User reviews

Premise = Six actresses are invited to a cabin in the mountains to audition for the part of Audra. Well, all of these actresses are really good-looking (well or so they're supposed to be I guess) but one, there's someone running around in a hag mask killing people around the cabin. Anyone who gets in her way will die.

I watched this movie recently and found it very entertaining, quite different from the other slashers that came out during this era, and plus the acting is actually really good especially Samantha, there are many effective scenes like the ice skating murder scene which is really well done, the dream sequence with the doll at the beginning and the final chase scene which takes a rather unpredictable turn and last but not least the ending which has a bit of a twist which i never saw coming.

The killers mask is really creepy as well and the directing is rather sleek even though we know when the killer's going strike next. All in all this is a really entertaining slasher that deserves to be remembered.

A number of good Canadian horror movies have made their way to the USA, to become cult classics. Bob Clark's outstanding 1974 horror-thriller Black Christmas remains a staple of the modern "scary" movie. Beloved Jamie Lee Curtis came to horror fame through the likes of Prom Night (1980) and Terror Train (also 1980). However, you may not have heard of this interesting little shocker...

Curtains is a better-than average slasher, despite some of its reviews. The movie is about six actresses who go to audition at a director's country house, where it seems someone is willing to kill for the role! While this may sound cliché, the film has enough creativity on it's side for one not to really notice. It sets up some pretty good shock sequences. Anyone who has read about this film will surely have seen mention of the infamous "ice skating" scene, which is very memorable.

Curtains was a troubled production though. It was to be filmed in 1980 and ended up taking years before completion. So, any of the films "loose ends" are more likely a product of this problem. But it does hold together. The cast is quite good; Eggar, Griffin, and Thorson are in especially top-form. The direction is well done with a touch of style. Paul Zaza's music score is an effective one. Last, but not least, the story itself is a gripper!

For horror fans, Curtains is a rare treat that is well worth seeking out. It ranks with some of the better slashers of the early '80s.

*** out of ****

Contrary to popular belief, good horror movies are still being made nowadays, but we can't really deny that the 1970's and 80's were the greatest and absolute most profitable decades for the genre. The 70's resulted in numberless amounts of nasty & experimental exploitation movies whereas the 80's pleased us with a wide variation of grotesque and often downright demented slasher movies. Richard Ciupka's "Curtains" is one of the prime examples to state why the insanity of the 80's horror industry will probably never be equaled ever again. It's a thoroughly weird and unconventional low-budget shocker, and even though the plot is full of holes and completely implausible, the film literally bathes in an atmosphere of genuine creepiness and morbidity. The script is poorly written and very incoherent, nearly forcing the viewers to link bits & pieces of the story together themselves, but somehow the far-fetched events featuring in "Curtains" are fascinating and suspenseful to behold. Horror-regular and utter cool guy John Vernon ("Killer Klowns from Outer Space", "Sweet Movie") stars as an eccentric and slightly crazy director who's about to realize his ultimate dream, namely a theater-adaptation of the famous "Audra"; the tale of a remarkable female psychiatric patient. His regular lead actress Samantha Sherwood is so obsessed with getting the titular part she even has herself committed in an actual asylum to research the role. While Samantha is stuck in the asylum, Jonathan Stryker – bastard that he is – recruits six young and inexperienced actresses to audition for the role instead of Samantha. They're all invited to spend the weekend up at Stryker's remote mansion in the hills, but naturally a maniacal killer joins the party as well and immediately begins to wipe out the six contenders for the part. Did Samanta escape the asylum for revenge? Is it one of the women who can't deal with competition very well? Or perhaps Stryker finally went totally berserk? You don't require an IQ of 150 to figure out the killer's identity rather quickly, but Ciupka manages to maintain a respectable level of tension until the very last sequences and particularly the deaths of the girls are memorably gruesome. Most notably, there's one scene where the killer skate-stalks his/her screaming victim over a frozen pond, menacingly waving around a sickle! The isolated filming locations add a great deal of claustrophobic atmosphere to the movie and it also features a lot of effectively sinister scenery, like creepy old dolls, secondhand theater attributes and – of course – the killer's uncanny mask; which shows the face of an old witch with protruding eyes and a wide-open mouth. With a slight bit of imagination, you could even say that the mask used in "Curtains" predates the one in Wes Craven's "Scream" with more than a decade! Even though the dialogs are laughably inept, John Vernon still manages to deliver an engaging performance and he even compensates for the actresses' lack of talent. Also, keep an eye open for the brief supportive role of Michael Wincott, who later moved on to better Hollywood films like "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves" and "The Three Musketeers". "Curtains" is once again a Canadian horror production, like so many other guilty pleasures of that decade. The list is nearly endless, with "Visiting Hours", "Prom Night", "Humongous", "Happy Birthday to Me", "Bells", "Funeral Home" and "The Pit". Essential viewing if you consider yourself a fans of cheesy 80's goodness, you can't afford to miss "Curtains".

