Incannerax What a waste of my time!!!

Steinesongo Too many fans seem to be blown away

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

Sarita Rafferty There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

maarck6 Saw this movie the first time in the early eighties when I saw it on the all-blackly owned channel 62 in Detroit. A channel that would show huge blocks of movies of all kinds; spirituals, westerns, sleazy horror, mysteries, black and white or color. It just didn't matter. Unfortunately, because of the generic title, this movie was lost for years. I saw it once on VHS then not again for thirty years, then not again until five years late, and now I get to see it again in an excellent print. What can I say about this supernatural slasher? British exploitation at its best with amputation, beheadings, impaling, poltergeistic activity, hypnotism, bloody murder, stabbings, garrotings, full frontal nudity, a s&m stripper, immolation by fire, beautiful English babes, a trans-generational curse, a levitating car, a plot with as much logic as anything by Dario Argente, stiff and bad acting, and Tricia Walsh as a ginger haired ditz who manages to steal every scene she's in. Ghod, what more can you want? Should be taught in film schools. Eight stars because I've never been less than entertained by this movie. A good double feature with Superstition.

BA_Harrison Norman J. Warren was a leading figure in the New Wave of British Horror during the 70s; along with fellow schlock-meisters Pete Walker and Alan Birkinshaw, he was instrumental in pushing the boundaries of UK cinema in terms of gritty violence and sex. For that reason, I have always maintained a certain degree of admiration for the man, despite the fact that the majority of his films are technically shoddy efforts, suffering from muddled scripts, weak editing, poor acting, low production values, and amateurish special effects.In a lot of respects, Terror is no exception—the story makes little sense, the cast are dreadful, much of Warren's visual style is cribbed directly from Dario Argento's Suspiria, and the gore is unconvincing—but after all is said and done, this film still manages to be one of his more entertaining efforts. This is primarily thanks to the unrelenting violence—there's bloody stabbings, impalements, be-headings and mangled corpses aplenty—but it doesn't hurt that the film also features several easy-on-the-eye actresses, some gratuitous sleaze, a few silly red herrings, and loads of wonderfully dated 70s trappings (wide-lapelled suits, a yellow cortina, flares, blatant product placement for Daz, and the filming of a typically daft soft-core sexploitation flick called 'Bathtime With Brenda').Fun moments that are particularly worthy of a mention: a bear trap positioned with unbelievable accuracy; Annie Lennox's ugly twin performing an S&M strip-tease for a man with a huge nose; Peter 'Chewbacca' Mayhew unwittingly terrorising the film's heroine before uttering the immortal line "You want a mechanic?"; aspiring actress Viv (Tricia Walsh) unable to distinguish between red paint and blood (even when it's all over her face); and tasty bit of skirt Carol (Blake's 7 hottie Glynis Barber in her first screen role) doing nothing to help the blonde stereotype by locking herself in a shed full of tools when chased by a psycho killer, but failing to arm herself before making a break for it.

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!"