Customer Reviews

Night of the Demons

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(10)
3 star:		(16)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(13)

 

 

Perhaps 5 stars is a bit overrated for most viewers, but I liked what they did and tried to do. Scream Queen Linnea Quigley who made the original "Night of the Demons," the horror classic it has become, returns to us in her famous ballerina costume and gives us an encore bow. Three girls go to a Halloween Party at a haunted mansion. They enter the mansion with swagger music from Concrete Blonde's Vampire Song. The infamous lipstick scene, which made the first movie a classic, is re-enacted. The original sexy dance is replaced by Shannon Elizabeth deep throating a bottle and dancing with another girl. Unfortunately there is no love making in a coffin, a classic scene from the original. There is gratuitous sex and nudity and a British bad guy with the stereotypical name Nigel. It is not as good as the original. I will say that it is better than many of the horror remakes of this age (Halloween, Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street. Last House on the Left etc.). Personally I would have loved to have seen Linnea Quigley in a larger role. Simulated sex, simulated oral sex, nudity,the f-bomb, and some decent rave music. The plot is simple. We get a bunch of drunk kids in a haunted mansion. The cops stop the party. A core group stays behind, but then gets locked in. Eventually they make it to the basement and discover a secret room with skeletons. Angelina sticks her finger in one of the skeletons and gets bit. She becomes infected, (demon bites are apparently like zombie bites)and you know the rest.

There was a couple things I liked here. The tentacle armed demon, who is seen much too infrequently, and obviously inspired by Lovecraft. The skull-faced demon, who is quite creepy and effective. I also like the theme song by deathrock cult band 45 Grave. They've been around for a very long time, and this is their first new track in a long time. It's great to hear some new material, even if it's only one song.

Let me get right to the point and say what I really want to say- buy the original 1987 film. It's got style, humor, it's well-written and the effects are done well on a limited budget. It's a classic with character and just a fun time. I equally recommend Part 2, from 1994, which was directed by Australian cult director Brian Trenchard Smith (Dead End Drive In, Turkey Shoot, etc). Part 2 is half sequel and half remake of part one, only with a bigger budget and more tongue stuck into it's bloody cheek.

This new one, aside from what I mentioned in the first paragraph, has little going for it. Edward Furlong is on hand, trying hard to give a good performance and hold things together, but he seems to be wandering around not sure what he's doing or what is happening. There's a lot of trying-too-hard faux-sexiness and girl-girl touching blended with a lot of screaming and lights flashing and music blaring. It all adds up to nothing. It's boring. I say if you are going to remake a movie, do something really unique and different, or if not different, make it better in some way. But here they have not improved the original nor made it different in any interesting way. It fails and it's not scary. Boring. Skip it.

It is a remake of an 80's movie. I absolutely loved the original (I am a big Linnea Quigley fan). I liked this one as well! After watching this one go check out the original you wont regret it!

This movie has alot of problems.

Linnea Quigley only has a cameo, and you can barely see her face. You do get to see her bend over again and flash some little girls her panties.

This is really not a remake. They took a few characters, and a few similar situations from the original, but the rest of the film is not even close to the original. The producers evidently wanted to make money off of the first film, but came up with a dud.

Third, Edward Furlog is badly miscast in this film. He is cast as a drug dealer with a romantic interest with the female lead, but there is no chemistry between them.Edward actually seems high himself during this film, even having dark circles from time to time around his eyes, and no one notices.

Terrible shock value dialogue and supposed sex scenes. Right off the bat we a treated to a discussion on female grooming. What that has to do with anything is beyond me. Then there is the oral sex scene which was totally unnecessary. Alot of the characters say through out the film that they need to go to the bathroom, but hardly anyone ever actually does. One starts, but is interrupted.

None of the characters have any depth. They are dull and interchangeable. The girl who plays Amelia is just flat.

The demons are not scary. In fact, the make up and special effects are pretty standard.

The writers took too many liberties to actually claim this is a remake.

AVOID

Okay, the original NIGHT OF THE DEMONS is hailed as a late 80's "cult classic" by many Horror fans. It's a sinister little movie about a group of partying teenagers who become prey to an evil house possessed by demons. Without a doubt, it's a classic. Even it's early 90's sequel has some what of a loyal following, considering it's "direct to video" roots. It brought all the elements that made the original such an enjoyable film, while taking things into an entirely different and fresh direction. Not to mention NIGHT OF THE DEMONS 2 has an amazing ending with some of the best demon make up ever seen in a low budget Horror film!