As slasher movies go, this one is not too bad. It borrows liberally from other more famous Canadian slasher films (the wintry setting and actress Lynn Griffith from "Black Christmas", the killer's mask from "Terror Train"), but it's not a bad little film in its own right. It has a good set-up. Six young actresses are gathered together in an isolated house to compete for the same theatrical role (of an insane woman). As it turns out the treacherous director (John Vernon) had previously given the part to an older actress (Samantha Egger) who had gone so far as to fake her way into a mental institution to research the role and ended up being left there by the director. Soon the competitors start disappearing one-by-one. But is it the director, the bitter older actress, or has one the younger would-be thespians been driven over the edge by the competition? The movies falls apart a little in the middle (apparently there were directorial problems-- the director on record, "Johnathon Stryker", has the same name as the character in the movie, and, according to this website, they also had to replace a lead actress). The ending is good, however, and pretty surprising--and it definitely has some very spooky scenes.

This is one of the rare slasher movies that is more interested in creating a strong atmosphere and developing the characters than in showing 101 ways to carve up annoying, brain dead teenagers. If you're the proud owner of the "Sleepaway Camp" box set you might want to pass on this one, but if you like horror movies that are well-crafted and actually a little bit scary, this is worth a look

Though fans of today's slam-bang gorefests will likely be let down, CURTAINS is worth a look for low-budget horror buffs. Actress Samantha Sherwood is so anxious to land the film role of a troubled woman she has herself committed to get a firsthand look at insanity. Things turn grisly when the director abandons her to host a casting session at his home. One by one the beautiful women he's invited are picked off. Is Samantha our killer or are things more complicated than they seem?

Despite is limitations, budgetary and otherwise, the Canadian-made CURTAINS is able to hold the viewer's attention while delivering a few thrills. The acting is surprisingly solid by genre standards, though you won't find very many people demanding a recount for the 1983 Oscars. It's clear the people behind this effort cared and wanted to bring something unique to the cinematic world, so nonsensical moments (what's with the doll??) are more easily forgiven.

In some ways, CURTAINS is reminiscent of an early Friday THE 13TH entry. Those involved put their best foot forward, accepted their limitations and tried to please a target audience. And like Jason Voorhees' adventures, CURTAINS will require a suspension of belief and acceptance of the fact not all the questions are answered.

There was certainly a lot more slashers released during the eighties than there needed to be; but every now and then, you'll come across a decent one and while it has its fair share of problems, Curtains is one such film. The film is both a trashy eighties slasher, and a somewhat inappropriate commentary on the mentality of aspiring actresses. These two ideas blend well with the mystery plot too, as there's plenty of red herrings for the audience to mull over and a somewhat bitchy atmosphere to most of the lead characters. The plot seems to focus on the relationship between film director Jonathan Stryker and his long term muse Samantha Sherwood. For his next film, Samantha is required to be committed to a mental asylum in order to research the role. However, this is actually a ruse to allow the director to audition six younger actresses while Samantha stays inside. However, she manages to escape and get herself to the old mansion where the auditions are taking place. Around the same time, several of the young starlets start to disappear...

Normally, there's a high amount of gore in any given slasher; and while Curtains features a handful of murder scenes, none of them are particularly bloody and director Richard Ciupka seems to prefer to keep the focus more on atmosphere and tension than gore. The plot pacing is somewhat ponderous, so the film isn't always filled with tension - but the scenes that feature the murderer are largely well executed, and the mystery as to who is behind the mask is one that seems worth uncovering. Curtains takes place in a creepy old mansion house, and this provides a more than adequate location for the film to take place in. The acting is decent also, with two central performances - those coming from John Vernon and Samantha Eggar standing out among the younger cast. The conclusion to the film is particularly well done, and this ensures that the audience leaves the film on a high. The mystery behind the murderer is clever in that all the cards are kept close to the chest until the end, and while the culprit is unlikely - it does come as a surprise. Overall, Curtains is hardly a brilliant film, but it's not bad and certainly is worth seeing.

