User Reviews (54)

Add a Review

  • He didn't make Hammer rip-offs and he didn't make counterfeit Amicus flicks, either. Norman J. Warren created a horror sub-genre instead, and "Terror" is the second best of these while "Prey" is the best. Though this was clearly inspired by "Suspiria" and equally ropey in terms of structure, is is still an entertaining hour and a half.

    The opening film-within-a-film, a witch burning sequence, has better production values than the rest of this shocker, but it is, nevertheless, a graphic slasher (for its time) that takes some risks. Most of the murders are knife murders and we get lots of knife POV's and a procession of red herrings. A car lifted off the ground and up into a forest canopy shows some creativity and a poor sod impaled on spikes notches another one up for bloody horror.

    Despite good transfers, the Warren films still look ugly because they were not lit too well. Some of the interiors are overexposed and the hard lighting looks more accidental than planned. The performances range from adequate to somnambulistic (perhaps intentionally) and the electronic score (by Ivor Slaney) is more noisy than musical.

    Worth seeing, sure, but not anything groundbreaking.
  • A witch's curse causes bad things to happen to all the people involved in the production of a horror movie and the witch herself might have possessed one of its stars.

    Clearly inspired by the work of Dario Argento, Terror is one of those movies where it's best to leave logic at the door and enjoy the gory set pieces and colorful lighting. It starts off slow and even frustrating since there's not a lot of plot or character development to latch on to, but something happens midway through where, if you just turn off your brain and go along for the ride, you'll have a good time.
  • 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!"
  • This got a late Friday night screening on BBC2 recently. Who negotiated that deal, Mr. Warren?.

    And apart from an excruciating synth score by one Ivor Slaney (who also draped his dubious doodlings all over Norman's 'Prey'), it was pretty much all good.

    Sexy stage-trained actresses never to be heard from again? Present and correct, sir.

    On-the-hoof shots of Soho at night? Tick.

    Strangely antiseptic sequences of murder and mayhem? You betcha.

    Look out for Dirty Dave McGillivray cameoing as a TV reporter, Peter 'Chewbacca' Mayhew deathlessly intoning "You want a mechanic?". And Milton Reid throwing a Greek out of a nightclub.
  • If the casual film fan has ever heard of or seen a Norman J. Warren film, chances are that film is 'Inseminoid', one of the first films to be a big hit on sell-through video in the early 80's.

    However, 'Terror' is not as obscure a movie as you may think. It was the top grossing film in the UK for one week and in the States it actually made No. 19 in Variety's Top 50 grossing movies for 1979.

    'Inseminoid' is usually referred to, perhaps a little unfairly, as a cheap rip-off of 'Alien'. 'Terror' is definitely a cheap rip-off of Dario Argento's 'Suspiria'.

    The story involves a witch who is burnt at the stake. She curses the family responsible for her plight and promises to wipe out their line. Flash forward a couple of hundred years and we discover that what we have been watching is a movie. Then...everybody gets killed. There's very little plot for the rest of the film. Some characters arrive for no apparent reason...and then get killed...for no apparent reason.

    What's this all got to do with 'Suspiria' then ? Well, here's a little checklist.

    Suspiria - Terror

    Supernatural story involving witches - Check

    Film made with emphasis of style over narrative - Check

    Scenes lit in lots of bright reds and greens - Check

    Soundtrack full of atonality, clanging and wailing voices - Check

    Film set in ballet school - The girls live in a school but they all seem to work at a 'Gentleman's Club'.

    Lots of blood and girls dressed in white - Check

    Death by disembodied hand through a window - Death by disembodied hand through a wall

    Running through a storm pursued by a killer - Check

    Knives entering flesh in jagged close-up - Check

    Strange, overly made-up, androgynous-looking older women - Check

    A hulking giant who may or may not be involved - Check (Peter 'Chewbacca' Mayhew)

    A nightmarish masterpiece of a horror movie - Erm...

