Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

Kaelan Mccaffrey Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

Kamila Bell This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Jakoba True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

alice-103 I like Tobe Hooper's work, but like all artist he has hits and misses. I think that horror is a very personal thing, akin to what turns a person on sexually. What is hot for one is an off for another. The movie has an interesting concept. I feel the acting is good. Robert Englund is wonderful as the Marquis De Sade and it was nice to see William Finley again. (He is also in one of my all time fav's "Funhouse" also directed by Hooper. )Set design, editing, costuming, score and photography all have a very 80's feel to it although the movie was filmed in 1993. It has that high glossy feel to it. The movie is neither as artist as it would have like to have been, nor is it completely terrible. Trust me there are A LOT worse out there. If you like Robert Englund, or have a kind of fascination for the Marquis, then this maybe worth your time. But if you are looking for chills, gore or T&A skip it.

Vomitron_G What the hell have I just seen? This is one utterly weird flick! Tobe Hooper, though generally regarded as a capable director, missed more than a few curves with this one. The plot is almost totally incomprehensible and incoherent. You'll practically go nuts trying to figure out this movie. But I must say it is strangely fascinating.From what I could gather, this is the main storyline: The movie begins with Marquis de Sade (Robert Englund) being tortured and thrown away in a cell, where he swears revenge to a portrait of Madame Beaumont. Then, flash-forward to Alexandria, a desert city in 1993. Eugenie Matteson (Zoe Trilling) arrives to live with her archaeologist father. After a while she meets Paul Chevalier (Robert Englund), who is a descendant of de Sade and seems to believe that Eugenie is the re-incarnation of Madame Beaumont.Looks like a basic plot line to you? Think again! The fun begins when Eugenie gets invited by the mysterious Sabina (who seems to have had a bondage-thing going with Eugenie's over-religious father) to enjoy the local nightlife. They do some drugs and by the looks of it, it's pretty strong stuff. Eugenie starts hallucinating and having nightmares through-out the entire movie. Those scenes are bizarre and often very atmospheric, though utterly pointless most of the time. But from that point on, the movie becomes fragmented, lacking any form of consistency.Here are some things you can find in this movie, in no particular order: Drug-abuse, nudity, steamy hetero-sex, torture, a naked Egyptian dude riding a horse, decapitation, lesbian sex, a mermaid-worshiping cult (in the desert, mind you!), a lot of snakes, scales(!?!?), crucifixion, simulated fellatio by a woman with a snake (and a bunch of other things). I won't tell you how all these things fit into the plot, but you can imagine that it's bound to make no sense whatsoever. And the crazy thing is: I kinda liked it.Robert Englund is pretty good as the eye-poking and occasionally poëtic phrases uttering sadist. Zoe Trilling is decent and definitely hot. The blood & make-up effects are scarce but good. The logic is way out there.So this is a movie you'll either love or hate. There's nothing in between. I dig it anyway, even if I don't understand what Tobe Hooper was trying to prove with it. However, he seems to be back on the right track with the more than decent slasher-flick the TOOLBOX MURDERS (2003).If you do decide to see NIGHTMARE (aka NIGHT TERRORS), I'll leave you with the following warning: Even though it might be tempting, I suggest you do NOT see this movie under the influence of drugs, because you might have the most disturbing trip of your life, leaving you fairly dis-orientated (either that or you'll laugh your ass off!). And if you like Zoe Trilling, check out her enjoyable performance in NIGHT OF THE DEMONS 2.

lthseldy1 Poor Robert Englund makes another flop and to the expense of Tobe Hooper who usually makes pretty good horror movies but he failed pretty bad at this one. Englund plays the well known Marque De Sade who in the 17th century was enprisoned for his obsession of pain and the pleasure of bringing pain upon himself as well as watching others also be in pain. The story is so confusing with the flip flop from one century to another and I became confused as to what was going on and what was the purpose of this movie. All I saw was a young lady that became entrapped by a strange lesbian who desides to keep her to herself and the young lady became fascinated by this Arabian with alot of money and finds out that he's out to have her killed and then Englund steps in from one century to another claiming to be a descendent of the de Sade and tries to kill her because she reminded him of the Madam Momoselle(spelled that wrong) or whoever it was in the picture above De Sades wall. The movie was terrible, I am surprised at Hooper for hireing Englund in this film and the special effects were so fake and laughable, especially the part about the eyes. Englund tries to make a comeback from his once hit move "Nightmare on Elm St." by using these pull in and out needles to put out peoples eyes. Terrible, absolutely terrible.

dwpollar 1st watched 8/26/2001 - 3 out of 10(Dir-Tobe Hooper): Scary, yet sadistic(which makes sense) portrayal of a relative of the Marquis De Sade carrying out the same sadistic acts and enjoying it that supposedly his predecessor did. This Tobe Hooper film really doesn't do a whole lot different than his similar in style Freddy Krueger movies with the same star (Freddy himself - Robert Englund) playing a dual role(the Marquis De Sade and his relative). It is also seems like it wants to really poke at Christianity but then loses that in the end much to my chagrin but leaving an inconsistent feel to the movie. Could have been much worse if excesses were taken in sex and violence, but they try to keep this at a minimal despite some disgusting scenes. My final thought is why would Hooper want to make this movie. It obviously took awhile to actually get distributed, then it has to be advertised gruesomely and with Hooper's name in the title to hopefully make some money on his name and his gore. It's obvious this didn't work.