andrabem-2 "Terror" by Norman J. Warren is a film full of surprises. It starts in the 17th century with the persecution of a witch - she tries to escape but is caught and burnt at the stake. While she was burning, some people died. One death looked like an accident caused by carelessness, but the others had clearly been caused by supernatural forces. This is the beginning of the dying spree, and three centuries later… Three centuries later, the killings will come with double force. Many people are killed. Is it the witch or a human agent? The clues seem to point to one character in particular, but some killings are so "fantastic" that we are led to think about a supernatural agent.Anyway, I was not concerned about the plot. The film is quite inventive, and in some ways almost resembles a giallo. The preliminaries of each murder are stylish and dynamic; there are many pretty girls in the film (sure thing, Norman has really a good taste in what refers to feminine beauty), and the soundtrack is inspired and helps to enhance the film. In short, fast cameras, a good soundtrack and a bizarre and interesting way of telling the story. But one thing the film lacks – Nudity. We only once see a woman performing a show almost naked. She's ugly. And there were so many pretty girls in this film, and not even one of them… Anyway, even so, I think that "Terror" is an enjoyable film, one can say that Norman J. Warren has a very personal way of making films. Whatever you say about his films you can't deny his creativity. I've only seen three of Norman J. Warren's films – This one called "Terror", "Inseminoid" and "Prey", and all of them share this common trait – they are bizarre and addictive, so if you're looking for something different in films, check out his films.

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)

nassao 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.

fertilecelluloid 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.