With all of that praise being said, I've always thought of the NIGHT OF THE DEMONS series to be rather weak when compared to other "demon" type Horror movies. Especially films like Lamberto Bava's DEMONS (not to mention DEMONS 2) and Sam Raimi's THE EVIL DEAD series. Don't get me wrong, I loved the first two NIGHT OF THE DEMONS movies (the original being the best) but they weren't without their own faults and I thought other "demon" films to be much better.

Let's talk about the original NIGHT OF THE DEMONS for a second here. I always thought it had a very strong beginning and middle, but things start falling apart towards the end. I don't know, maybe I'm over thinking it. I guess problems like that are to be expected with some low budget Horror films. Putting that one gripe aside, I do think the original NIGHT OF THE DEMONS is a "classic" over all. Besides, Linnea Quigley is awesome no matter what! Also, the make up was great and some parts of the movie were genuinely creepy! The sequel to that film wasn't better but it was still a very enjoyable movie none the less. What made it work as a sequel was that it pushed the boundaries of the special effects, kept the demon make up top notch and added some new and fresh elements to over all story. Also, like I said before, the ending is really good!

Sad to say, the second sequel NIGHT OF THE DEMONS 3 is the worst of the bunch. Why is it so bad you ask? Well, let's just say that it's better off left forgotten to the ages. Nowhere near as enjoyable as the first two movies, the third film left a bitter taste in my mouth for a very long time. The make up was atrocious at times (if you watch the movie, look for a female demon with a snake for a hand, it just looks bad) and the over all movie had a very cheap vibe to it. Not that the original film and it's sequel were CITIZEN KANE in terms of quality mind you. NIGHT OF THE DEMONS 3 just isn't anywhere near the expectations I had for it in terms of this little Horror series. If part two got it right, why couldn't part three? My advice? Just watch the first two and avoid the third film.

So where does that leave us with this new "remake" or "reimagining" or whatever the heck it is? Well, I will say this. It is a million times better than NIGHT OF THE DEMONS 3, but that isn't saying much really. This latest reincarnation does have a lot of it's own faults (some of them just really stupid and uninspired) but we'll touch on those topics in just a minute. First, I just want to say that I was actually really excited about this movie when I heard it was going to be made. I thought to myself, "A new NIGHT OF THE DEMONS movie!?! I can't believe it!" Hearing that news was like getting a little piece of my childhood back! I wasn't sure if it was going to be a remake or an entirely different film within itself but I didn't care. After being very disappointed with the third movie, I didn't think a "reboot" was a bad idea. Actually, I kinda' hoped it would be a sequel (I don't like most remakes and I usually despise prequels) that ignores the third movie without making it obvious. Well, this new NIGHT OF THE DEMONS is kinda' like that but not really. Alow me to explain.

Plot wise, things haven't changed much in the series. The movie starts up with some really nice scenes from the 1920's, giving the audience a little back story as to how the notorious "demon house" became so bad. These scenes are actually really cool because of the over all craft and style during them. They're filmed in a sepia tone, adding to the over all creepy grit that one expects from this series. Here's the story. As it turns out, a group of people were performing a seance in the house a long time ago, which calls forth a bunch of demons from Hell. Almost all of the people there are possessed, with the exception of one girl, who kills herself before she too becomes a pawn of the damned. This kills off the said demons (because they needed seven people to possess to become free, or something like that), but leaves their rotting, cursed skeletons in the basement.

Fast forward to "modern times" (something that always makes a Horror movie dated) and a "Goth" girl named Angela is hosting a Halloween party at the very same house, mainly because of it's dark reputation. Anyone who's seen a NIGHT OF THE DEMONS movie (or any Horror movie for that matter) knows where this story is going. The night of the party comes, people arrive, loud music is played, debauchery ensues, the police show up and ruin everybody's fun and the rest is history. Of course a few teenagers hangout after the police take their leave, dooming many of them to their horrible fates!

I guess you could call this a "remake" but when you (as a director) change so much of the story, you might as well make an entirely different movie all together. Sure, the basic structure of the original film is there but it doesn't "feel like the very first time" to quote Foreigner. If you're going to change a lot, while keeping most of it the same (something that happens to most remakes and still boggles my mind) then you might as well make a sequel! I know a lot of movie studios don't like the word "sequel" when regarding the older series of Horror films, but they need to get over that problem! Most of the people who are watching this stuff are the hardcore fans of the series already, and the younger generation will gravitate to this type of stuff no matter what it is. Horror is popular already without all the fancy remakes, reboots, prequels and "reimaginings." Sometimes it works, most of the time it doesn't.