    But the really interesting one that's made me think is when one of the characters dies by decapitation due to a broken window. There is a scene exactly like it in Argento's 'Inferno'. But 'Inferno' was made after 'Terror'. This is pure speculation but I wonder did Argento see 'Terror' at some point and say (in Italian, obviously) "Well, this bloke nicked so much from me. I'm going to nick this from him". Or was it just a weird coincidence. I am intrigued.

    However, while 'Suspiria' is undoubtedly one of the greatest horror films ever made - a real experience - 'Terror' is unfortunately not. It is interesting to watch someone try to copy Argento but there is no real understanding here of what makes his films work. 'Terror' lacks a decent script, decent actors and decent direction. Of interest to Argento fans only.
  • 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 that Argento film, it's more about its sometimes palpable atmosphere and its various set pieces than its story. However, the story really isn't that incoherent, although it is 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 actually 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.
  • Many of the movies included in Rhino's Horrible Horrors Vol. 1 box set are just that. This one was fairly good though, certainly comparatively.

    The deaths scenes in this movies are definitely stand-outs, and if people are looking for good scenes like that, here's a movie that's been overlooked. There's some decent suspense at times too, and fair special effects in poltergeist-type witch activity.

    The movie starts with a title sequence of black and white still frames tinted red of people's faces, sometimes a succession of them giving the appearance of movement, then freezing. The title appears, cracks, and bleeds. Not bad. There's then a segment that is a movie-in- the-movie, a witch film in which a witch gets caught and burned at the stake, but gets her revenge on the people responsible.

    This film is projected in the home of the producer, and the film was based on his family history, and his home and other items were used in the film. After a game of hypnosis seems to go wrong, resulting in the producer getting sliced with a sword, a woman runs off into the woods and gets attacked seemingly by a slasher. Other people get attacked by blades, while others die in more bizarre ways. At one point, a car floats up into tree branches!

    The acting is pretty good, but somehow there was something lacking that kept me from getting terribly involved in the movie.
  • British exploitation filmmaker Norman J. Warren sure knew how to lay on the gratuitous shocks -- thick and fast. On "TERROR" he doesn't disappoint. In what is definitely the most fun, I've had with a Warren film. With that in mind, his previous 1977 "PREY" would still be my favorite. It's hard not to think Warren was influenced by Dario Argento's "SUSPIRIA", in what clearly looks a crude, downbeat and cheap knockoff.

    Anyhow, Warren does the best, with what's in front of him. Working with such a stringy plot where clichés form the basis. It's easy to see what we get are set-pieces looking to shock and thrill. As the build-up of those highly-charged moments (with an ominously dynamic electronic score) are far more enticing, than that of the thinly detailed dramas in between. Well, outside of a few amusing moments caught on a film-set. The actual central story involving a witch cursing the family descendents of those who burned her at the stake remains an afterthought --- almost becoming a shadow to the mean-spirited violence and nightmarish absurdity. I must say best not to delve too deep into the narrative, as making sense is the furthest thing on mind. Even the lead performances of John Nolan and Carolyn Courage are fairly po-faced, but, I guess, it's only natural when there's no escaping your foretold doom. At least there are colourful minor supports, like Glynis Barber and Elaine Ives-Cameron. Another bright inclusion was the posters of "THRILLER: A CRUEL PICTURE" (1973) and Warren's "SATAN'S SLAVE" (1976) making their way into a few shots. Sure the former poster would bring a smile to cult-fans.

    Like most of Warren's presentations, pacing can be bumpy, yet his nonchalant handling, atmospheric lighting and use of authentic locations pays off. What starts slow and conventional by playing out like a slasher / giallo --- gradually begins to go off the rails when the supernatural fury of our string-pulling entity comes to the forefront, where each death madly outdoes the last. It's well worth-the-wait, as during the creative third act when the action returns to the cottage, there are some crazy stunts, like the evaluating car and maniac light-show climax.
  • TERROR

    Aspect ratio: 1.85:1

    Sound format: Mono

    Supernatural horror descends on the members of a low budget movie company when they film the true story of a 17th century witch who was burnt at the stake.