It is atmospheric and has solid performances, but it has rhythm problems. It happened because its director had to refilm scenes during the production to make it look more like a pattern slasher film. Maybe if the film had developed its ambiguities, and worked on the original script, it would've been a cut above the rest (no pun intended XD). Yet, it's a cult classic that definitely deserves more attention.

"Curtains" features a group of women who have been summoned to a prestigious director's mansion to audition for a film; meanwhile his frequent collaborator and muse, a glamorous and established actress, has intentionally admitted herself into a psych ward in order to prepare for the role he is now offering to one of the younger talents. Things are doomed for the the young women from the start when a killer in a grotesque hag mask begins killing them along the way.

One has to wonder why a film like "Curtains" has been so longly ignored except among cult horror purists— fans have ached for a proper DVD release of the film, and it certainly deserves at least that. It is not a great film, but it is great if we're measuring it on a slasher scale.

Though it is most definitely a slasher movie, there are shades of class here that set it apart from the sleazier body count films of the era, and the performances are part of this, but also a great deal of attention to cinematography and the establishment of mood. The entire film has a dark, somber, weather-drenched atmosphere that is immediately off-putting, and things become progressively macabre after the girls reach the remote mansion.

It's an interesting and unusual setup, and there is a lot of subtext about filmmaking and performance that is played up with some minor intelligence. While the establishment of mood is fantastic here, and the setting is delectably spooky, there is a sense of disconnectedness in the film on a tonal level. Given the film's purportedly lengthy, troubled production, this makes sense, but it does create a feeling of the film not really being the sum of its parts— at least not the sum that it could have been. That said, the film is nevertheless successful at maintaining an eeriness.

The performances here are great, with John Eggar as the cold and calculated director, and Samantha Eggar as his glamorous "has been" muse. These two are the veterans of the film, both literally and narratively. Linda Thorson, Lynne Griffin (of "Black Christmas"), and Lesleh Donaldson ("Funeral Home") are welcome additions to the younger actresses, and give respectable performances, especially Griffin.

Overall, "Curtains" excels at being a moody and moderately classy slasher film. There are enough death scenes to appease the gore crowd, and enough suspense and mood to engage the more narratively-inclined audience, and, while the film's disjointed production seeps into the final product, the parts are effective enough to take precedence over the sum. 8/10.

There's a germ of brilliance in Curtains. The initial concept of 6 actresses forced to audition for a role in a director's snowbound mansion as a killer picks them off one by one seems like prime slasher/thriller fun. It seems like a simple enough premise to sustain a 90 minute movie, but Curtains isn't satisfied with following through with this simple premise. In fact, it's almost 30 minutes into the film before we get to this portion of the film. I wish I could say those first 30 minutes were spent getting to know the soon-to-be victims, but Curtains isn't smart enough to do that.

Instead, we're treated to an extended sequence of an aging actress getting herself committed to a mental hospital in order to study for this role. It's an interesting story idea by itself, but feels so disconnected to the rest of the film and it really sets the film out on a strange note it never really recovers from. If there's a positive in this, it's that the strange structure gives the film a certain dreamlike quality throughout.

Things just sort of happen in Curtains. By the time you get to the climactic final chase scene with the film's final girl, it's hard to care too much since we don't know a thing about her. What's even more upsetting is that it's a well shot, edited, and scored sequence that, with the right character, could have really been a nail biter. Curtains is full of a few well orchestrated scenes including two scenes where two of the actresses encounter a spooky doll that's luring them to their deaths.

Curtains ends up being more frustrating than anything else with a few good performances and well done set pieces to save it from being a total washout.