Movie studios are only concerned about making box office sales the first week of release. They're trying to "buy" the audiences who wouldn't watch another sequel by making them think it's special as a remake, prequel or whatever. I say, just make a good movie and if you need to follow it up, just make a good sequel. How is that done you ask? Simple really. You just don't take the cheap way out.

Which is why I'm kinda' disappointed with this latest NIGHT OF THE DEMONS film. It didn't have a big budget Hollywood release (which is why some remakes like PROM NIGHT are just awful), yet some how they still get a lot of this movie wrong. My biggest complaint is that most of it just doesn't even compare to the original two films. The "remake" scenes just come off as lame (although the new lipstick scene is still cool) and the rest of the movie just falls for typical Horror movie cliches that most people find to be stupid. Normally that doesn't bother me (I love the FRIDAY THE 13TH movies after all) but when everything else offered up is so weak, it's hard to forgive the movie on the whole.

Another thing I didn't like here was the limited cast. Everyone did a pretty good job in terms of acting but there was just wasn't enough people for the demons to slaughter. You would think that at the start of the movie, during the Halloween party, eventually all of these kids are going to die horrible deaths and become demons! Nope! I guess the director thought the police should bust the party early on, thus taking the cast (and maybe the budget) down to a personal and simple level. It doesn't work for a movie that should have tons of gore, tons of make up and tons of demons running around! NIGHT OF THE DEMONS is really more like two and a half stars film if you ask me.

Yet, everything isn't all bad. On the plus side, they do get some things right. The over all demon make up is pretty good (when they don't use CGI that is) and some of the gory moments bring a little zest to this otherwise paint by the numbers remake. Gore Hounds, look for the classic scene with the lipstick (fans already know what I'm talking about) and another scene has one girl getting her boob ripped off by a demon! The bloody scenes worked very well and they should have used more of them early on.

Another good element is the actors used here. They're not amazing or anything but they do bring a little structure to an otherwise messy film project. Edward Furlong (from TERMINATOR 2 and AMERICAN HISTORY X fame) is always an enjoyable actor, but he is a little (how should I put this?) "dumpy" looking here. I've heard people complain about the way he looks in this movie (some calling him a "fat Elvis") but that doesn't bother me really. His character is a sleazy drug dealer after all. I think his sloppy image is perfect for his role in this film. It's kind of realistic if you think about it. Shannon Elizabeth (from SCARY MOVIE and THIRTEEN GHOSTS) and Monica Keena (FREDDY vs. JASON) are easy on the eye's, which is a plus if you ask me. I thought Shannon Elizabeth did a good job as Angela (sometimes she was actually creepy) but over all she's not as good as the original version. And let's not forget about the Linnea Quigley cameo! It's freaking great even if it doesn't make sense!

Yet, when all is said and done, this will still be considered inferior to the original. Over all, I can see why. There are far too many lame moments and mistakes. I would have much rather seen a sequel to the older series get made than another remake like this one. They could have called it RETURN OF THE NIGHT OF THE DEMONS or NIGHT OF THE DEMONS : REBORN or something like that. On the whole, it's not that bad (in terms of remakes) but it's also nothing special. I really don't think a sequel will get made with this new NIGHT OF THE DEMONS series and maybe that's for the better. If one does get made, I'll be very shocked!

Fans of the older series who are curious, check it out. It is much better than the third one and if that's all your looking for, then you won't be too disappointed. Everyone else, just watch the first movie. If you want more, check out it's sequel. Thats pretty much all you need.

Over and out.

The original Night of the Demons was campy and fun and back in my teenage years I really liked it. The remake which follows the same basic story is just bad. Bad acting, bad special effects and just not fun to watch. Maybe I might have liked this more when I was 16, but I still think it would be a stinker no matter what my age.

Okay, I know what you're thinking. .."They made ANOTHER Night of the Demons movie?"

The answer is yes. But what you may not have realized that the answer is yes twice. Most horror fanatics know about Night of the Demons (1988) and the way-fun sequel Night of the Demons 2. But when I talk to horror-junkies they are often shocked at the existence of a third installment. This one is the fourth. It doesn't really feel like a remake, sequel or reimagining. It's just another Night with another group of doom-drawn idiots.

