ThiefHott Too much of everything

Wordiezett So much average

Kailansorac Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

ThedevilChoose When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

Wuchak RELEASED IN 1963 and directed by Roger Corman & Francis Ford Coppola (with the help of a few others), "The Terror" stars Jack Nicholson as a young officer in Napoleon's Army who is infatuated by an intriguing woman (Sandra Knight) he meets on the coast of the Confederation of the Rhine. After a run-in with a witch (Dorothy Neumann) he tracks the mysterious girl to the castle of an elderly Baron riddled with guilt (Boris Karloff). INTERESTING BEHIND-THE-SCENES INFO: After the shooting for Corman's "The Raven" was completed, the castle sets were still available for a few days before demolition. Corman acted quickly to concoct a script via Leo Gordon and enlisted 75 year-old Karloff, who costarred in "The Raven." Boris later said it was amusing the way Roger dashed around with him & the other principles filming scenes just two steps ahead of the wreckers. After a few days of shooting, Corman couldn't film the rest of the movie himself due to union legalities, so he enlisted several young filmmakers to assist, including sending Coppola up to the Big Sur area for eleven days. Sets from other AIP movies were also used, notably "The Haunted Palace" with Vincent Price.COMMENTARY: I've heard people complain about the story supposedly not making sense, but I found the plot easy to follow and even had it figured out by the halfway point, not including the dubious curveball thrown-in at the end (you'll know what I mean). As my title blurb points out, "The Terror" is very Hammer-esque, albeit made in California and on a lower budget than the typical Hammer flick (which weren't expensive films by any means). So if you like haunting Gothic horror with mysterious castles, ghosts and witches in the mold of Hammer flicks you'll probably like "The Terror." It's particularly reminiscent of "Dracula, Prince of Darkness" (1966), which came out three years later. As far as 60's spooky MOOD goes, this movie's superb, which includes the Gothic score (Ronald Stein). Unfortunately, Nicholson's voice is noticeably incongruous and his lines are sometimes delivered in a stilted manner, but that's a minor quibble. THE MOVIE RUNS 1 hours & 21 minutes and was shot in Los Angeles (studio), Santa Monica, Point Lobos & Palos Verdes Peninsula, California. WRITERS: Gordon and Jack Hill. ADDITIONAL CAST: Dick Miller (Stefan) and Jonathan Haze (Gustaf). GRADE: B/B-

mrnunleygo I watched this movie because I like bad movies and this one promised Boris Karloff and a young Jack Nicholson in the same film. I really enjoyed it, but it's always hard to rate so-bad-it's-good movies (Should I give it a 1 or a 10?), which only appeal to a certain kind of audience. This Corman classic, reportedly pasted together from leftover sets and scenes shot by hired-for-the-day directors, proceeds as an atmospheric but otherwise merely bad spectral chiller until about 4/5ths of the way through, when an unexpected plot twist renders pretty much everything that came before incomprehensible, which tips the movie into bad-movie-hall-of-fame territory. The last 15 minutes are especially mind-boggling for anyone capable of three seconds of logical thought (like, uh, isn't that a rather unusual family crypt?). No nudity in 1963, but lots of fun. If you enjoy bad movies, go for it.

Catharina_Sweden This is basically a silly, unrealistic, and muddled story, that leaves several questions unanswered. There are also several plot holes. For example: if the Baron is the old woman's son, how come that she never recognized him during all the years in the same village..? After all, a mother knows her son even if he changes his clothes and hair-style... Also, it was odd that they looked about the same age. And what become of the real Baron's body..? And what about the baby..? My own guess, which I think would have worked in reality, was that the Baroness had had a child in secret. And after the Baron (or Eric) was murdered, Eric (or the Baron) kept the child, a girl, locked up in the mansion - and she turned out exactly like her mother. And this young woman was in fact, what everybody believed was her mother's ghost. That had been a much better mystery I think! :-)The technical effects are very clumsy and bad compared to today's movies, but of course this was 1963, so THAT is a thing you have to accept.Anyway, if you are in the right mood, for example at a horror movie night around Halloween, this movie could well set the right atmosphere for the rest of the evening. If you forget about reason, and give yourself up to imagination. Because it has all the right scenery, interiors, exteriors, and props for an old-fashioned Gothic horror story. I felt that it had the atmosphere of Poe, BEFORE I read that the production was in reality strongly involved with the production of movies out of Poe stories. So that was well done! :-) Boris Karloff, of course, is unsurpassed in the kind of role he is playing, and it was also fun to see a young Jack Nicholson - before he was typecast as a grumpy middle-aged man.

william-c-allen-jr I voted 5 because I have no idea. Allow me to build some context:I was young and had just moved to Barcelona. I was sharing a flat with an old NY university roommate and friend in the rundown but exciting barrio Raval. We were both sick and sleeping on couches in the living room at random hours, be it day or night, with the television constantly burning.I awoke sometime around 3am and this movie was just beginning. And it wasn't dubbed into Spanish! I threw a boot at my friend and made him watch it with me. For an hour and a bit we were cackling like fevered demons. Watch this when sick, in a foreign land, in the middle of the night. You'll better appreciate the broody darkness of it then. Otherwise I strongly suspect it stinks.