Curtains heralded the directorial debut of Richard Ciupka, a cinematographer that had worked on various cult-movies throughout the seventies and was the main camera operator on the excellent gialli, Blood Relatives from 1982. Peter and Richard Simpson, the Canada-based team responsible for Prom Night were the producers, marking their second joint venture into the kingdom of slash and explaining the healthy budget and strong casting decisions. It's no secret that it suffered a nightmare production that was riddled with problems, which began when lead actress Celine Lamez refused to play a full-frontal nude scene a fair way into the shoot. She was consequently fired and blacklisted from working in Canadian motion pictures for four years. Linda Thornson replaced her, but obviously all the parts that had already been filmed had to be re-shot with the replacement, costing more money and putting a dampener on the set's general atmosphere. After that, things just spiralled further downhill, resulting in various script changes and complaints from the financers that were unsatisfied with Ciupka's work as director. (That came as a big surprise when I found out; I thought he did a superb job!) A lot of scenes ended up on the cutting room floor, which explains the studio stills showing screen-shots that never appeared in the final print when it was finally released after being shelved for three years. I'm fairly sure that some of the conspicuous plot holes that can be found throughout the runtime are most definitely resolved on a roll of film that's stashed away somewhere in a Canadian office, waiting for someone to uncover and re-edit it into a 'director's cut'. Those sorts of on-set complications usually and quite understandably completely ruin most efforts that are unfortunate enough to be plagued by them. Just look at Steve Miner's Texas Rangers. As a filmmaker, Miner usually always manages to deliver the goods, but after one too many accidents involving careless horsemen and an uninspired crew, it reportedly created an atmosphere of ‘laziness'. The film was first rumoured to be ‘unreleasable', before it slipped out silently some months later and bombed like a dysfunctional torpedo. Despite all that worked against it, Curtains is still one of my favourite genre-pieces from the early eighties. Ciupka directs with an exquisite style and confidence, and Paul Zaza's superb score creates a relentlessly foreboding environment that has rarely been matched to such a great effect.

The story resolves around a mysterious director that is trying to produce a film, which he feels soulfully passionate towards. Jonathan Stryker (John Vernon)'s lover and lead actress, the well-respected Samantha Sherwood (Sam Eggar), bought him the rights to the movie, in return for the lead role. She was hoping to play the central character, Audra, whom is an infamously psychotic and eccentric woman. Like the best Method actors, Sherwood discovers that research is the essential key to performance, so she fakes insanity to have herself sectioned into an asylum, so that she can become emotionally closer to the persona that she wishes to portray. Stryker visits her constantly at first, but as time goes by, he becomes concerned that the actress is looking a little too convincing and perhaps she really has gone doolally. So what does he decide to do, tell the doctor that it was all a farce and save the woman from impending delusion? Of course not, instead he just abandons her to rot with the rest of the whacko in the institute, and decides on a casting weekend at his remote New England mansion to find a new Audra! Hmmm, I'm betting that someone's going to have to pay dearly for that endeavour, don't you agree? The auditions consist of six actresses spending forty-eight hours away from civilization and undergoing vigorous dramatic examinations. Stryker himself sums the tests up perfectly, making himself sound like a military instructor, when he says, `The next two days will be unlike anything that you've ever seen before.' All the women have their own unique talents, and they're all attractive and unattached, proving that the crafty mogul has truly got his head screwed on correctly! When they all meet up over dinner for the first time, they discuss what lengths they'd travel in order to win - what would surely be - the role of their careers. The mood is decided when one budding thespian says that she'd ‘...kill for the part'. The atmosphere gets all the more tense when Sherwood turns up unannounced and looks as if she's going to do just that! As sure as night becomes day, a masked killer makes an appearance and begins working his way through the cast-list one at a time, leading me to believe that he's auditioning for the crown of most creative slasher movie massacre inflictor! As is the thread with the multitude of genre entries from this point in the cycle, we have to decide whom we think is under that impressively creepy mask...

Curtains certainly has more than its fair share of noteworthy moments. The awe-inspiring second killing, which can best be described as ‘skate and slash', ranks alongside The Prowler's ‘late night swim' as two of the best from the genre's peak period. Christie (Lesleh Donaldson) sets out early in the morning, skates in hand, to practise her forte in the bright snow-laden woodland. She finds a fitting pool of ice and places her beat-box down, before treating us to a corny eighties love song and some visually credible skills that were indeed polished enough to rival those of acclaimed Olympic-twosome, Torvil and Dean! After a good couple of minutes watching her whiz around in circles, her performance is cut short, when the tape that she was listening too is mysteriously stopped. (It was a shame ‘cos that cheesy old ballad was actually quite catchy!) She looks over to where the stereo is placed, but sees no one, so heads over to get a closer look. On inspection she discovers a bizarre and spooky-looking doll buried under the snow beside the radio. As she cleans the frost away from its woe-be-tired face, we see the first shots of the mysterious killer as he begins skating towards the hapless female from a distance. Christie looks up to catch the assailant charging in her direction, which is shot in superb slo-mo and backed with some perfectly orchestrated work from Paul Zaza. She soon realises that this uninvited guest doesn't have her best intentions at heart, when he raises a scythe above his head and decapitates the dolly that she was clenching in her hands! After an apprehensive pursuit through the snow-coated trees and an unexpected jump-scare, lets just say, that the world has one less season ticket holder to the local ice rink! It truly is a brilliant experience watching the superbly deranged psychopath in the old-hag mask skate up in slow-framed shots, while the victim struggles to make sense of the situation. The tension was literally impeccable and Donaldson's decent performance as the petrified youngster made it all the more realistic, somehow. You'll be hard-pushed to find a more memorable sequence anywhere in slasher cinema. It's genuinely terrifying.

