You won't be disappointed!

That was an excellent one.

It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

There is a trend among fans of genre films to look at some long forgotten film as a "lost treasure". Those of us in the horror community are often so hungry for more horror, that we plumb the depths of the past, digging up forgotten films from the golden ages of horror and hailing them as lost gems, when the reality can often be that the movie was nothing more than average at the time and nothing more than average now. That is clearly the case with CURTAINS, a movie that so many of my horror brethren painted in such beautiful light, but really doesn't hold up to the ratings.The Dean from ANIMAL HOUSE plays an "auteur", the kind of director that was so popular in Hollywood around the time of this film's making. When we meet him at the beginning of the film, he is developing a movie with his muse, an actress that is destined to play the role and so bent on perfecting it that she gets herself committed to the asylum for research (this is method acting, right?). Only her plans don't go so well. The director conveniently forgets about her and sets up a casting call at his mansion, where he invites 6 women to come audition for the role. From there, we get pretty much yet another twist on TEN LITTLE INDIANS (if you don't know the reference, go look it up. Half the thrillers you have ever seen in your life were stolen from this plot line). Actresses start dying one by one and the movie is a mystery to guess whodunit.I think that the one thing that this movie does have going for it is its' influences. While very much an 80s slasher film, it is much more highly influenced by the giallo genre, than by the American teen killer films. As such, we mostly avoid gratuitous nudity and the sort of creative kills that were so popular in the wake of Friday THE 13th. Instead, we get a lot of the hallmarks of the giallo, some technique with lighting and color, the use of adult cast, rather than generic teenage stereotypes, a doll that exists for no real plot reason and a killer with a creepy mask and a trademark weapon. We're really just missing the black gloves and a plot that makes no sense.They may have been better off with killing kids in this movie, than the six "beautiful women". None of these girls are given any real personality, nor developed in any way. Being that they are auditioning for the same role, they even all fit into a particular look, so it can be difficult for the viewer to even tell the difference between these women at times. In that way, it starts to become obvious who the killer is in this movie because she's the only one that the movie has taken any time to develop into a real character, with a real personality.The killer is kind of cool, with an old hag's mask and a thresher in hand, the killer starts dispatching the women, most of whom are taking up a little too much of the director's attention. The film tries to play a red herring and throws the viewer a little bit of a twist, but there is really nothing clever in the writing and the movie lacks any signature "kill scene" that fans of the slasher genre are usually looking for in these movies.This isn't a bad film in any way. It's not a good film in any way. In the history of horror, from the silent era to the indie films that appear on streaming sites today, there have always been plenty of movies that were just sort of there. Average films that tried to hit on the successful formula of others and that's about all that CURTAINS aspires to be.

Curtains (1983) ** 1/2 (out of 4)Director Jonathan Stryker (John Vernon) is about to start another movie and his lead actress Samantha Sherwood (Samantha Eggar) wants to make sure she knows what it's really like to be a crazy woman so she fakes an illness and has herself committed to an asylum. While in there she really does lose her mind and she's pushed over the edge when she learns that the director has invited six actresses to his mansion for a rehearsal to see who gets the lead role. Soon dead bodies start to pile up.CURTAINS is a Canadian slasher that has pretty much been forgotten over the years, although it does have a somewhat strong cult following. The film is actually a pretty well thought out movie that manages to have a couple interesting kills, an interesting killer and some pretty good performances from the cast. If you're looking for non-stop gore and violence then you'll probably be disappointed as it's clear that the filmmakers were trying to set themselves apart from what the typical slasher was at the time.I think the best thing going for the film is the cast. Vernon and Eggar aren't really the people you'd expect to see in a film like this but both of them bring a lot to the picture. Vernon was terrific as the rather jerk director who appears to have more up his sleeve than just an audition. Eggar is also extremely good as the actress who loses her mind and then sets out to let the director know the damage he has done to her. Both of them work extremely well together as does the rest of the supporting cast.The actual mystery of the picture plays out quite nicely and especially since the first thirty minutes has some very interesting twists and turns. These little scenes really keep you off guard for the rest of the picture, which was a plus. With that said, CURTAINS does have a few moments where things stall out. I think a little more action would have helped matters and a faster pace as well. Still, CURTAINS is certainly a lot different than your typical slasher and there's enough going for it to make it worth viewing.

Samantha Sherwood (Samantha Eggar) is a veteran actress who very much wants the title role in her director / lover Jonathan Stryker's (John Vernon) new film "Audra". So much so that she's willing to feign insanity to get herself committed to a mental institution for first hand experience. Unfortunately for her, her surroundings do seem to get to her, and Stryker gives up on her. He invites six young ladies to his remote estate to audition for the part. Well, Samantha gets wind of this, and is able to escape and get back to Strykers' pad. There's also a killer on the premises, as well, one wearing a memorably hideous old hag mask.Considering how troubled this production was, it's a miracle that it ended up being as coherent as it is, and that it's actually pretty damn entertaining. It's a solid Canadian slasher that takes full advantage of atmospheric environments; there aren't enough slashers set in the winter in this fans' humble opinion. It's rather low on gore, but *does* feature one fun severed head gag. It's got some pretty interesting moments that let us know that just racking up the body count is not the primary concern of writer Robert Guza Jr. or director Richard Ciupka (who ended up using the fictional name Jonathan Stryker as a pseudonym). The scene where Stryker puts the mask on Samantha and demands that she "seduce" him without words comes to mind. The music by Paul Zaza (composer for the original versions of "Prom Night" and "My Bloody Valentine") is very effective.The film also creates some very engaging characters such as stand-up comic and aspiring actress Patti O'Connor (lovely Lynne Griffin of the original "Black Christmas"). Vernon is fun as the pompous director and Eggar is just great in her part. Also among the auditioning thespians are Linda Thorson, Anne Ditchburn, Sandee Currie ("Terror Train"), and Lesleh Donaldson ("Happy Birthday to Me", "Cries in the Night", "Deadly Eyes"). It's also a treat to see actors Michael Wincott ("The Crow") and Maury Chaykin ("Dances with Wolves") in early roles for them.There are some mighty fine moments involving a doll left in a road, and an extended chase sequence set inside a storage space full of props and costumes, but the main thing that would give "Curtains" a reputation is the incredible ice skating set piece, which this viewer saw on TV many years ago; it burned its way into his brain long before he ever knew the name of the film.Very well directed and featuring appropriate scene transitions, this is one entry into the slasher genre that its dedicated fans *should* check out.Eight out of 10.

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.