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.

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.

Vomitron_G Norman J. Warren is a director I only discovered in recent years. After having seen his "Satan's Slave", I was so enthusiastic (can't even fully explain why exactly), that I went on a quest to see the man's other efforts. That's when I discovered I had already seen "Inseminoid" about 5 years earlier (and liked it). I even re-watched that one, to bring things into perspective with his other horror films. And now, I can safely say I'm a fan of the man. Sure, all of his films are imperfect in more than one way. At more than one point, they'll always get a little goofy. But the man never fails to entertain me. And in his own, unique & British low-budget way, he always delivers. One thing I like a lot about his movies, is that his special effects are (almost) always on-set practical realizations. And not only he tries a lot of them, he also tries to push them to the max with the limited means he has. In "Terror", for example, he levitates a whole frickin' car to the level of tree-tops, and then lets it crash into the ground. Never mind that you know how it's done. It's just too much fun to see it happen. And the same goes for the various make-up effects. They're not on par with what, let's say, Tom Savini was doing at the time, but they're always gross & fun. And you can always count on a bit of random nudity in his flicks. As for his stories... well, they rattle and shake altogether, often not making too much sense, but damned be me if I ever was not entertained by any of them. In short: I think Norman J. Warren is a long forgotten director any true horror geek should check out at one point, sooner or later. "Terror" pretty much is a witch movie with slasher overtones, and an entertaining one while at it. Just for fun, I'll give a rundown of the films I watched already from his filmography and slap 'em with a rating:"Satan's Slave" (1976) - 7/10"Inseminoid" (1981) - 6/10"Terror" (1978) - 6/10"Prey" (1978) 5/10"Bloody New Year" (1987) - 4/10 (even a flunked Norman J. Warren movie doesn't mean it wasn't a fun watch)

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!"