The final chase was equally as suspenseful, utilising a superb use of lighting and claustrophobic trappings to create a fitting final to a competent offering. The prop-room location gives Ciupka a chance to shine as he makes the most of his previous experience, chucking in tonnes of striking moments. These include, flashing lights revealing the killer hiding in the back of a beaten up Mini, then disappearing when the camera returns, and the quick cuts through shots of strung up mannequins (and even a corpse), which are accompanied by the dieing screams of an unfortunate female. The patent credibility allows this to stand alone as privileged to possessing its own unique environment that separates it from the rest of its production-line counterparts. It's hard to describe, but Curtains has a matchless ambience that remains unparalleled, even today. It's hard to maintain whether it's down to the constant haunting shots of spacious corridors ending in spooky bright lights, the above-average editing or Zaza's terrific score, but one thing is for certain, it's definitely huge on atmosphere all the way through. Even the weaker points of the feature aren't all that bad, although admittedly, the artsy ballet scene and the rape sequence were overlong, somewhat random and fundamentally inexplicable.

Another bonus is the good work from the cast, which is filled with actors that have more undiscovered talent than any kind of reputation or A-list credibility. John Vernon makes a competent - if a little theatrical lead, earning kudos for expelling any pleads for sympathy, while Eggar does a good job as the essential red herring (or is she?). But it's Lynne Griffin that really steals the show more than anyone else does. The dynamic little Canadian actress gets the chance to make up for her disappointingly brief role in Black Christmas, in which she spent most of her screen-time playing a corpse in the attic, with a bag over her head (no fair!) Here, she gives a fantastic portrayal, switching between emotions of anxiety, fear, insecurity and anger, even taking the time to include a stand up comedy routine…seriously! I've already mentioned the tremendous use of music, but it's also worth noting the final piece that plays over the end credits. It's a beautifully composed melody that makes the most of the talented musicianship that was on offer.

The flaws are all mostly due to the problematic production. Even though we're unable to tell exactly how much the shoot was affected by the unfortunate occurrences, Ciupka having to use a pseudonym when the film was released proves that it certainly wasn't a rose garden. Some of the characters are far too under developed and one or two of them even remain nameless. It's impossible to pick your choice for surviving girl, because not one of the actresses was on screen long enough to display their individual characteristics, which also had a devastating affect on the mystery. It is a surprise when the killer is revealed, but to be honest, it could have been absolutely anybody, we're not offered any real clues or motives. What's really needed is a total rehash of the picture from the raw footage or the ‘dailies' - so to speak, so that we can get a true look at how it really should have been. Anchor Bay has worked wonders with movies like Maniac, Terror Train and Dawn of the Mummy, putting them to DVD with commentaries and decent extras. It'd be nice if they could raise similar interests to get this flick redeveloped with a commentary explaining exactly what's missing and why. Unfortunately, it's doubtful that anyone would bother funding such an exercise for an effort that wasn't all that successful in the first place. What we're left with, is a half-finished print that still manages to kick up one hell of a storm. Turn the lights down low and prepare to enjoy this decent offering with some of the most plausible directive decisions since Halloween first surfaced in 78. The evident brilliance easily outshines the few not so good moments and that one aforementioned murder alone, redeems the often budget-friendly asking price. I say give this one a go, it certainly gets my vote and is probably a good contender for the all time slasher top-ten.

This Canadian slasher had serious production problems resulting in the original director quitting and filming only resuming after some time, with the conflicting visions that caused the initial problem never resolved. So even by the standards of giallos, which it resembles (more than a Friday 13th-style teen slasher), the premise, plot and character writing seem to be missing whole pieces of whatever might have lent the basic concept credibility.

