Nightmare (1981) User Reviews

A Deranged (Yet Inept) Classic of Its Kind

[FilmFatale · 7/10 · 4 July 2012]

I'd wanted to see Nightmare for years, especially as a young Savini fan, but ensuing controversies and time prevented me from watching it until tonight. Sure, I'd come across it from time to time in a reference or review book but tracking down a copy in the US seemed to never work out for me. Cut to a sick-day in 2012, and internet movies, and finally, this grim little darling was mine for the watching.

Tonally, I found Nightmare similar to Pieces, what with it's childhood traumas and bloody ways of dealing with them, but Nightmare has a certain raw charm all of its own. It's not a very *good* movie, but it moves along at a decent pace and is just so bizarre in its execution. Our killer, George Tatum, is one of the more debonair axe-wielders of the slasher generation, but most of Baird Stafford's performance consists of squealing, foaming at the mouth, and giving Ken Doll-esque lingering looks at the camera whether he's killing or sleeping or walking about. George was being treated for his myriad mental issues under an experimental program and when he's deemed cured, he's simply let loose in NYC (delightfully grimy, pre-Giuliani NYC) to go to sex shows (bad idea!) and then head south to kill a very special family. Said family seemed over the top, what with constant prankster/brat CJ and constantly screaming and slapping mom Susan...until I realized I'd seen similar behavior at the local Wal-Mart on more than one occasion.

That odd behavior by the "normal" cast members is one of the more delightful things about Nightmare. Very few things happen in a way that they would happen in real life. People over-react to nothing, but are yet strangely unmoved by dead bodies. Children are taken to crime scenes and questioned in front of bloody corpses. There's rarely a clear sense of who any character is at any given time. The doctors never bothered to investigate whether George's traumatic dreams actually happened. Mom often just shrieks for no reason. There's an extended scene of a meeting with the real estate agent, and a C&W bar performance, and lots of local radio DJ chatter. It all just lurches along until a rather ludicrous (but fun!) ending.

The gore (by all accounts courtesy of Ed French and NOT Savini) was nice and grim and well done for the most part (not counting a few obvious prosthetics) - rarely these days does soft tissue trauma seem so gooshy. The gore wasn't as wall-to-wall as I'd built up in my head but I suppose there was enough.

If you're in the mood to revisit the early 80s via slasher films, you'll probably have a good time with Nightmare as long as you can handle the inherent strangeness of it all. It really is like a bleak little time capsule of an era long-gone.

ff

Filthy splatter flick laden with psychosexual undertones

[drownsoda90 · 7/10 · 2 July 2014]

The infamy of "Nightmare" no doubt largely centers on the fact that the film's distributor faced prison time for refusing to cut down one scene from the film for its release in the United Kingdom. I mean, after all, how many horror films have that under their belt? The plot follows a disturbed schizophrenic who escapes from his experimental psychiatric hospital in New York City and heads down the coast to Florida, where his wife and children reside, killing along the way before making an attempt at his final hometown hurrah.

With "Halloween" and "Maniac" being obvious influences here, "Nightmare" feels much more like a '70s picture than it does a product of the '80s, and its confluence of influences might be precisely why. The film's formula is fairly straightforward, although its subject matter is remarkably dark, insofar as it has to do with a man who can't help but want to slaughter his own children— it's a macabre affair all around, and the grindhouse aesthetic only bolsters the film's sinister tone. It's part slasher film and part psychosexual thriller, with leading man Baird Stafford playing the villain who's entire distorted existence seems to hinge on his childhood experience of witnessing his father's affair (and subsequently slaughtering both parties in their bed). The film does meander a bit between the realms of dramatic thriller and splatter epic, but it's an engaging watch none the less.

I'd be lying if I said that the real attraction here for most people is the remarkable gore effects, which were controversially credited as being the work of Tom Savini— turns out Savini was apparently just a friend of the effects director and didn't actually work on the film, but regardless, the film showcases a plethora of elaborate murders with some remarkably nasty special effects; throats are slashed, people are stabbed, and heads roll, and Romano Scavolini makes sure his audience has front row closeups to all the nitty gritty details. The special effects work, though dated in some regards, is still surprisingly effective.

