I'm Dangerous Tonight (1990)

The Animism professor at Tiverton College finds a sacrificial cloak hidden in an ancient Aztec altar and goes on a homicidal rampage before committing suicide. Soon after, a campus co-ed (TWIN PEAKS' Madchen Amick) buys the ceremonial cloth at an estate sale and turns it into a ravishing red cocktail dress that removes sexual inhibition and triggers another murder wave before being stolen from the morgue...The intriguing premise was adapted from a short story by Cornell Woolrich and the movie has horror director Tobe Hooper as an asset but, all the same, it's rather tame and doesn't reely warrant an R rating. Anthony Perkins guest-stars as a quirky professor with an inordinate interest in the apparently inexplicable and Natalie Shafer ("Lovey" on GILLIGAN'S ISLAND) pops up as a wheelchair-bound mute a la William Castle's HOMICIDAL. Not bad, I suppose, but it could have been more with added gore.

I'm Dangerous Tonight is a functional piece of entertainment. Being a made for TV movie it is kind of bland and toothless. The blurb on the back on the case made me think it would primarily involve the Madchen Amick possessed by the evil dress for the course of the movie, sort of slowly turning her evil, kind of like Christine but with a dress instead of car. It doesn't quite work like that with the dress being worn or possessed by various different people throughout the film and turning evil to varying extents. The central premise of a dress, or a cloth that eventually gets turned into a dress, that turns those who wear it evil is one of those silly concepts that could provide cheesy entertainment and would require some really good scripting to work as a genuinely good film. I'm Dangerous Tonight does kind of try but ultimately does not succeed. There is some claptrap that is never really explored about inanimate objects being mystical focuses of belief and power, which is thrown in as an explanation for the Aztec cloak/dresses' power, which is quite forgettable. It does seem an enormous coincidence that the girl who comes into possession of the dress (No pun intended) just happens to be studying this very esoteric and specialised topic as part of her college course. There is also some stuff about the dress affecting different people in different ways, depending of their existing strength of character and their psychology etc. It isn't delved into very much, other than as an explanation as to why some people seem to turn more evil than others, but it is a fairly interesting plot idea. As it is the concept of a random object or artifact which turns people around it evil or makes weird stuff happen has been done a few times by now- I'm looking in your direction Amityville sequels.What we do get on screen is okay but nothing to write home about. Tobe 'One Trick Pony' Hooper rattles through the proceedings with a predictable lack of flair. Madchen Amick is easy to watch, especially in the red dress, and Anthony Perkins provides the best entertainment in the movie with his giggle inducing scenery chewing. His histrionics and overacting are b-movie gold. By this point in this sad and sagging career it looks like he was just having fun. R. Lee Ermey has a small but amusing role as a gruff detective. There are quite a few plot contrivances and some scenes toward the end which are very choppily handled. There is one part where our heroine wakes up after being rendered unconscious to find the situation has changed in a way that doesn't make in sense in terms of plot logic or pacing. There is also a lame twist ending that everyone will see coming from miles away.Bland, as one would expect for a made for TV movie but there is enough to at least hold your interest.

This is an unanticipatedly imaginative TV terror movie revision of Cinderella, all the more effective for being guided by the same directorial hand that gave us the unrelenting physical horrors of 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre' and 'Eaten Alive' in his 70s heyday.Amick (of Twin Peaks domestic violence 'Shelley' fame), in a standout performance is the lowly collegiate struggling to juggle her studies with the demands of caring for both her home and her decrepit grandmother, whilst her Aunt and cousin live it up night after night. Cue a reversal of fortune when she lands the job of props mistress in a production of 'Romeo and Juliet' and falls under the spell of a sensuous red cloth which, as spooky professor Perkins points out, is an original Aztec witchcraft cloak; and which she transforms into a dress, with murderous results.Clearly a waste of time for the underwritten Perkins and sad to see such a talented and perennially underused actor ill and jaded in a career on the wane, although far worse was yet to come (ie 'In The Deep Woods'). The film is also bereft of the sort of shock value that one would need to swallow the tall tale being presented at face value. Still, it does sort of work on a surprisingly engrossing level of creepy subtleness, and this is aided by a slinky visual quality and the billowing symbolism of the red dress; captured on film stock in what must have been one of the very last TV movies to be shot this way.

OK, to explain how hokey this film is, I've got to include a couple of **spoilers**. When our heroine goes home to her obviously sleazy aunt, who tells her there's no money left in her dead parents' estate, and then tells her to sew a new dress for her in two days - the story was done much better in Cinderella. You just know she's gonna wreak awful vengeance on her evil relatives, as soon as the red cloak takes over. Note to director: this was done much better by Jim Carrey in "Mask".And the "red cloak". A cheesy piece of red rayon, supposedly used by Inca priests? With great magical powers? Where'd they get this prop? Salvation Army?There were some fine actors, eg, Madchen Amick and Anthony Perkins, doing their best with this, and the opening scene wasn't too bad. But, much as I wanted to find good things about this film, it was really disappointing. I gave it a 1.