The first part with Eggar as an actress who commits herself to an asylum as research feels truncated. Then we abruptly move to a sort of casting-couch audition at a rural home for the movie role thought she had, and which now a bunch of other performers are competing for. They include a standup comic, a dancer, and a figure skater; it doesn't help that none of these actors seem to actually be able to do the thing that is meant to define them. (The figure skater actress at least gets a body double for longshots, but the "dancer" has no such luck.) Their deaths are routinely, often bloodlessly handled (one or two even occur offscreen), the lack of suspense underlined in a way by the film's surface gloss--it's better shot than most such movies, but the fairly slick visuals aren't actually atmospheric in a way apt for a horror much of a guilty pleasure.

Hidden somewhere in this dated and predictable horror is a potential classic of the genre looking to escape. Curtains is a early slasher movie that uses the template that has now become the boring norm. Yet, there are some genuinely good scenes and frightening moments. Unfortunately, they are submerged between clearly sign posted plot devices and oh so obvious build ups. It is a film that needed to be a bit more enigmatic and a lot less episodic. With a bit more imagination it could have been a film we were still talking about as an original and best. Instead it isn't. If not instantly forgettable it is certainly one that I doubt I'll long remember.

First of all, I love cheesy 80's slasher movies. They're probably my favorite when it comes to horror films.

This movie was so boring, I barely made it to the end. The characters aren't likable. The writing was poor and it got to point where I didn't even know what the heck was going on. The plot was just kind of dumb unless you want to watch a movie about some bickering actresses who only care about winning the part of an audition.

Anyways, the best part about this flick is the killer that wears a creepy hag mask. Seeing pictures of that was intriguing. Unfortunately, those scenes are too fast and too few. I just didn't like this movie overall.

Curtains is an intriguing horror film of the slasher genre. Rather than following the cliched "hack and slash, hack and slash, final confrontation with the unstoppable killer" motif of so many Friday the 13th and Halloween sequels, this one keeps us asking questions.

The basic story is this: Samantha Sherwood (played by Samantha Eggar) wants to portray an insane character in a movie directed by Jon Stryker (John Vernon) so badly, that the two hatch up a plot to put her in an insane asylum for a while so she can "learn what THEY know".

However, while in the asylum, Sherwood reads a headline in Variety that Stryker has opened up a casting call at his house for the very role she was promised. Sherwood gets out of the asylum with help from a friend, and confronts the director at his home, while the hopeful actresses look on. Then, slowly, the actresses are murdered. Who's doing it? Sherwood? Stryker? Perhaps BOTH Sherwood and Stryker? Somebody entirely different? And whats with that creepy doll baby with the sad face? And speaking of faces, what about the killer's penchant for wearing a hideous old witch mask?

The acting is above average for this type of film, and tension leading up to each killing is masterfully enacted. (Especially the poor girl whom has to flee into a prop department surrounded by freaky mannequins, or the skater seeing that hideous old-witch-masked-killer skate right towards her with a hook in hand!) All that said, it's interesting the slayings are not bloody at all. Several of them occur off screen. But this is a good thing, as the human mind can always conjure up an infinitely more grotesque death sequence that even the best special effects can produce.

This movie also has a mild hint of eroticism floating throughout it, although there is no sex scene in the traditional sense. You see a few shots of a topless woman with a guy in a hottub, but these are short and viewed from far away. One of the most riveting scenes is when one actress slowly opens a blouse to caress the naked breast of one of the other actresses. A hearty kudos to the writer whom came up with the reasoning behind this scene!

My only complaints come with the sometimes jerky plot line, and throughout the movie, you may be find yourself confused by some scenes that just don't seem to flow together well.

In closing, Curtains is a well done horror film that deserves to be hunted down on the back shelf of your local mom-and-pop video store.

"Curtains" is a mess, a movie so confusing and uneven that it finally becomes ridiculous.

Many movies have plagued productions. Few, however, are so easy to diagnose what went wrong. Yes, "Curtains" had a director who wanted to make one movie, and a producer who wanted to make another one. It was shelved for over a year so it could be re-shot, and the tension was so bad the cast and crew didn't know if the movie would ever be finished.

The director wanted to make an arthouse thriller movie. The producer wanted to make money. And thus we have intense scenes between the commanding character actor John Vernon, here playing a Kubrickian theatre director, and the poor, suffering actresses being tormented and pushed by him.