Overall, "Nightmare" is a deserved cult classic that would appear to have come from the drive-in era of the late '70s; despite the fact that the film was made in the following decade, it retains a gritty exploitation feel in which violence is the central spectacle. Like I said, it's a dark movie— and a gratuitously violent one. It's the kind of thing you watch and then want to shower after. Like after a humid Florida evening, the film leaves you feeling slightly grimy, but that's what it sets out to do from the first reel. 7/10.

The Fine Art of the Spoiler

[Steve_Nyland · 7/10 · 12 November 2017]

Guys, guys GUYS! People get a grip, please. There's a thing called The Spoiler, whereby commentators on films will spoil the fun of getting to see the movie for other people by carelessly revealing a pivotal development, revelation, or secret held by a movie. The fun for viewers is to get to encounter that revelation on their own without having the moment ruined by knowing about it in advance.

"Nightmares" has such a revelation and it only comes in the very last minute of the film. The payoff was fantastic, and thank goodness I had not sought out reviews of the film beforehand or the fun would have been ruined. Almost every review, post, or synopsis of the movie contains that revelation which viewers should have to earn after sitting through the rest of it. By knowing in advance the potency of the scenes which lead up to it is diluted and there were some very potent scenes here which would have suffered from advance knowledge of the revelation.

Best way to sum up the story is to say that a patient from a secret drug treatment program for the criminally insane is released prematurely, goes off his personality modifying meds, and embarks on a journey through the seedy side of America's east coast during which he commits several gruesome killings. That's the extent of what should be revealed. Anything more would spoil the mind- screw of that last minute, and reduce the meaning of the film to a checklist of slasher movie components pieced together by an oblique story which will only serve to distract genre viewers from the horror of it all.

And hence the film's current status: Regarded as a classic by some but dismissed by many more as boring & derivative. Because without coming upon that revelation on your own it is sort of a 2nd rate overly arty if competently made slasher-type horror movie rating just about 5 out of 10: Covers the bases, constructed with skill but not really having anything too spectacular with a comparatively modest body count (I believe it is eight, if you count the big flashback scene). The gore effects may or may not have been "supervised" by Tom Savini, it doesn't really matter, they serve the film well enough. The extra notoriety the controversy generated only means more opportunities for reviewers to spill the beans for audience members who could care less.

I'm glad I ignored it all. With that spoiler intact I give the film a 7 out of ten, with very tight plotting that is only revealed as being more thorough than usual once that revelation takes place. The film is very well made from a technical standpoint with an interesting use of film speeds and droll, non-sensational music. But who watches slasher movies for their plotting, technical work or soundtracks? They are traditionally a series of gruesome set pieces connected by some sort of story which may or may not hold up to the light of day when evaluated separate from the gore. This one does and that alone is somewhat remarkable. Just don't read any more reviews until after watching it or you too may be tempted to dismiss the results for being something different than the usual brainless mayhem.

Regarding George Tatum's medications

[baird-12 · 15 January 2009]

The medications prescribed to George are obviously important to him, as witness the two times he fumbles for and drops them during moments of stress. They are presumed, in all of the reviews I have read, to have been meant to cure his psychosis. Perhaps another view might be offered, one which takes into account the year in which the shoot took place (1980). This was shortly after the revelation in the United States that the CIA had, during previous decades, "tested" lysergic acid diethylamide (more commonly known by its acronym, LSD, or its nickname, "acid") and other chemical compounds reputed or designed to induce hallucinogenic states on unsuspecting individuals including mental patients. The question to which I played the role of George was, "Are his medications the cure for - or the cause of - his homicidal mania?" This ambiguity was suggested by Romano before the shooting even started, while he and I discussed the character as presented in the screenplay, and caught my imagination so powerfully that I tried very hard to embody it in my portrayal.

In my opinion, the ambiguity was reinforced by the desperation with which the doctor's apparent superior pushed him to "recover" George. Nowhere in the dialogue is the suggestion made that the cigar-smoking creep who called the doctor on the carpet had any connection with the hospital, much less that he was a medical person.

Just something to think about, since it would appear that the film developed its cult following whether or not the ambiguous nature of the chemicals was apparent.

Disjointed and Incoherent, But Still Fun

[gavin6942 · 5/10 · 27 October 2014]

A mental patient (Baird Stafford), who is troubled with horrible nightmares, has escaped from his hospital. Now on the streets he cannot help killing innocent people. But there is one family he is more than interested in and when he tries to kill them, he finds that it is not that easy.

