O2D I saw that AMC was running this at 4:45 am today so I stayed up to check it out. Another in a long line of terrible decisions. Not only is the movie terrible, AMC had the nerve to show some stupid 15 minute compressed version that they put together. The only movie that American Movie Classics played in a week and they couldn't run the whole thing. Unfortunately I decided that I needed to see the whole thing and now I can never get that time back. At one point a guy says "She can wait, we can't. I have doctor's reports to fill out!' What?? The only thing I think I understood was that the guy's sister wanted to have sex with him and I'm not even sure about that. I have seen a lot of bad movies and this makes most of them look pretty good.

montecellic I watched this film because of oddly good reviews and repeated claims that it depicted axe murders. Being made in 1963, I was curious to see how this was handled. I was in for a huge disappointment, because...There are NO axe murders in this film. Not one. The first murder is by shotgun and all the others are via kitchen knife. Period.Essentially, this is a mystery/slasher wannabe. The plot is very crude and amateurish--you will know who the killer is before the first five minutes of the film, literally. Even so, the film's producers plant incredibly large, obvious, deliberate "clues" as to the killer's identity two or three more times during the course of the movie.They could have saved themselves the trouble. A child could guess the killer and the killer's motive is insanely improbable and doesn't really make sense.Another distraction, is how ineptly photographed and lit the film is. Very bad angles, etc. make it actually difficult to watch.And don't get me started on the script. The whole film revolves around teenage nymphets constantly throwing themselves at the male lead character. Everywhere he goes, they hit on him. This is pure fantasy on the producer's part. The only time women act like this in real life is when money is involved. Females have no libidos whatsoever in real life and do not try to seduce men everywhere they go just for the hell of it.There are two good things about "Violent Midnight." One is lead actor Lee Phillips, who had come along way (down) since 1957's "Peyton Place." The other is James Farrentino, who is quite hot in his tight tee shirt and Brylecreemed hair.For die-hard fans of the genre ONLY.

MartinHafer While I wouldn't call "Violent Midnight" a porno film, I was VERY surprised when I tried to watch this with my family. After all, the DVD was unrated and from the early 1960s. But my wife and daughters were a bit surprised as was I when ample nudity appeared on the screen. Again and again, ladies appeared in their underwear or naked for little apparent reason. So, because of this you might want to think twice about seeing this one. It's not a bad film--but an early merging of murder and naked women--a rather disturbing combination if you think about it.If you do see this film, you'll see James Farentino before he was a star and Dick Van Patten in his first film. It also stars Lee Philips--an actor you may recognize but definitely an actor who is relatively unknown today.

Scarecrow-88 A Korean "one-man war machine" who witnessed the loss of many soldiers in his platoon, has found his niche in art..yet Elliot Freeman(Lee Philips)is seen as the possible killer right at the beginning after his rather crazy middle-aged father is shot by someone in the bushes point-blank in the face. His sister, Lynn(Margot Hartman)was also present when that nasty incident took place and returns home after being away for 6 years to attend the Belmont School for Girls nearby Elliot's home. A psychopath murdered a former model of Elliot's and it is possible he's responsible, although, it's obvious(if you've seen your share of mysteries, it's obvious he's not the likely correct candidate to be the real killer)he's merely the fall-guy for someone else. Another possible suspect is muscle-headed studly biker creep Charlie(the chiseled, young James Farentino trying to summon Brando from "The Wild One")who dated the murdered model and the victim of an altercation with Elliot over her at a local pub. On the case is cop Palmer(a thin Dick Van Patten, speaking noir copper lingo)and his leads are few. Offered as a possible suspect is a school professor/peeping tom who likes to spy on the girls as they shower in their dorm rooms and out in the local swimming hole. Elliot has a love-interest who lives at a farm near his home named Carol(Jean Hale)whose life you know will be in peril at the end as the killer emerges with his/her mask unveiled. The real star of the film for yours truly was the sex kitten Lorraine Rogers as Alice St. Clair, the school tramp who is definitely one smokin' dame. She has a heated make-out session in the school laundry room with Farentino. With Rogers as the sex-bomb, you have Sylvia Miles, ugh, as the town ugly who is enamored with her man Charlie, although he(who could blame him?)looks elsewhere for sex. She is so in love with Charlie, Sylvia will cover up for him when the police come snooping for an alibi.Crudely made, amateurish shocker shows that it was independently made because the editing is anything but professional. The pacing lags, yet it's sleazy enough thanks to some naughty girls who like to unbutton their tops. I've seen worse, and this film has that exploitive nature thanks to the vicious knife attacks, so it works in fits and starts. But, the film gets bonus points thanks to Lorraine Rogers..she often made my heart skip a beat.