Terror (1979)

Terrible or Terrifying? This low budget thriller is brought to us from small-time exploitation king Norman J. Warren, the man responsible for such extreme British classics as SATAN'S SLAVE and INSEMINOID. What little plot the film contains is soon ditched as it becomes just another string of gory murders, but on the plus side the film does manage to evoke some scenes of fear and fright.It's strange how much low budget work (take The Texas Chain Saw Massacre for example) manages to be a lot more terrifying than big budget blockbusters, such as recent debacle of THE HAUNTING. Perhaps it's the increased realism of this budgetary-challenged films, which lack the glossiness and shininess of the latest Hollywood release, factors which distance those films from the viewers. TERROR is a hard, depressingly realistic film, where events are played out among sleazy pornography films and characters shout and swear at each other just for the sake of it.The film begins promisingly with a mini-movie, which, like the beginning of Hammer's VAMPIRE CIRCUS, is quite simply brilliant. It shows a witch burning and then returning from the grave to gorily dispatch members of a family. After this a bloody murder ensues, and the film becomes part murder-mystery, but it soon becomes clear that supernatural forces are at work and we are left to sit back and watch the relentless bloodshed. The unknown cast (see if you can spot Sarah Keller from THE BEYOND) all perform well.Most of the murders are imaginative, well-staged and definitely not for the squeamish. One man has a camera crush his head, a woman is stabbed many times and impaled against a tree. A man has his neck slit with broken glass (this film obviously inspired the makers of GHOST) while another girl is bloodily dispatched on a stairway. There is no happy ending here, no release from the deaths. Just murder and mayhem. And yes, the film is scary in places, conjuring the fear of the power of the unknown in much the same way as THE EXORCIST did, using the blood to sicken and repulse the viewer and make him/her beg for release from the horror. On these counts, TERROR is a minor success for the director, little seen and even less heard about, but succeeding well in disturbing the viewer.

Right, so at first I was quite intrigued by this film. The beginning was a bit overdone and campy, but looked promising...B movie promising, that is. Then comes the realization that the beginning scenes are in fact a movie within a movie. Cue the ACTUAL movie. It seems as though the film maker is the descendant of the woman killed by the witch in the film we've just 'watched'. I was slightly intrigued again as this character was played by John Nolan, who I had just seen in an episode of Thriller, In The Footsteps of a Dead Man, from four years earlier which was quite good. Unfortunately, Terror just didn't live up to my hopes. The plot of the family curse by a witch is an old one and, while done well, can make a hell of a film, wasn't done in a convincing manner here in my opinion. The victims of the 'family' curse were mostly random bit players in the film not the 'descendants' who were supposedly 'cursed'. The deaths were nice and gory if you like that sort of thing. Unfortunately I generally don't unless the film is amazing and the gruesome deaths relevant...here, it's not and they aren't. There are many many scenes that just seem to go on for far too long in this film leaving you thinking, "Is this actually GOING somewhere or were they just padding the heck out of this movie?". The answer every time was, "No." and "Yes.", respectively. Then we get to the end...errr, the second 'end'. Literally, left me saying, "That's it? Really? That's the end? Really????

In the case of most independent movies we should always remain aware of the restrictions that a low budget creates. In the case of 'Terror', the main restriction involves lack of acting talent. Other than a couple of 'Doctor Who' regulars (Michael Craze & William Russell) and future 'Blake's 7' & 'Dempsey & Makepeace' star Glynis Barber, this is a film full of performers coming from nowhere and travelling towards similar territory. Oh, I forgot about Peter Mayhew, but then we're used to seeing him as a giant walking carpet in the 'Star Wars' series! Here is a rare opportunity to see the man behind the Chewbacca mask. HOWEVER, the lack of quality actors is the only drawback in a film that manages to be creepy, gory and visually stunning, marking it as one of the last great British horror films. Norman J. Warren was a director with flair and imagination and we can't blame him if he was shackled by low budgets. Here he offers an impressive homage to European shockmeister Dario Argento and the whole point of the film is that a malevolent evil force swoops randomly, creating tense moments and leaving the viewer unsettled. Some of the greatest moments in 'Terror' focus on the unexpected - and in original ways; sometimes the expected shock arrives, sometimes an innocent occurrence creates just as dramatic a twist. In closing, I would comment that too many people seem hypnotised by big budget flashiness. Sure, that kind of film has its place in cinema, but I wouldn't miss the quirkiness and unpredictability of a good low-budget film and this film is one of the best. Nice one, Norman!

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!"