First of all, to properly enjoy this film, you need to see a good copy of it. Although I have not seen it, the Code Red DVD is apparently the best and as clear as could be wanted. The version I watched was pretty awful, grainy and discolored. This took nothing away from the fun, but made it seem even cheaper than it needed to be.

The plot is a bit disjointed, incoherent, and the editing is not flawless. Maybe Code Red fixed this, but it is most likely just a part of the film. The plot still makes sense, but trying to figure out who all the characters are and why they matter might take a bit of work even if you pay close attention. A second viewing (or third) could not hurt.

The best thing about the film is either the gore (which is great whether or not it was done by Tom Savini) or the kid (C. J. Cooke) who plays CJ. When he faces off against the "bad guy", the whole scene is priceless and well worth the build up.

Although Romano Scavolini has been directing since the 1960s, this is his best-known title and he has never really made himself a big star from his work. Baird Stafford has only one other credit, appearing in Scavolini's war film "Dog Tags" (1985). C. J. Cooke never acted again... a real shame.

A pretty mean-spirited and sleazy slasher film

[Red-Barracuda · 7/10 · 28 June 2011]

This is one of the most prominent films on the legendary video nasty list. For those who do not know, this was a list of videos that were considered obscenely violent by the establishment in early 80's Britain. Nightmares in a Damaged Brain was one of the first to be tagged as problematic and it's distributor even served six months in prison for releasing the thing. The question now I suppose is how does it shape up today? Well, on the one hand, it isn't at all hard to understand how it made the list in the first place. On the other hand, it still works pretty well as a sleazy grind-house slasher movie.

The film in a nutshell is about a troubled man who is released from an asylum. Too early it seems, as he pretty much immediately starts committing brutal murders.

The film's primary notoriety I am guessing comes from the very mean-spirited violence. There isn't an awful lot of it but when it does happen it's very gory and brutal. Particularly nasty is a knife attack on a woman in her home, while the carnage inflicted by the little boy near the end is pretty intense. The film also has some scenes in New York where the psycho visits sex shows and starts to lose his fragile mind - these sequences resemble an exploitation version of Taxi Driver. So the film is essentially well served on the violence and sleaze fronts. The biggest problem is that it drags in the middle section. In this part the story relocates to follow the goings on of a family, one which our psychopath seems to be stalking for some reason. The pacing takes a dive here when we focus on these none too interesting characters. However, the aforementioned parts that bookend the family drama are certainly not boring.

Nightmares in a Damaged Brain is ultimately one of the better video nasties. Unlike many on the list it's actually pretty nasty at times. And that is kind of what you want really.

Insanely Sleazy

[jamiemiller-07611 · 5/10 · 24 April 2022]

Unlike most slasher films with masked killers or deformed monsters, Nightmare tries to keep things fairly realistic which adds a layer of uncomfortable sleaze. The death scenes are probably some of the goriest and nastiest of that era if you can find the uncut version, but it would be nice if the victims were people we cared about. If they'd done that, this one would have really been one to be reckoned with.

make sure you see it uncut!

[Judexdot1 · 7/10 · 12 December 2005]

Caught this at an Arizona drive-in, back about 1983. It truly bothered some of my friends, but we all thought it was better than the co-feature, "Happy Birthday To Me". I hunted for quite a while looking for this, and finally found it at a Pawn shop in St. Paul, on VHS. Guess some folks have also been looking, and it is on DVD as "Nightmares In A Damaged Brain". But the disc runs about 94 minutes, and is missing some gory highlights, as well as a few touches of plot. the one you want was just "Nightmare", and runs about 98 minutes. the version you want came from 21st Century releasing, and is worth the hunt, if this is your sort of thriller. I wish everyone good luck, but I'm not giving mine up.