    Director Norman J. Warren continued his successful creative partnership with writer David McGillivray (initiated with SATAN'S SLAVE in 1976) for this supernatural shocker, in which the ghost of an ancient witch is revived in 20th century suburbia. Warren cheerfully acknowledges the film's visual debt to SUSPIRIA (1976), with its garish colors and outlandish death scenes (including a window-cum-guillotine which appears to have inspired a similar sequence in Dario Argento's INFERNO), though McGillivray can't resist taking an opportunity to poke fun at the world of low budget British movie-making (the scenes involving production of softcore opus "Bathtime With Brenda" are a hoot!). Les Young's atmospheric photography is a big plus, and the actors are enthusiastic, but the film is undermined by poor dialogue, lack of adequate plotting, and threadbare production values, 'qualities' which are treasured by die-hard fans. Thankfully, Warren includes as much gore as the British censor would allow at the time, and exploits the makeshift scenario for all it's worth. Ultimately, TERROR is the cinematic equivalent of those 'penny dreadful' horror novels which cluttered British bookshelves throughout the 1970's.
  • morrison-dylan-fan3 November 2019
    Warning: Spoilers
    With hopefully attending a Q&A with the film maker next week,I felt it was best I start digging into Indicator's Norman J. Warren box set! Having only seen the fun Bloody New Year (1987-also reviewed) I got set to unleash terror.

    View on the film:

    Backed by new interviews with the cast/crew, Indicator present a outstanding new 2K transfer, where the audio remains crisps, and unlike the old VHS days, the vibrant colours shimmer on the print.

    Teasing the audience with a fake film within a film opening lit with the spirit of Hammer Horror, directing auteur Norman J. Warren continues to build on his themes of bringing the Gothic of Hammer Horror into modern settings, crossed with the ultra-stylisation of Italian Horror.

    Hypnotising some pretty young things at a post-screening party, Warren & cinematographer Les Young (who also co-wrote the script) underline the Horror shocks with a raw, grounded atmosphere of long panning shots delving into the cramped locations where the supernatural happenings awaken.

    While inspired by Dario Argento, Warren and Young bring out enough of their own style to make their own creation stand out, including a dazzling pane glass set-pieces Argento himself appears to have been inspired by, along with sawn- off tracking shots of the mysterious killer clouded in colours striking their next victim, backed by Ivor Slaney's brooding dark synch score. Working with Warren again, David McGillivray is here joined by Les and Moira Young in conjuring a neat script spell casting dream-logic on the foggy family history of the Garrick's to the terror.
  • BaronBl00d25 July 2005
    British "horror" film from director Norman Warren and screenwriter David McGillivray about a curse given to a family by a witch. The films opens with the burning of the witch, the curse, and all the information we need and then ends abruptly showing it was a film production by a small company with the head being the last remaining male in the actual line of ancestors cursed by the witch. Anyway, a party ensues and hypnotism is the party game de jour. An actress - also related to the family(last living relative) - goes wild with a sword and tries to kill the host. The party ends and then people begin to die. Whoever could be th killer? Or is this the real deal - the deadly curse exacting its revenge for deeds done centuries ago? Who cares by film's end? This is not a very well-done or executed film on many levels. The opening sequence is okay, but the film quickly turns into yet another soft-core story about this deadly curse with far more emphasis on peripheral plot threads. The deaths make virtually no sense when one sees the end of the film. The deaths are particularly gruesome for this decade even with some mad slashing, a hit and repeated run-over, and a head sliced from a pane of window glass. The acting is adequate by the British cast and some of the performers are even pretty decent. Carolyn Courage has the best peeved-off face I have seen in any film of recent years as the girl related to the cursed family. She is lovely to boot as are all the female actresses. Particularly standing out are Sarah Keller, a leggy blonde clad in white(what happens to her makes absolutely no sense at all when you see resolution of film...also look at the reaction of the guy that sees her - he looks like he is peeved rather than horrified!), and Tricia Walsh, a shapely and funny redhead. The male lead John Nolan looks like he is walking through his part, however. Why was he acting the way he did when we discover the real force behind these killings? And the answer to that is the real problem with this film - David McGillivray's screenplay. It JUST does not make any sense! You might remember some of McGillivray's other screen credits - Satan's Slave, Frightmare, and the brutal House of Whipchord to name a few. His work is always framed with brutal, bloody, misogynistic killings of lovely, young women. Some of the scenes are effectively shot and are a cut above a real bad picture. The opening for one is decidedly eerie and I liked a scene of a girl hiding out in a cottage waiting for a mechanic. Star Wars fans get a treat as the mechanic's cameo is played by none other than Peter Mayhew aka Chewie.
  • BandSAboutMovies17 February 2021
    Warning: Spoilers
    Norman J. Warren is the kind of director that knows exactly what you want. You aren't coming to one of his movies to learn some kind of life lesson or to go out to a salon and debate afterward. No, you're here for all the reasons that you watch horror and exploitation movies. You want to be shocked, scared and stimulated.

