GamerTab That was an excellent one.

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Murphy Howard I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

andrabem-2 "Terror" by Norman J. Warren is a film full of surprises. It starts in the 17th century with the persecution of a witch - she tries to escape but is caught and burnt at the stake. While she was burning, some people died. One death looked like an accident caused by carelessness, but the others had clearly been caused by supernatural forces. This is the beginning of the dying spree, and three centuries later… Three centuries later, the killings will come with double force. Many people are killed. Is it the witch or a human agent? The clues seem to point to one character in particular, but some killings are so "fantastic" that we are led to think about a supernatural agent.Anyway, I was not concerned about the plot. The film is quite inventive, and in some ways almost resembles a giallo. The preliminaries of each murder are stylish and dynamic; there are many pretty girls in the film (sure thing, Norman has really a good taste in what refers to feminine beauty), and the soundtrack is inspired and helps to enhance the film. In short, fast cameras, a good soundtrack and a bizarre and interesting way of telling the story. But one thing the film lacks – Nudity. We only once see a woman performing a show almost naked. She's ugly. And there were so many pretty girls in this film, and not even one of them… Anyway, even so, I think that "Terror" is an enjoyable film, one can say that Norman J. Warren has a very personal way of making films. Whatever you say about his films you can't deny his creativity. I've only seen three of Norman J. Warren's films – This one called "Terror", "Inseminoid" and "Prey", and all of them share this common trait – they are bizarre and addictive, so if you're looking for something different in films, check out his films.

Scott LeBrun From Norman J. Warren, the cult horror film director who also graced us with "Inseminoid", "Satan's Slave", and "Prey", and screenwriter David McGillivray, known for his collaborations with another cult icon, Pete Walker, comes this decent supernatural shocker that buffs consider to be something of a knock-off of Dario Argento's "Suspiria". (However, "Terror", distributed stateside by Crown International, would fare better in theatres than "Suspiria".) Much like "Suspiria", it's more about its sometimes palpable atmosphere and its various set pieces than its story. However, it's not that the story ISN'T coherent, if a little thin. A filmmaker named James Garrick (John Nolan) is intent on telling his own family's macabre legacy on film; it seems that a witch had cursed his ancestors and their subsequent generations (this is related in the opening film-within-the-film). Now, a mysterious force is out to murder anybody with a connection to James. Some of the set pieces in "Terror" are really quite good. Granted, less than patient viewers may fidget while Warren and company mark some time to prepare for getting to the good stuff. There is, at least, a delightfully naughty bit of business with the "Bathtime for Brenda" scenes. When the true horror sequences come, they truly are impressive: Suzy (Sarah Keller) having car trouble during a storm and being frightened by a creepy mechanic (Peter Mayhew, Chewbacca in the "Star Wars" franchise), Viv (Tricia Walsh, eventually to become better known for her Internet appearances) getting brutally dispatched by an unseen attacker, Philip (James Aubrey) terrorized inside a studio, and especially the experience of Ann (Carolyn Courage) while she's out in a storm and the car she's in even levitates. Overall, the movie IS slow at times, but redeemed by some game performances and the genuine spooky ambiance of some of its scenes. It's a good if not great movie that delivers in both suspense and gore departments. Its opening is effective, and its resolution is very much to the point: once this movie is over, it's OVER. Seven out of 10.

udar55 Film producer James Garrick (John Nolan) begins to think there is some truth in his family being cursed by a witch when a series of murders start happening in and around an actor hostel. The only person of suspicion is Ann (Carolyn Courage), his cousin and only other living relative. This was Norman J. Warren's second horror film (after 1976's SATAN'S SLAVE) and it is certainly watchable, but definitely strange. That mainly comes from the film's clumsy plot execution, with things going from slasher to supernatural at the 50 minute mark with lots of lose ends. In fact, you never find out who is responsible for the murders in the film's first half. I mean, you can take a guess, but it is never confirmed. The film does benefit from some nice country locations and some bloody murders. There is also a really impressive bit where Ann's car is lifted into the trees while she is still in it. If you have a desire to see it, definitely grab the Mill Creek GOREHOUSE GREATS collection which features it, Warren's SATAN'S SLAVE and 10 other films for cheap (I got it for $5).

wkduffy 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!"