Confused horror

[tomgillespie2002 · 4/10 · 21 February 2011]

Better known in the UK as Nightmares In A Damaged Brain, this is one of the more interesting films placed on the video nasty list. Suffering from night terrors, George (Baird Stafford) is released from a mental hospital earlier than was recommended after judging that he is sane enough to separate the real world from his incidents in his nightmares. After realising their error, a doctor, psychologist and the police try to hunt him down before he is tipped over the edge. George wanders the streets looking at strippers before he begins his search for a seemingly random family who have their own troubles with their strange, mischievous son C.J. (C.J. Cooke),

The problem with the film, or should I say main problem, is that it never seems to decide what kind of film it wants to be. What starts out promisingly as a kind of Grindhouse Taxi Driver, soon switches to family drama, to police chase, to all-out stalk-and-slash. The moments when the action focuses on the family, which is the majority of the time, it loses pace and I lost sense of the main characters personal plight. George makes for an interesting 'bad' guy as he is psychologically torn and disturbed by the nightmares of a little boy butchering a man and a woman with an axe. The end, which I obviously won't reveal too much about, begins as a Halloween-esque set-piece complete with a funny mask which is rather silly and run-of-the-mill, but then suddenly engages again, as a key factor about our protagonist is revealed. Yet the director ruins it all with a rather cringe-worthy last frame, with which I shook my head in bitter disappointment.

www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

They Don't Make Them Like This Anymore!

[S.A.B. · 6/10 · 14 November 1999]

The 1981 splatter film NIGHTMARE hearkens back to a long-passed time in American horror cinema when "slasher" flicks were not only excessively gory, but also deeply disturbing in their underlying themes. These films not only outraged elitist film critics and general audiences, but also worried many horror film enthusiasts who felt that such films had "gone too far" in their uncompromising brutality. While a few of these films, most notably William Lustig's masterful MANIAC (1980), have attained cult status and been rereleased to DVD and VHS, most of these films have fallen out of print and into obscurity. Unfortunately, this is the case with NIGHTMARE, one of the better examples of the visceral, uncompromising horror films of the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Admittedly, this film does not start off very well. The first 30 minutes or so are pretty sloppy and hard to follow, largely because of choppy editing. However, once the film's story gets on track, what follows is a truly disturbing and horrific splatter film. Director Romano Scavolini, obviously working with a very low budget, nevertheless delivers some genuine suspense and adds touches of style (though he can't touch Dario Argento). The acting by the cast of unknowns is also surprisingly good. While the music during the opening and closing credits is pretty lousy, the score during the rest of the film is terrific, effectively creating an atmosphere of dread and fear. Of course, there's also the unforgettable gore effects by Tom Savini, displayed most spectacularly at the film's finale.

It goes without question that NIGHTMARE is definitely not for all tastes. Non-horror fans should stay far, far away. Additionally, I must note that more than any film I have ever seen, this film should not be viewed by children or impressionable young adults. However, hardcore fans of horror should definitely give this example of a bygone era a look. Watch this with some teeny-bopper flick like I STILL KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER and see which film leaves a longer lasting impression.

**1/2 out of ****

Scumtastic...

[BandSAboutMovies · 5/10 · 25 October 2018]

After mutilating and murdering a family, George Tatum has been jailed for years. Now, he has been given the opportunity to be reprogrammed and returned to society. That said - he still has nightmares of his childhood and a trip to a Times Square peep show unlock flashbacks that make him a killer all over again.

En route to Florida - where his ex-wife, daughters and son live, George follows a woman home and kills her. Meanwhile, his doctors have no clue that he's left the city.

Imagine his wife's surprise when she starts getting all manner of threats over the phone. All she wants to do is carry on with her new boyfriend, Bob. She has enough to deal with, as her son C.J. is the worst of all horror movie kids. He often plays pranks that go way past the line of good taste, like covering himself in ketchup and pretending to be dead. So when the kid says that a man is following him, everyone thinks he's just up to his normal young serial killer in training mischief.

After killing some of C.J.'s fellow students, George breaks into their house and kills the babysitter while mom is at a party. But C.J. calmly and cooly deals with it - he shoots his father with a revolver while dad has a flashback of catching his dad engaging in BDSM games with his mistress before he decided to kill them both with an axe.

The movie closes with C.J. sitting in a police car, mugging for the camera, while his mother returns to see her ex-husband's body being removed from the house. How does C.J. know the camera is there? Has he learned how to break the fourth wall? Will he soon be able to hear his own theme song, much like Michael Myers? And when I'm asking questions, isn't the full title, Nightmares in a Damaged Brain, way better than just Nightmare?

