IMDb RATING
5.5/10
5.5K
YOUR RATING
Five strangers converge at a haunted movie theater owned by The Projectionist. Once inside, the audience members witness a series of screenings showing them their deepest fears and darkest s... Read allFive strangers converge at a haunted movie theater owned by The Projectionist. Once inside, the audience members witness a series of screenings showing them their deepest fears and darkest secrets over five tales.Five strangers converge at a haunted movie theater owned by The Projectionist. Once inside, the audience members witness a series of screenings showing them their deepest fears and darkest secrets over five tales.
- Awards
- 2 nominations total
Mickey Rourke
- Projectionist
- (segment "The Projectionist")
Sarah Elizabeth Withers
- Samantha
- (segments "The Projectionist", "The Thing in the Woods")
- (as Sarah Withers)
Faly Rakotohavana
- Riley
- (segments "The Projectionist", "Dead")
Maurice Benard
- Father Benedict
- (segments "The Projectionist", "Mashit")
Elizabeth Reaser
- Helen
- (segments "The Projectionist", "This Way to Egress")
Zarah Mahler
- Anna
- (segments "The Projectionist", "Mirari")
Mark Grossman
- David
- (segments "The Projectionist", "Mirari")
Rene Mujica
- Additional Dialogue
- (segment "The Projectionist")
- (voice)
Kevin Fonteyne
- Jason
- (segment "The Thing in the Woods")
Chris Warren
- Mike
- (segment "The Thing in the Woods")
Eric Nelsen
- Fred
- (segment "The Thing in the Woods")
- …
Jared Gertner
- Officer Carter
- (segment "The Thing in the Woods")
Richard Chamberlain
- Dr. Leneer
- (segment "Mirari")
Celesta Hodge
- Nurse Daniella
- (segment "Mirari")
Reid Cox
- Nurse Simone
- (segment "Mirari")
Belinda Balaski
- Nadia Resnick
- (segment "Mirari")
Chloe Moore
- Faceless Woman
- (segment "Mirari")
Amber Burdick
- Harpist
- (segment "Mirari")
5.55.5K
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Featured reviews
Old skool horror anthology. Better than VHS 1-2 n The ABCs of Death 1-2 but below Trick or Treat.
Mick Garris (known for his adaptations of Stephen King's stories n the creator of Masters of Horror) directs the sequences of the theatre where characters from all the segments eventually turn up.
The first seg - The Thing in the Woods is directed by Alejandro Brugués (Juan of the Dead) n is a homage to the slashers n alien/creature films of the 80s filled with solid gore, comedy n the scream of the final girl.
The second seg - Mirare is directed by Joe Dante (Gremlins, Howling, Piranha) n it deals with cosmetic surgery. The segment's conclusion is ridiculous and unpleasantly sarcastic. Mayb Dante feels bad for Mickey Rourke's hard luck.
The 3rd seg - Masht is directed by Ryûhei Kitamura (Midnight Meat Train) n it takes place in a Boarding School where staff and pupils are possessed by Demons. It has sex without nudity (the sex mayb offensive to some including myslef), weird demonic seizures (hyperextension of joints). I dont know y these demons r obsessed with creating deformities in the joints. Some scenes r spooky n the demonic face is creepy. It has lots of impalings n decapitations. Some like me may b offended with kiddies' deaths.
The 4th seg - This Way to Egress is directed by David Slade (30 days of Night). It is about a woman who loses touch with reality n is slipping into parallel universe. This one is very surrealistic n frightening at times.
The 5th seg - Dead is directed by Mick Garris n is set in a hospital where a boy fights evil spirits and a real life murderer. The acting of the boy is awesome.
The first seg - The Thing in the Woods is directed by Alejandro Brugués (Juan of the Dead) n is a homage to the slashers n alien/creature films of the 80s filled with solid gore, comedy n the scream of the final girl.
The second seg - Mirare is directed by Joe Dante (Gremlins, Howling, Piranha) n it deals with cosmetic surgery. The segment's conclusion is ridiculous and unpleasantly sarcastic. Mayb Dante feels bad for Mickey Rourke's hard luck.