    What makes this one even better is that the script comes from David McGillivray, who also wrote Satan's Slave for Warren and Frightmare, House of Whipcord, House of Mortal Sin and Schizo for Pete Walker. He is, to quote British writer Matthew Sweet, "the Truffaut of Smut."

    Also, if you're watching this and are thinking, "Hey, Warren must have just seen Suspiria when he made this," then yes, that's exactly what happened.

    The movie starts three hundred years ago, as we watch a witch named Mad Dolly about to be burned at the stake under the orders of Lord Garrick. She then calls on Satan to free her, setting an executioner on fire, a disembodied arm to kill Garrick and for her to rush through the Garrick house with a sword, which she uses to chop the head off his wife before cursing their descendants.

    Like I said, Warren knows exactly what you want. That beginning pretty much has everything I watch movies for.

    What we've just seen is a movie made by director James Garrick - yes, a descendent who lives in the very same house that we've seen and for some reason has decided to own the sword of Mad Dolly - and he's previewing it for his friends and his cousin, Ann. Of course, he also has a mesmerist put her under a spell and she nearly kills him.

    This being a Warren movie, of course Ann works at a strip club. And certainly she's going to be stalked by all manner of ruffians, including Peter Mayhem outside of his Chewbacca costume.

    This unleashes a wave of artful violence, including panes of glass chopping off heads, stabbings in the woods, perverts dropped onto spikes, lamps crushing directors and so much more. And the end, well, it's absolutely bonkers, with levitating cars, more impalings and Mad Dolly's sword getting used to its fullest power.

    As for the Argento inspiration, Warren has claimed that he saw that movie as something freeing, telling Sense of Cinema, "It was just liberating in that you could suddenly get away with doing whatever you liked."