Director Romano Scavolini started his career in porn, which might explain the incredibly casual nudity in the film and its devotion to giving the viewer exactly what they want from a slasher. It knows exactly why you're here and gives you what you need. He stated about the film that he wanted to tell a story that has roots in reality and not just fantasy. A story of no hope, because mankind is at the mercy of its own demons. And, perhaps most importantly, a story where a young boy is unable to deal with the fact that his parents might just happen to be down with BDSM.

According to Matthew Edwards' Twisted Visions: Interviews with Cult Horror Filmmakers, Scavolini claimed that prior to receiving distribution through 21st Century Film Corporation, Warner Bros. and Universal Pictures had both wanted to buy the film, but only if the gore was cut down. Scavonli refused, feeling that "the strongest scenes had to remain uncut because the film should be a scandalous event." Yeah, I'm gonna call bull.

This is a scummy, down and dirty affair. C.J. is an annoying kid, but who can blame him, He has the worst parents possible - one's a serial killer and the other would rather party on down with Bob than deal with the wretched fruits of her ex-husband's loins. It's everything that 20/20 exposes on how horrible slashers movies are should be.

Very, very, very grim grind-house slasher flick

[Yoooooofffff · 8/10 · 6 November 2007]

OK i'm a little rusty right now when it comes to reviews as I haven't written one in years.

I won't bother explaining the plot, courtesy of the IMDb plot profile and other users you should be able to get a rough idea about it yourself.

So lets get down to the nitty gritty. Nightmare(s) (in a damaged brain) is kind of like the horror film you watch through the eyes of a child. Remember when you were a kid and horrors weren't so much entertaining as they were (mildly) traumatising? That would give you sleepless nights for quite some time? Well nightmare is one of those films that can have that effect on you AS AN ADULT.

Imagine the original 'texas chain saw massacre' but a lot more psychological and involving children, and A lot more gore, and you get the rough idea of what this film is all about.

Now I'm a big fan of horror, I can sit through (almost) anything but I've seen this film one and a half times (the uncut version) and have had it for quite some time. And thats NOT because the film is bad, its cause its so frigging' creepy. First time was a curiosity as I'd heard so much about it and was desperate to see why it had been banned, the second (half) time was because I hadn't seen it in a while and fancied giving it a second go. I couldn't do it! It really is one of those type of horrors thats hard to sit through, its tone is so sinister and you feel almost perverted and sick and evil for just watching it, even though there are no real animal killings or anything like cannibal holocaust/ferox and it's only a movie and nothing more.

Anyways, if you like genuine, creepy, under the skin horror then this one is for you. If, however, your not a fan of the whole 'grind-house' scene, don't like films with low production values and risible acting and prefer your horror to be modern, over produced and polished, then avoid this one.

In either case its very underrated as being 'one of the scariest horror films of all time'.

American and European styles make an awkward but interesting mix

[WaxBellaAmours · 6/10 · 4 December 2011]

Trying to bring the Italian giallo genre into the then-popular American slasher genre, Nightmare is a half-clever attempt. Those two extremes don't seem like a good fit, with the typical slash-and-hack, one-by-one structure of the slasher genre mixing a bit awkwardly with the more flamboyant, open-ended and director-focused giallo film movement. "Nightmare" isn't particularly coherent and can feel a bit half-hearted at times, but it has enough startling moments and a truly twisted (and brutal) view of sexuality to at least be interesting beyond it's initial viewing.

Often considered a Grindhouse staple, it shares the qualities of many other films of that "genre": lousy dubbing, horrid acting, completely conspicious continuity blunders, a soundtrack and film print that makes the viewer feel like their head is being held under muddy water. It's also unusually bleak and morally ambiguous for an American film, a telling sign that this was directed by an European. There's also a sense of the American-slasher puritanism, as noticed by the Killer's view of promiscious adults around him, but it's not quite as black-and-white as many of the like-minded films at the time. Largely because we're asked to look at the film's largely unseen killer with a more subjective eye.

"Nightmare" may be poorly made, although a few cat-and-mouse sequences are well-staged and engaging enough, but it's far from useless. It's cross between American DIY ethos and lavish, fetishitistic European flavoring is uneven and sloppy but always weird and alluring enough to keep you watching. The film's modest cult following is understandable.

Good start. Great ending. Shame about the rest.