The 3rd seg - Masht is directed by Ryûhei Kitamura (Midnight Meat Train) n it takes place in a Boarding School where staff and pupils are possessed by Demons. It has sex without nudity (the sex mayb offensive to some including myslef), weird demonic seizures (hyperextension of joints). I dont know y these demons r obsessed with creating deformities in the joints. Some scenes r spooky n the demonic face is creepy. It has lots of impalings n decapitations. Some like me may b offended with kiddies' deaths.
The 4th seg - This Way to Egress is directed by David Slade (30 days of Night). It is about a woman who loses touch with reality n is slipping into parallel universe. This one is very surrealistic n frightening at times.
The 5th seg - Dead is directed by Mick Garris n is set in a hospital where a boy fights evil spirits and a real life murderer. The acting of the boy is awesome.
Plastic surgery is best story in here !
It is a kind of horror movie. Five different persons connect in a lonely cinema hall where they can see their own secrets and sins in different way. All five stories having a lot of blood sequences rather than interesting story plots. Only one story of plastic surgery of a woman to look good for his fiancée is interesting and we can feel real horror with anxiety. Rest four looks wastages. So my recommendation is that it is not much suggestive. If you want to kill time with some meaningless horror then go for it. But you want real value of your time then avoid.
Mick Garris Rallies the Horror Masters Again
Aw, yeah! This is a pretty good anthology for a Saturday night watch. Garris and company know how to bring the fun to the horror, which is what got me into horror films in the first place. My favorite horror films all have a sense of fun: Waxwork, Nightmare on Elm Street 3 - Dream Warriors, Lost Boys, etc. It's gotta be scary AND fun to get me hooked and coming back. Mick Garris is well aware of these dynamics, and they show in Nightmare Cinema.
While not as precise and crafty as Garris's Masters of Horror (which remains his defining work as a director and producer), this feels in the same vein, and in the same universe. If you're a fan of the masters, of 80s horror, Nightmare Cinema delivers the goods. I'll always get excited for anything that has Mick's name attached. He's a legend in the genre, and it's great to see something new from him.
While not as precise and crafty as Garris's Masters of Horror (which remains his defining work as a director and producer), this feels in the same vein, and in the same universe. If you're a fan of the masters, of 80s horror, Nightmare Cinema delivers the goods. I'll always get excited for anything that has Mick's name attached. He's a legend in the genre, and it's great to see something new from him.
Very slickly produced, sharply made, Very Scary in parts. But, overall not terribly logical in the storytelling...
This is a perfect example of what I call 'New Horror'... It has a very high production quality, and the directors behind it are very experienced and have done some good stuff. I call this kind of Horror film New Horror because the emphasis is more on visuals and shock value as opposed to good storytelling. It reminds me of the early episodes of American Horror Story, kind of an Mtv style production designed to try to desperately hold the scattered and distracted attention of young teens.
The first story was very clever, probably the most clever in the movie. However, when you look back and examine the 'Logic' of it, you can see where the filmmakers were clearly misleading and disingenuous in their storytelling. I'm not going to give anything away, the idea is very clever and I like the overall misdirection. However, after it is finished you realize that the characters were not really acting in a genuine or realistic way once you know what's going on. This was deliberately misleading to the audience, and yes, it was very entertaining, but it was not at all portrayed in an 'Honest' way because the characters were acting is a very misleading and disingenuous way.
The next two stories had genuinely scary moments, but there really wasn't much logic to the stories. Again, what I call New Horror goes more for the shocks and creepy moments, but I feel without a truly substantial story behind it. So yeah, you are scared in the moments, but overall you don't feel that the stories themselves were very satisfying. Sort of like Really Tasty, but horrible junk food.
The last story was okay, but again at the end you have your usual cliched 'Gotcha' moment which we've seen a million times. And yeah, Mickey Rourke was his usual cool self, but the lines he was given were very generic, especially after the last story. A very weak sendoff if you ask me...