    Since making Bloody New Year, Warren has been promising a sequel to this movie that would be about music and dancers. I hope it happens, because I kind of love this ridiculous movie.
  • There's not much to like about Norman J. Warren's work…. 'Inseminoid' (a.ka Horror Planet) was like the lamest Alien rip-off ever made and 'Satan's Slave' was a dreadfully tedious vehicle about a devil-worshiping cult (it starred horror maestro Michael Gough, but still…). To think those two disappointment almost held me from watching this 'Terror'! This film is Warren's finest achievement! A modestly produced, but blood-soaked and nasty horror film that'll keep you entertained for a good 80 minutes. The plot of 'Terror' is standard shlock, handling about a film producer who inadvertently awakened the spirit of an ancestral witch while shooting a film about his own family's history. Things start to go horribly wrong the film premieres in the old family mansion and the young niece gets possessed with the witch's soul. The film doesn't contain the slightest bit of continuity and numerous murders are completely random. Not one horror lover will complain about this, though, since every single slashing is darn gruesome and presented with the nastiest make-up effects possible. There are a few (beautiful) young girls stabbed to death and pinned to a tree, a film crew member is crushed by the set pieces, a cop is road-killed by his own car and there are multiple neat close-ups of slit throats and severed corpses! Every killing is a horror feast and – sometimes – that's all there is needed to satisfy fans of the genre. At some points, Warren even succeeds in creating tension through atmospheric camera-work! How about that? The sequence where the blond girl is chased through the woods almost feels like 'The Blair Witch Project' 20 years ahead of its time! Although the film doesn't feature an actual climax (everybody dies…period!) or no depth in general, it's still receives warm recommendation thanks to the bright dialogue, stunning camera-work and loads of fun it delivers.
  • nassao26 July 2008
    Warning: Spoilers
    I confess to liking cheap 1970's horror films but this was to bad even for me. The descendent's of a noble family are picked off one by one by a witches curse. Same old story line nobody believes in the curse except one man. For some reason minor characters with no connexion to the family end up being killed. As in most of these films lots of beautiful women being killed, lots of swearing, bit of nudity lots of pointless scenes lots of actors you never heard of and will never see again. Why do people in danger run in to the woods or upstairs instead of back to the house they just came from?

    Watch it if you have nothing to do and want a laugh.
  • When Norman J.Warren (auteur of such shrill, purposely gruesome films as Inseminoid) and exploitation stalwart David McGillivray got together in the late seventies to create this low-budget shocker, the end result could only be a solid winner, and TERROR delivers the goods. It's not for all tastes, but the effective atmosphere (Warren had obviously seen a few Dario Argento films, which helps) and the well-staged scenes of death and supernatural mayhem in the last half of the film are worth the price of admission alone. It's certainly head and shoulders above the 'typical' British horror films of the day - such as Alan Birkinshaw's atrocious KILLER'S MOON and THE LEGACY, a tedious schlock-fest in which Who vocalist Roger Daltrey dies during a trachaeotomy to remove a fishbone he never ate(!) - and the widescreen photography, coupled with appropriately garish colours courtesy of (one assumes) outmoded film stock, looks superb. There's also a neat cameo from Milton Reid, one of those "I know his face, but what's his name?" actors if ever there was one, and a decapitation set-piece that curiously plays like a low-budget homage to David Warner's grisly death in THE OMEN, whilst pointing the way forward to the lift-shaft carnage in that film's lackluster sequel. This is a solid-gold classic example of the kind of film that would never get made nowadays, anywhere, and will undoubtedly bring back fond memories of late-night horror double features down at the local fleapit for British viewers of a certain age.
  • A nifty supernatural shocker concerning the descendants of a witch hunting family and their close friends who are brutally stalked by a creepy curse . After 100 years , a man reveals in a film that his family killed a witch , then things go wrong. As friends who saw the movie are suddenly attacked by supernatural forces. And , eventualy , the coup of grace against protagonists taking place cruelly , resulting in fateful consequences . Have you ever felt an evil present all around you...?. One step beyond horror...It was buried a hundred years .. but never laid to rest !

    Scary film with plenty of thrills , chills , grisly murders and lots of blood and gore by persistently cutting to lip-licking close-ups of slashed , beheaded or garroted throats . The plot is simple and plain , as a filmmaker inadvertently conjures a malevolent ancestral witch while making a film about his own family history . Then nasty things begin happening when he previews it at a party , including echoes of "William Friedkin's Exorcist" and "Dario Argento's Suspiria" with a large number of murders with no sense . It was originally double-billed with "Dracula's Dog" . It displays atmospheric camerawork and some acceptable dialogue providing momentary relief , but the film results to below average , tending to hang increasingly heavy over the proceedings . The cast is mostly unknown with exception for Glynis Barber, James Aubrey and Peter Mayhew , the famous Chewbacca .