[BA_Harrison · 5/10 · 11 February 2008]

George Tatum (Baird Stafford) is a murderous nut-job who, having been treated with revolutionary new drugs, is declared sane by his doctor and released back into the community. Of course, despite what his shrinks think, George is still as mad as a bag of badgers, and it's not long before he's off proving his psycho-killer credentials, eventually choosing to torment a young boy named C.J. and his dysfunctional family.

Released in the UK as 'Nightmares in a Damaged Brain' (a much better title than just 'Nightmare', don'tcha think?), this mean-spirited shocker got itself into trouble with the DPP thanks to a couple of particularly gruesome scenes of extreme gore. Matters were not helped by the fact that the distributors of the film decided to promote its release with a tasteless 'guess the weight of the brain' competition. Needless to say, the film soon found itself on the notorious Video Nasties list.

Director Romano Scavolini opens his film with a nifty dream sequence in which George discovers a severed head at the foot of his bed, and ends it with a superb double murder which features a cool decapitation and an axe in the face. Between these standout moments, we get a bit of strip joint action and a pretty good throat slashing, but also have to suffer through tons of tedious guff in which our frothy-mouthed loony makes threatening phone calls to C.J.'s house, whilst officials try to locate him with the use of a powerful (ha!) computer.

From the first 30 minutes or so, it is easy to be fooled into thinking that this film is going to be a real treat: it certainly has the grindhouse vibe and manages to be quite sleazy at times, occasionally reminding me of William Lustig's excellent movie Maniac. However, after the introduction of C.J. and his family, it becomes apparent that the film Scavolini is really trying to emulate is Halloween—it's just that he isn't doing it very well. The family scenes are clumsily handled and are tedious in the extreme, C.J. is such an irritating brat that one actually longs for him to suffer a painful death, and Tatum's ability to shrug off numerous bullet wounds (ala Michael Myers) is laughable.

However, if, like me, you are a purist and loathe to use the fast-forward button, no matter how dull the action, I can say that it is just about worth hanging in there for the gruesome finalé, which is a real humdinger.

Forgotten cult classics #8

[DJ Inferno · 25 November 2001]

"Nightmare (in a damaged brain)" is a dark and sinister mixture between William Lustig´s "Maniac" (1980) and John McNaughton´s "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" (1986). The nightmarish atmosphere of Scavolini´s film is combined with some creepy and bizarre flashbacks - the most memorable one is the scene when young madman George Tatum beheads a prostitute and splits the head of his father with an axe..! Gore galore!! Main actor Baird Stafford is almost as great as the legendary Michael Rooker, supporting actor Mik Cribben filmed some years later the Troma-shot "Beware! Children at play"... "Nightmare" is one of the most disturbing, but also fascinating movies about psycho-killers that deserves much more praise and attention than it actually gets!!

Bloody, sick, senseless

[preppy-3 · 1/10 · 24 March 2003]

A mentally disturbed man kills people.

That's it. There's next to no plot, no brains, no nothing! I saw this thing back in a movie theatre in 1981. I was equal parts bored, sickened and just amazed at how STUPID this was! The audience had a great time...after half an hour of trying to take it seriously they tore into it. They yelled back at the screen and threw things...it made the movie more fun than it actually was.

The VERY gory finale (in slow motion no less) was a definite highlight. It was sick but at least it wasn't boring. That's the part when most of the audience walked out.

Also Tom Savini did NOT do the gore effects here. They advertised that heavily until he sued them--he said he made some suggestions but that was it. Still, the gore is very good.

Still...no plot, lousy acting and slow motion axe murders. You decide whether this movie is for you.

Outdated Maybe, But Still As Twisted And Gory!

[Movie-Misfit · 7/10 · 19 November 2014]

Nightmare may not be on anyone's list as 'one-to-watch' with the abundance of new Hollywood horrors that swamp our DVD shelves and VOD highlights, most of which are barely worth the rental, but for any fan of horror, more so that of real horror from the 80's when it was about being real, then Nightmare surely still holds up as one of the most gruesome pictures of its day, and still is!

Slightly dated, but only in looks and acting, the tension and thrills behind Nightmare still stands strong complete with some infamous and disturbing FX scenes that hailed it as a video nasty back in the day, leading to its cuts by the BBFC and lack of distribution.

I'm surprised a remake hasn't already surfaced, but then again, possibly glad at the same time!

Nightmare is twisted, but with a good dose of realism to it based on certain links in the story, characters and outcome.