This movie probably would have been merely average. I couldn't help but wonder who would let themselves be tortured by a crazy man like Vernon for a role in... the theatre. How much does that pay, anyway? Who would go to see it?

But then, of course, there's the slasher. The set up for the first movie - the one the director wanted to make - seems to have slasher written all over it. Six young female actors, a crazy film director, doing their business where else but a SECLUDED LOCATION. The actresses must have gone in thinking, "when is the masked murderer going to arrive?"

Weird, then, that the slasher movie grafted onto this one is such an uneasy fit. The slashing goes on someplace else and hardly seems connected to the main story. There's at least one death that pulls the old, "it was only a dream" routine. As if the movie wasn't confusing enough without adding that contrivance.

The producers had the right idea when they shelved "Curtains", and the wrong idea when they took it off the shelf and put it in movie theatres and home video. They should have taken it off the shelf and thrown it into a bonfire.

Curtains (1983) is a movie that I recently watched on Prime. The storyline follows a movie being made at a remote mansion where all the ladies want the lead role and will do anything to get it. Unfortunately for them, as the movie is being made people are disappearing and a serial killer is on the loose. Who could the killer be and why are the people at the mansion being targeted?

This movie is being directed by Richard Ciupka (Coyote) and stars John Vernon (Animal House), Samantha Eggar (The Brood), Linda Thorson (Half Past Dead), Anne Ditchburn (Slow Dancing in the Big City) and Lesleh Donaldson (Happy Birthday to Me).

This is a fun horror movie with a great premise, a solid cast and fantastic makeup, masks and costumes. The premise was believable and a perfect plot for a horror movie. The locations were well selected too. The cinematography was mediocre but the villain more than made up for it. The kill scenes were entertaining, my only complaint is that the kill scenes could have been better executed and contained more gore. There's an ice skating scene that I loved. The scythe scene was really good too.

Overall, this movie isn't perfect but it does have a worthwhile villain that's an absolute must see. I would score this a 7-7.5/10 and strongly recommend it.

I had trouble with this from the beginning. The movie gives us two different and very good thoughts at first - introductions in turn to each actress and their personalities, including focus on Samantha and her troubles. Both are very imbalanced as they present, lingering too long or moving on too quickly in fits and starts; lob plot at us haphazardly in the first half hour; and aren't even fully explored before the story proper kicks in. Once the plot does pick up, unfortunately, 'Curtains' actually gets worse. "Haphazard" seems to be the word of the day, as it happens, as ideas are tossed out willy-nilly. Most of them are plainly unconvincing in their wild assortment; it's as though a grab bag of all possible notions were thrown at a wall, then selected and written in at random. I recognize that this seems to have had a troubled production history, including rewrites, yet did no one stop at any point to consider that the finished product needed a unified vision? Even the most outlandish of movies need some semblance of rhyme or reason, but this is all over the place. While the one concept that's most consistently carried through is the abusive drive of director Stryker, even this isn't completely realized. The last few minutes hold promise on paper, but the reveal of the killer is again unconvincing, and the ending is altogether weak in its execution.

Granted, some horror movies can get by with lacking writing if the violence and thrills are strong enough. 'Curtains' is not one of those movies, however, as death scenes are as meagerly considered as the rest of the production, and downright uninteresting. So what use is this, then? Shoddy writing and unsatisfying horror violence don't make for a good genre flick, and with that I can't bring myself to care about anything else herein. I think there were a few good ideas scattered amidst all the tedium; it's frustrating that the feature never meaningfully utilized them, because then this might have had a chance at being at least mildly enjoyable. Instead what comes to mind are words like "flimsy," "feeble," "flailing," "sloppy," "insubstantial," and simply "bad." Someone out there watches 'Curtains' and likes it; I am glad for them. I find it hard to fathom any reason why it's worth watching at all.

Some creepy moments and an atmospheric location, but "Curtains" is also ponderous and bloodless, which, for a slasher coming at the end of a cycle, is suicide. It seems to have been inspired by Soavi's "Stagefright", an excellent slasher, but it's too slight, too low key to make any impact. The plot, if you can call it that, focuses on women auditioning for a part in a horror film. They don't get the part, they get killed.

The Australian "Nightmares" (by John Lamond) bears some resemblance to this, but uses its theatre setting to better effect.

The poster art depicting a deformed doll and a curtain was striking and raised expectations, but director Jonathan Stryker seems incapable of pacing the narrative and is finally undone by is refusal to let the blood run free.