    The motion picture was lousily directed by Norman J. Warren , including a lot of flaws, gaps , failures and copying other films . Norman often used modern-day sets , horrifying scenes and working in low budgets .He directed some successful softcore sex movie as "Her Private Hell", and "Loving Feeling" . Later on , he made terror movies as "Satan's Slave" , starring Michael Gough . This was followed by "Terror" 1978, the twisted sci-fi terror "Prey" 1977 , the smutty softcore sex comedy romp "Outer Touch" 1979 and the Terror scifi "Horrorplanet" 1981 . Warren took a break from the horror genre by making the thrilling spy outing "GunPowder" 1986 . His last film to date was the dready terror clunker "Bloody New Year" 1987. This Terrror 1978 has rating 3.5/10 . Inferior and embarrassing horror movie .
  • I didn't have very high hopes going into this one, since I'd already seen Norman J. Warren's earlier tragedy Satan's Slave, but surprisingly enough; Terror actually isn't bad, and that's in spite of it's completely uninspiring title. Terror plays out like your classic slasher flick, but it's good in that the director doesn't hold back on the gore and the result, while very cheesy, is an enjoyable little horror flick. The excuse for all the terror revolves around an ancient curse delivered by a witch a couple of hundred years ago. A young girl is hypnotised and later possessed by the witch's spirit, and from there it seems as though the witch's curse is true. The next seventy minutes is basically a hodgepodge of gruesome murder scenes - but this isn't a problem as the murder scenes themselves are entertaining in a gory, over the top sort of way and this greatly benefits the film. When there aren't murders going on, it has to be said that Terror isn't the most interesting movies of all time. It's true that director Norman J. Warren is a hack really; but this is entertaining stuff, and good enough for a single viewing.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    A witch burned at the stake curses the descendants, i.e. everyone lives long enough to have descendants and we switch to modern times where people are being killed around the film maker of said line.

    Bad acting. Bad story line. Perhaps the only interest is for Star War fans as this is an early film of Peter Mayhew (Chewbacca) who had a small role as "the mechanic." Guide: F-word. Nudity (Tanya Ferowa)
  • I like this little late 70's horror film because it is so atmospheric and even though it's stupid at times, it is also interesting and pretty intensive. It is not great like "real" horror classics but it is certainly a great B horror experience.

    There's no point in describing plot because it is pretty messy. It deals with supernatural powers which possess a house inhabited by a film group.

    The effects are nice but mostly I liked the "demonic" atmosphere which is at its greatest at the end of the film. I just wonder how they made that "video/filmtape strangulation or whatever" scene at the end. Warren has also made the legendary INSEMINOID which I liked also but the fans of movies like Alien or other mainstream films may not like it. If you are open minded and appreciate low budget horror films with innovation then I think you'll like TERROR and other Warren's films.

    7 out of ten.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    A witch burned at the stake curses the descendants, i.e. everyone lives long enough to have descendants and we stitch to modern times where people are being killed around the film maker of said line.

    Bad acting. Bad story line. Perhaps the only interest is for Star War fans as this is an early film of Peter Mayhew (Chewbacca) who had a small role as "the mechanic."

    Guide: F-word. Nudity (Tanya Ferowa)
  • Terror is the third film from the Bloody Terror box set of Norman J. Warren's horror movies. At times it feels like a bit of rehash of Satan's Slave with the ancestral curse, "flashback" to puritans killing witches and the big beautiful cottage in the English countryside as a main location. It also feels more disjointed than his first two films not having a clearly defined main character. Is it the sleazy producer, the pretty girl or the less pretty girl or the redhead making softcore bath porn? The scenes of this bath-time movie add some humor to the movie and are more goofy than sexy, she doesn't even remove her bra for them. There's more blood and killings than in Prey but the kills aren't as nasty and sexual as in Satan's Slave. The women aren't as beautiful as Candace Glendenning or Barbara Kellerman either. The blonde is very pretty but she isn't in it for long. While not as gory as Satan's Slave there's still some decent kills here- a decapitation, a woman chased through the forest by an unseen assailant in a suspenseful scene who ends up knifed through the throat to a tree. There's a spiked fence impalement with the severed remains found in the trash, a crushing by heavy overhead light with a burned up face, an almost decapitation by window pane and more. The violence here is supernatural, lacking the mean-spiritedness of Satan's Slave.