Well worth the watch, but most definitely not for the squeamish!

Cheap and amateurish nightmare

[sunznc · 1/10 · 9 May 2021]

The film is a complete.......nightmare!

This is a cheap, amateurish, poorly done pile of garbage. There is nothing here to enjoy at all.

I love horror films and have become fans of some others consider mediocre. But this film couldn't end fast enough for me! A total waste of time.

Everything about this film is poorly done. The sound, the acting, the camera work, the editing, the story, the dialog, the gore. All of it. Cheap, stupid and dull. Yes, dull. I was falling asleep.

There might be one, maybe two scenes that are creepy but they're over in two seconds. Just pure garbage. Please don't waste your time.

Nightmare (UNCUT VERSION)

[shaun7000 · 7/10 · 16 January 2014]

Firstly make sure you see the UNCUT version. There are clearly to many reviews on here from people who have been watching the cut version without realising it, then giving the film a bad review because all the shock gore is missing.

Because the cut version removes most of the shocking scenes and bloody effects it really has damaged the reputation of the uncut original.

I have watched almost ever horror film worth effort from the 1980's, and I can safely say that Nightmare ranks close to the top of the list.

Atmospheric, quality performances, original script, nicely shot and the scenes of horror are at the top of there game and brutal. There are so many horror films from the 1980's that people talk about because they were the most mainstream, but real fans of horror will know about films like nightmare.

Its an all round quality production and its no nonsense horror, unlike many films from the 80's where you laugh because of the bad dialogue, shoddy acting, poor effects or talentless script. Nightmare really delivers horror in a way other movies fail to do.

Parts of the movie can seem a little slow, but if you hang in there you get the rewards. Unlike other horror of that period it has aged well in comparison. After watching I sat back satisfied and thought to myself "that's what a real horror movie should look like"

The most bizarre video nasty of them all

[B_a_S_t_A_r_D · 5/10 · 7 March 2006]

"Nightmare In A Damaged Brain" really interested me, but perhaps not in the way that the distributors would have liked it to. This early eighties "video nasty" is considerably different from others of its genre because of its incredibly strange tone. The very first scene depicts a screaming George gazing upon a woman's severed head at the foot of his bed, and it doesn't get any less psychotic from there. The plot is full of holes and is so disjointed that it isn't just the constant scenes of violence that make for uncomfortable viewing at all. Considering that "Nightmare" seemingly attempts to have a medical/psychological feel to it, there isn't a lot explained about the character of George by the two psychologist characters. The medical scenes are the weaker parts of the film. Although it is far less of a cliché than many of the video nasty craze, Nightmare's downfall is its attempts to be intelligent and iconic. The medics are shallow and unintelligent, one even ridiculously explaining that George is "Simply not dangerous" when he very brutally murdered his parents as a child. Among the weak aspects of the film is its fickle direction. Rarely have I seen a film maker try as hard as Romano Scavolini to master so many sub genres of horror. The suspense/stalker theme is perhaps the one he pulls off most effectively, while others are all to no avail and come across too clearly as blatant ripoffs. Even people who haven't seen The Shining will sneer at the door chopping scene, whilst the children running and hiding from the masked George is essentially a frame by frame remake of the climax of "Halloween". There are even hints of "The Omen" in places. "Nightmare" is not quite a slasher movie, not quite a psychological thriller and has an incredibly weak screenplay, but it is not a lost cause. Fans of shock horror won't be disappointed by the intense graphic scenes and there is even a credible twist at the end, whilst the comparison between the young George and CJ is nicely told and could easily have been a subplot from a more sophisticated thriller. The shocking end sequence which shows George's childhood flashback in full is deeply disturbing. Overall, Nightmares In A Damaged Brain is watchable, but its impact is curbed by the frustratingly frequent shift in tone.

Care in the community

[Bezenby · 6/10 · 3 March 2019]

This Italian-helmed, US acted film is a straight up slasher film, as opposed to a giallo. It got itself banned as a video nasty due to the gore, which is plentiful, but is just kind okay due to the plot, which is threadbare.

It's a kind of mix of Halloween, with an escaped mental patient heading for home, with a little bit of Maniac thrown in too, as he's a tortured soul who is revulsed himself by his actions. You see George keeps flashing back to some time when he was a child, and keeps seeing images of his mother's severed head opening her eyes and looking at him. After taking part in an experimental treatment, George is considered healthy and released, immediately running off to go kill people.

