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
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.
Underappreciated
A satisfying low-budget movie that does many things right with unexpected twists and clean choreography. There's a clear understanding of technique and an entertaining experience. The pace slows in segments, but I've seen movies with bigger budgets that tell more cliched stories.
CGI should be banned
It's not too shabby of a comedy horror flick but all the blood and guts rely on CGI and it really takes away from it. I have more fake blood than this movie does. And what bloood it does have it looks like watered down paint. Maybe I'm just too old school. But if there was no CGI it would have been 8/10 easy.
Awesome anthology movie
Very good movie. I was surprised. Their choice of cover art is horrible and makes it look cheap but it's not. Give it a watch. If you like horror at all you'll enjoy this.
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... : )
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