    Other interesting parts are a brief appearance by Chewbacca. The cast isn't overly notable though there's a preponderance of Peters in minor roles. There's a half disturbing/half sexy scene of a whip-strip inside a club, the woman has nice breasts (about the only nudity here) but a face that looks like Brian Warner's. There's another hilarious scene of one of the waitresses at the club being accosted by a horny Greek. He asks her "you, er, know, er...sucking?" and "you do sucking for me?" He pronounces it as "suck-kink" adding to the hilarity. There's also a well done chaotic scene in the movie studio, with film flying all over even attacking a person. Another great scene is a woman attacked in her car during a thunderstorm with the car lifted into the trees. The ending is pretty cool and unlike most films the credits roll almost immediately after. It's nice to see a movie with a definitive ending. Terror isn't nearly as good as Satan's Slave and might not be as good as Prey though it's certainly much livelier than those two. It also lacks the mean-spirited characters of both films having a comedic edge to it.
  • TERROR is an obscure 1970s horror film from England. I've tried to get a hold of this film for a while and I finally saw it on the Horrible Horrors DVD set.

    TERROR is point blank awful. It never achieves anything as in scares, mood or tension. The folks behind this film probably know very little of how to execute horror on film. Some sequences were painfully bad, near amateurish, regarding the horror elements or just simply with the acting and production values.

    With that said, the film is remarkably ahead of its time! The film within a film concept, seen at the beginning, is brilliant. And the movie industry tinged dialogue is often sharp. I was really surprised by how "hip" the script was on certain aspects of horror films and such. It's a shame they didn't know how to translate that hipness to the actual story because the execution is so bland or awful or cheap-looking.

    The cast is mostly game and good looking but they can't save the uninspired direction. A shame really.
  • maarck623 December 2017
    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.
  • if you are a really horror fan,absolutely watch it!Right..the plot doesn't exsist, the characters are too briefly described, but very much parts of this movie are so good!!atmosphere,music and color!Now I know what some critics mean:"it's influenced by Argento's Suspiria and it gave the inspiration for Inferno".Where are you finished Norman J.Warren?Anyway,an interesting movie to re-discover among the dusty,naive,genuine and scary products of the 70's horror cinematography!
  • Yes, about five minutes into the movie it appears to end leaving me a bit surprised. It is not the shortest running movie ever, however, as this is just a film clip made by some producer depicting the burning of a witch who is definitely not wrongly prosecuted and the subsequent curse she put on his family. This is all the plot there is as the rest of the movie seems to be just random shots of people saying stuff, once in a while getting killed by slasher means and then supernatural means, none of the garbled mess making much sense at all except for what the brief movie at the beginning clears up. The only reason I gave this movie a two instead of a one is the nice looking red head that was in the movie, and quite frankly I would have rather saw the movie they were making with her in it involving the bath even as lame as that looked. I just wonder why this movie was made, they had a very light premise set forth and seemed to fill the movie with a lot of filler and not much else as the characters are not developed and at times the film seems to skip from one random scene to another. I have to wonder if the whole movie was made just to feature the strange epileptic blonde stripper in the middle of the movie. The deaths feature some blood and also make me give it a two instead of a one because they are somewhat interesting if not terribly good. All in all I would rather watch "Satan's Slave" another British horror movie that you can see a poster for in this movie.
An error has occured. Please try again.