So, I gave it a '6' due to the high production values and the visuals, but it is probably Far too generous . But, let me just say, that in my lowly and wretched opinion, an above average episode of either the X-Files or Supernatural would have a much better and well thought out story, have a lot better writing, and be a much more satisfying story.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a note as to how I do my reviews... I usually don't repeat the basic plot since almost everyone else does that. And, you can get the synopsis from a bunch of other places. To me that is just a waste of your time, and I feel honestly doesn't really tell you anything that helpful. So, what I concentrate on in my reviews is hopefully putting across whether I think it is a Good film, or if I think that it is an Entertaining movie and what I feel it's strengths and weaknesses are in the way it is made.
That way, Hopefully it will be of more benefit and actual be of some help to others as to whether I feel the movie is worth watching (and also perhaps what 'Type' of film it is and what type of people may enjoy it)
My Particular Way of Rating:
5 - Flawed, but perhaps with a little entertainment value here and there for some.
6. A decently passable story maybe worth a watch.
7. A solid film, well made, effective, and entertaining.
And, obviously, you can probably figure out what above and below these would mean... : )
The first story was very clever, probably the most clever in the movie. However, when you look back and examine the 'Logic' of it, you can see where the filmmakers were clearly misleading and disingenuous in their storytelling. I'm not going to give anything away, the idea is very clever and I like the overall misdirection. However, after it is finished you realize that the characters were not really acting in a genuine or realistic way once you know what's going on. This was deliberately misleading to the audience, and yes, it was very entertaining, but it was not at all portrayed in an 'Honest' way because the characters were acting is a very misleading and disingenuous way.
The next two stories had genuinely scary moments, but there really wasn't much logic to the stories. Again, what I call New Horror goes more for the shocks and creepy moments, but I feel without a truly substantial story behind it. So yeah, you are scared in the moments, but overall you don't feel that the stories themselves were very satisfying. Sort of like Really Tasty, but horrible junk food.
The last story was okay, but again at the end you have your usual cliched 'Gotcha' moment which we've seen a million times. And yeah, Mickey Rourke was his usual cool self, but the lines he was given were very generic, especially after the last story. A very weak sendoff if you ask me...
So, I gave it a '6' due to the high production values and the visuals, but it is probably Far too generous . But, let me just say, that in my lowly and wretched opinion, an above average episode of either the X-Files or Supernatural would have a much better and well thought out story, have a lot better writing, and be a much more satisfying story.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a note as to how I do my reviews... I usually don't repeat the basic plot since almost everyone else does that. And, you can get the synopsis from a bunch of other places. To me that is just a waste of your time, and I feel honestly doesn't really tell you anything that helpful. So, what I concentrate on in my reviews is hopefully putting across whether I think it is a Good film, or if I think that it is an Entertaining movie and what I feel it's strengths and weaknesses are in the way it is made.
That way, Hopefully it will be of more benefit and actual be of some help to others as to whether I feel the movie is worth watching (and also perhaps what 'Type' of film it is and what type of people may enjoy it)
My Particular Way of Rating:
5 - Flawed, but perhaps with a little entertainment value here and there for some.
6. A decently passable story maybe worth a watch.
7. A solid film, well made, effective, and entertaining.
And, obviously, you can probably figure out what above and below these would mean... : )
Horror anthology for fans only
If you liked Masters of Horror, then you're in for a fun ride with Nightmare Cinema. Its always a good time when directors don't have producers constantly trying to ruin their movie. Don't miss if you're a fan.
Did you know
- TriviaOrson Chaplin, who plays the murderous carjacker Jenkins, (In the "Dead" segment by Mick Garris) is a direct grandson of Charlie Chaplin.
- GoofsAPPROXIMATELY 7 min into the movie, The Thing In The Woods segment, when Officer Carter panics, runs, trips and falls down, accidentally discharging his REVOLVER, that never should have happened because he had JUST emptied his six (or less) round handgun using six shots at the "welder" to put him down.
- Crazy creditsThis film is dedicated to Wes Craven, Tobe Hooper and George Romero.
- SoundtracksConcerto for Alexander
Written by Nicholas Pike
Performed by Nicholas Pike
Courtesy of Ol' Buddy, Ol' Pal Music (ASCAP)
- How long is Nightmare Cinema?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official site
- Language
- Also known as
- Кінотеатр жахів
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Gross worldwide
- $126,920
- Runtime
- 1h 59m(119 min)
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 1.85 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content






