Sorry, this movie sucks

Captivating movie !

A Masterpiece!

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Nightmares is one of those better horror films with an intriguing premise. Causing an accident which took the life of her mother, when she was a little girl, now an adult, the horrific visual memory, that 63 night, of seeing her mother thrown through a windscreen, at the sound of splintering glass, leads her on a series of killings, using shards of glass. Unfortunately for the whole cast of the acting troupe, she's just joined (this includes a twentyish Garry Sweet) they are to become her latest victims. Some of them meet their fate in quite gruesome ways. Some of the violence in Nightmares is sexual too, particularly an early scene, that's quite sick, and eye shocked me the first time I saw it. It involves a naked girl in a steeet, non thespian, fleeing off, after her naked lover buys it, in the lower region I might of add. The girl becomes trapped and this shard of glass rips across her breast a couple of times, where her nakedness is soon the colour of mucky red as she scrambles away, but inevitably becomes another victim to this psycho's credit. What I loved about this scene, was that it was shot if in hand held motion, but also at different angles, all from out psycho's POV. It was really quite scary, well the first time I saw. There are a couple of scary moments here and there. Nightmares doesn't have a happy outcome. The last victim (Sweet) buys it in bed, the same place he did in Macbeth, not so violently I would imagine. Yes our psycho gets away, unscathed. Let's face it, some psychos in movies do. As an end gag, we hear our female psycho stating her name again, for she is auditioning once more. Her character being a great actress, we know she's gonna win the audition, and that means a new batch of victims. Jenny Neumann is fantastic as the taunted girl, screaming and ranting to herself, and missing stage cues, while in la la land. The rest bring in so so performances, apart from Max Phipps, great as a harsh director, who me, personally as an actor, wouldn't want to have as a director, plus his ally, evil tongued critic, John Michael Howson, also great and funny too. This guy could actually act. He's also credited with the movie's idea. Not a badly made flick, and one of the better Aussie horrors, but not a great one.

Sweet, but troubled and repressed theater actress Helen Selleck (a solid and charming performance by the lovely Jenny Neumann) is still suffering from severe trauma over the horrific death of her mother that she witnessed when she was a little girl. A series of brutal stabbing murders besets the production of the latest play Helen is acting in. Director John D. Lamond and writer Collin Eggleston whip up a delightfully raw and in-your-face wired cinematic cocktail of unflinchingly graphic violence along with equally explicit quasi-pornographic sex and abundant nudity that's so blithely crass and leering that one can't help but be amused and entertained by the cheeky audacity of this seedy enterprise; this honey's unapologetic wallowing in the slimy celluloid sewer and unwavering furious energy in turn give it a deliriously seamy buzz that's an absolute sordid joy to behold. Moreover, it's acted with real zest by an able cast, with especially stand-out work from Gary Sweet as earnest and likable soap opera thespian Terry Besanko, Nina Landis as snippy, but incompetent diva Judy, John Michael Howson as acerbic gay critic Bennett Collingswood, Max Phipps as tough and exacting director George D'ahlberg, Edmund Pegge as vain hack actor Bruce, and Briony Behets as blundering stage manager Angela. Gary Wapshott's sumptuous widescreen cinematography makes neat use of titled camera angles and smooth gliding Steadicam tracking shots. Brian May's spirited shuddery score keeps things bounding along. Clocking in at a tight 80 minutes, this movie never becomes dull or overstays its welcome. However, the killer's identity is thuddingly obvious from the get-go, which alas undermines the tension to a considerable degree. That quibble aside, this one overall sizes up as a tremendous amount of infectiously sleazy fun.

This extremely weak Australian excuse for a motion picture is sort of like the Pavlov Dog Experiment amongst horror movies. You remember this famous "Conditioned Reflex" experiment from your school books, right? The Russian scientist Pavlov proved that dogs tended to salivate before the food actually came into their mouths and this through repetitive routines stimulating the animal's reflexes. Pavlov rung a bell a couple of instants before the food was delivered to the dog and, after a while, he became anxious and excited and already started salivating from hearing the sound of the bell. What the hell has this whole boring explanation in common with a sleazy and low-budgeted Aussie slasher flick, I hear you think? Well, the modus operandi of the maniacal killer in "Nightmares" is an exact variant on Pavlov's experiment. Each and every single murder sequence is preceded by the raw sound and image of the killer breaking a window, because he/she insists on using a sharp piece of glass to slice up the victims. So this means that, after a short while, inattentive and bored viewers can afford to doze off and simply look up again when they hear the sound of shattering glass. That way they still don't miss anything special! Regarding the quality of "Nightmares" as a film I can be very brief. This is a cheap, uninspired and largely imbecilic Aussie cash-in on the contemporary popular trend of American slasher movies. In the early 60's, a four-year-old witnesses the cruel death of her mother as her throat gets slit open in a nasty car accident. Twenty years later the same girl – Helen Selleck – is a successful stage actress, but she still has severe mental issues and regularly suffers from horrible flashbacks and traumatic nightmares. She auditions for a role in a black comedy play revolving on death and gets the part. Shortly after the big premiere, everyone who's even remotely involved with the production gets slaughtered. It is truly retarded how this movie attempts to uphold the mystery regarding the killer's identity and motivations even though even the most infantile viewer can figure it out after the first murder already. I don't think I've ever seen a more obvious whodunit than "Nightmares" and the creators should have just showed his/her face straight away and save themselves from embarrassment. The murders are explicit and very bloody and there's also an unhealthy large amount of gratuitous nudity to "enjoy". However, the production values are poor and thus the movie is never at one point shocking or provocative. The few clips we get to see of the actual play make it appear that it quite possible could be the worst thing ever performed on stage. The only positive elements in the film are the characters of the director and the gay newspaper critic, whom are both delightfully sarcastic and insult the rest of the cast members as much as we do. "Nightmares" is a dreadful piece of exploitative horror cinema, but hey, at least I gave you a golden tip to make it more digestible.

This is clearly a bad film, but I can't help watching it when there's nothing better to do. A lot of bad movies are like that, right? "Nightmares" concerns Jenny Neumann slashing people to death with broken glass for seemingly no reason. She caused her mother's death by accident when she was a kid because she didn't like her cheating with another man, and now goes out to deal her own kind of warped justice on young lovers and her fellow cast in some stage show she is acting in.The plot doesn't seem to go anywhere other than to make sure the rest of the characters are killed off. The crew also try and put a great deal of effort into disguising who the killer is, but it's blatantly obvious from the start. The nauseating POV shots become completely ridiculous in the end, with the camera just meandering through dark halls for at least two minutes for no reason. At one point, the shot even freezes for five seconds! The lighting is absolutely horrendous, and most of the time it is too dark to see what is going on. The camera seems to like to stay focused on empty corridors and rooms, and then pan slightly to a doorway to show a character entering or exiting. Why not have the camera on the door the whole time? It's very hard to ignore all this shoddy work, and really drags the film down.There is quite a bit of blood and gore, and the effects are actually quite good. Jenny Neumann certainly adds beauty to the film also, but it isn't enough to save this murky disaster. Pity really. Anyway, not a good film at all, but certainly not the worst horror flick out there.