Elsewhere, mother-of-three Sharon is having trouble balancing her new love life with the behaviour of her son C.J, who is a bit of handful to say the least. Not only is he prank calling the babysitter from inside the house, he's also pretending to be stabbed by a strange man who is hanging around outside the house. Guess what happens when a strange man does start hanging around the house? C.J should have read the story "The Boy Who Cried I've Been Stabbed Too Many Times."

That's basically the plot - George starts hanging around the place looking for babysitters to kill while C.J mentally tortures his mother and various babysitters before everything comes to a head in an absolutely blood drenched ending. Pity there's not much happening between the violent murders.

It looks like the actors were all amatuers but to me they did okay, especially the mother, George, and C.J. As a father of a kid who also loves pranking me, the actress that played the mother was pretty good as a person losing her mind.

This one is pretty easy to find due to its status as a video nasty. You might even remember the cover from the early eighties!

Gorehounds beware !

[Phroggy · 4/10 · 15 April 1999]

Okay, this for you European guys who read that wonderful book "Spaghetti Nightmares", in Italian or English translation. In Scavolini's comments, he implied his movie was a cult movie in France, which is far from reality. It's true the movie was released with a wonderful poster (a screaming face made out of blood-blots, looks better than it sounds) which went out in a postcard (I saw it in a Parisian postcards-seller !) under the title "Cauchemars à Daytona Beach", but the movie had no more success than its kindred, though it's still out on video in an unrated version (No censorship in Phroggyland !) and, despite many screenings at double-feature shows, is NO cult movie like "Evil Dead" or "Maniac". Not that it's bad. In my own video guide, I rated it as honest-to-god fare for Gorehounds with a good lead actor, but nothing more (and nothing less).

Cool Psycho/Serial Killer Horror Film...

[EVOL666 · 8/10 · 21 December 2005]

NIGHTMARE IN A DAMAGED BRAIN is a rare treat of early 80's American low-budget horror, as it has both a decent story/plot and a considerable amount of gore for the era...

George is a schizophrenic psychopath who escapes from the care of his physician. The "wonder drugs" that George takes to combat his spells of delirium and psychoses don't work too well, and soon he's on the loose and up to no-good. We find that George's problems are deep rooted within his family and have to do with an experience he witnessed involving his father and some random hooker-ish chick when George was a boy. George's psychiatrist is on the chase to track him down and all is revealed in the "shocking" conclusion.

NIGHTMARE IN A DAMAGED BRAIN is a very decent horror film. A little dated by today's standards but still has more gore and cool kill scenes than you average current U.S. theatrical release. An over-looked film that could use some more recognition. If you dig slashers/psychological horror then you'll probably feel this one. Recommended 8/10

More disturbing than pure trash

[Zombie79 · 7/10 · 26 November 1999]

Along with Maniac this is regarded as the nastiest of the Slasher cycle of the early 80s,due to some gore that seems purposefully allied with the pornographic.Banned in the UK,for me it exudes a deeply pessimistic nastiness,that makes it deserving of at least one watch.Its grubby,dimly lit,and poorly edited and shot but for a gorehound theres a great decapitation(though Tom Savini did not work on this film apparently)and a nasty throat slitting.And the ending is depressing!At least its made for adults and its questionable morals were more excusable back in the 80s,so its a timepiece of what was acceptable back then!

Rather lame

[ODDBear · 3/10 · 16 March 2006]

A mental patient has recurring dreams concerning a horrific event where a child kills his father and a hooker (I think) with an axe. He tells psychiatrists that he's not sure whether he IS the child, or simply watching from distance. Anyway, this model citizen gets released and shortly thereafter he starts killing people in gruesome fashion. He becomes fixated on a family living in Florida, a divorced wife with three kids, one of whom seems to be somewhat less than stable.

It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out the dream sequences or why he chooses this particular family but this film is nonetheless very nonsensical. It looks cheap and not very professionally made, shaky and flavourless photography, mediocre script at best and very badly acted. The film is widely known for it's gore drenched set pieces, but I must have watched a censored edition because the gore here is nothing to write home about.

It picks up a bit in the end and what gore there is is pretty well done but overall this is a pretty lame horror film.