Pesadelo

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"

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.

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'.

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.

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.