undress, holding rather large weapons (in this case a rifle and a crossbow). There's some sexual suggestive situations ("erotic truth or dare") and a killer demon on the loose. Unlike "The Hazing" with the excessive "Evil Dead" references, this one seems largely unique. I've heard it compared to "The Exorcist" (which is an amazing stretch), and there is one subtle and one not to subtle reference to Kanefsky's earlier film "There's Nothing Out There".

What is bothersome about Rolfe's movies is how he has big ideas but small budgets. His writing is much better than the average horror writer's and his directing is quite exquisite (as my friend Hannah keenly pointed out, he has that 1980s sense of where to put the camera while chasing a girl through the woods). And his special effects and gore are pretty decent. Even the acting is above average (Shepis in particular, but no one here was lacking -- which is more than I can say about other, "bigger" films).

This comes off as bothersome because if you're a film snob or don't have the patience for lower budget films, you'll be really turned off my the film quality. I don't know film grades (35mm? Super 8? These terms are familiar to me but unclear at the same time), so I can't say what he uses, but it does give the air of less than the Hollywood standard. Which, in turn, screams "amateur" to some people, despite Rolfe being quite the veteran of film and horror in particular. His "Hazing" makes him well-known in the cult circles -- he's without a doubt the biggest director in the 2007 After Dark Horrorfest lineup.

So anyway, the film is enjoyable if you don't mind that. Good death scenes, plenty of dry humor, some butts and breasts for the guys to enjoy. Blood, blood, blood (and even a little gore and pieces of dangling flesh). The pacing is good. I found some parts too slow or too long, but Hannah says the suspense was really well done compared to films her and I have seen lately, so I suppose it depends what pace you're ready for. Maybe I needed a beer (Regal Cinemas is lacking in the booze department).

Of the four films I've seen so far this year, I'm ranking "Nightmare Man" my second favorite (behind "Tooth and Nail"). It's worth seeing in the theater if you can get there, or otherwise I sincerely hope you make it a top renting priority when it comes out. Throw on a few special features on the DVD and this may even be worth owning (a commentary track, Rolfe? Could you do that for us?). But yeah, I give this one two thumbs up (assuming Hannah allows me to borrow her thumb).

I have to say, I have never walked out of a movie before. I've seen some pretty crap movies, too, but I stick around and watch them, and then laugh later.

I can only say that this movie was so horrible (perhaps the reason it made it into the Horrorfest line up, because it was so terrible as to be horrifying?), that I was insulted by it. Heralding back to the days of cheesy 80's horror, this was by far even worse than those amusing flicks.

Bad acting, horrible effects and makeup, terrible filming, irritating music...did I mention the bad acting? There's a place for movies like this...it's called Blockbuster, where you spend $3 to go home and be disappointed. My wife and I spent over $20 on this one movie to end up walking out, it was atrocious.

To the people in charge of selecting the Horrorfest lineup...please bother to pick something a bit more worth our time and money. More selections like this in the future will only land you crappy reviews and less ticket sales. Try living up to at least SOME kind of standards.

To those of you that got through the entire movie, bravo! You have more stamina than I...we seriously had to leave, or I might have hurt myself laughing.

I had heard some good things about this Horrorfest film so I decided to give it a shot. I had fun with some parts of it but it's mostly an annoying, typical slasher mess. This is the only film of the 2007 Horrorfest I've seen but I'll probably be checking out the others as well. Though, they're usually pretty bad, to be honest.

The acting was okay, I guess but Tiffany Shepis' character was so extremely annoying that her performance alone could have ruined the whole movie. However, a lot of things did. The script is terrible, I am so tired of "trapped in a cabin in the middle of the woods with a killer on the loose" films. There was also very little suspense whatsoever. One thing I liked was the blood, it seems like a throw back to low budget horror of the 70's and 80's and that made me happy. Unfortunately, it was pretty much the only thing.

If you decide to see this, see it for the blood alone and expect nothing else. It truly is a tedious film that does absolutely nothing we haven't seen a million times before.

Not as wacky/off-kilter as some of his other stuff, but a decent low budget slasher/demon/cabin in the woods tale. I liked that the kid had a There's Nothing Out There t-shirt -- That's self-referential, to a self-referential movie, before there was such a thing as a self-referential horror movie (Have I lost you? I'm referring to There's Nothing Out There, 1991). I got a headache thinking about it. What is it with people complaining about sex and nudity in a B-horror movie? Tiffany Shepis is in this one. She's going to get naked. It's a given. Sheesh, how PC do you have to be to complain about sexual content in a genre flick?

Really, the only reason I rate this film so high (and 4 out of 10 isn't exactly a good rating) is because of the fine buttocks and overall body of Tiffany Shepis. Although her hair looks like crap in this movie. I'm a big fan if Ms. Shepis, so she is the only reason to even attempt to watch this movie. Oh, and there is the discussion of a lesbian tryst between the two female leads, but do we get to see any of that? No, and that sucks.

The only other possible positive thing I could say about this movie is that sometimes, some scenes build tension well, but thats it. In horror movies like this it doesn't matter who the actors are, they can be the greatest actors in the universe and they will still suck, and this movie is no exception.

The first half of this movie is horribly s l o w!!!! It takes forever before anyone gets killed, and all the annoying exposition spells out the whole movie, well except for the plot twist in the third act.

By far the worst actor is the husband of the crazy women. Apparently, he styles himself as kind of an Antonio Banderas type of person. What he obviously is a ridiculous looser in a bad horror movie. Man does he sound stupid every time he opens his mouth! The guy who plays Tifanny Shepis' boyfriend is also a moron. The way he gets killed is great, and I hope to never see him in another movie ever again.

There is an attempt at an actual plot in Nightmare Man, and thats kind of refreshing for these types of horror movies, but then again, it really isn't that great - the special effects are at about the level they had in 1985. But overall I did enjoy the gore, right when I was getting sick of this stupid movie, someone would get an arrow through the face and that made up for it. Still, Rolfe Kanefsky should never make a movie ever again. How do people like him find the will and money to continue? Rolfe, Uwe Boll and Ulli Lommel form the triumvirate of the worst filmmakers of the 21st century. All three of them apparently have tons of money to waste of awful movies that should have never been made. There are so many other worthwhile places in the world their time and money could go. I would say talents as well, but its clear that they are 100% talent-free.