We are introduced to the female leads first, most of whom are well-slutted up and looking...ample. No question about it. We're in for some nudity. We're also in for poor line delivery. The lack of precision in dialogue was suggestive of one-take guerilla-directing. Not that this is atypical for direct-to-DVD horror.

Next we meet Edward Furlong. He is no longer the lively, strong-willed youth from Terminator 2 or American History X, but rather clearly is in dying need of a paycheck. Looking worse than he did in the tabloids hanging on to Paris Hilton with zombie-like alcohol-induced motor malfunction we find him hungover in this movie. Whatever you gotta' do to make rent buddy. Let's all take a moment to act shocked that the director thought of Eddy for this role when in his first scene we find him baggy-eyed and slinking into a strip club to meet with some unsavory criminal who is in the middle of getting a blowie and is, naturally, less than thrilled to see him.

Like the other movies in the series, the catalyst is a party. The typical Halloween-horror-movie goings on are present. Spinning the same old web, the party is filled with lots of booze, some THC, and same-sex makeout sessions. Some fun costumes including a nod-to-Wrong Turn¬ inbred hillbilly mutant with a cleaver, a giant penis, and the Jigsaw papier-mache tricycler entertain us as we are introduced to the beginnings of character developments (i.e., who dated who that's at the party). Then the playing-it-straight, least slutty girl notices something isn't quite right when an evil hand breaks through a bathroom mirror and tries to grab her. Begin movie? Cue evil presence? Not just yet. Must have had one to many. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Shannon Elizabeth, playing the classic Angela role, welcomes the party-goers and encourages the kind of behavior that gets you killed in horror movies. Then the police end the party and only the main players are left in the house. After being bitten by a skeleton, which strangely aroused no suspicion from the other characters, Angela is acting a bit funny. Naturally, a transformation/possession is taking place.

Now trapped in the house-with-a-history they decide to play some spin the bottle. As with previous installments of this franchise, Angela's demonic kiss transmits a bit of demon-crazy and does so to one of the guy's. Now what should you do with this, freshly infected dude? Uh-duh! Transmit it during a demon sex scene of course. The evil STD-toting guy then demons a chick in the @#$%...and then there were two infernal proselytes. Evidently a raging case of demon is more contagious than syphilis. Meanwhile, with no more subtlety than a desperate B-squad stripper, Angela encourages everyone else to continue drinking and tries to "get lucky" with every eligible male. When that fails, an ample, pussycat-attired coed seems to do just fine. By the way, EVERY female character is evidently bisexual--no complaints here, though.

The highlights include anal demon sex, a face being bitten off and spat to the floor, a breast being mauled, a lipstick tube being pushed inside of a breast (encored from a previous installment) and pulled out from her @#$% (the explanation of which was very funny), nipple tentacles (yeah, Species nod), and a brief demonic orgy montage. What can I say? I have to agree with one character's assessment that these demons are "badass...they couldn't even live by Hell's rules". Not that badass to the experienced horror-goer, though.

Attempts at action sequences (over 30 seconds) tend to go poorly but are thankfully low in number. The levity enjoyed from the general silliness of this movie allows me to forgive its faults. I enjoyed seeing so many recognizable faces and seeing the franchise continue. I say give this movie a chance. It'll make you smile.

If you enjoyed this at all, try out The Hazing, Night of the Demons (1988), Night of the Demons 2...skip part 3 unless you're completely taken by the franchise.

It's A Ghouls Night Out as Glenn Danzig would say! I thought the movie was pretty good despite it being a B-Movie, it should satisfy most who are into Horror business,Plenty of low intelligence yet beautiful women,dumb party kids and yes even gore for the sickos out there, I just thought it was good cause it was scary,it gets carried away with the blood alot but hey,I didn't even notice Shannon Elizabeth was in it until the Credits!Thanks Netflix you have one decent B-Movie out of a bunch!

A remake of Night of the Demons? Sure, why not. Anyway, this new age take on Night of the Demons pretty much follows the same story structure: Angela (Shannon Elizabeth) is throwing a massive Halloween bash at a house with a demonic past and history. After the cops bust the place up and Angela and a small group of her friends are trapped inside, all hell naturally breaks loose. This remake of Night of the Demons doesn't offer up anything you haven't seen before, or any real surprises either, but it does feature a healthy amount of blood, gore, and gross out effects. The babe factor (Shannon Elizabeth, Monica Keena, Diora Baird, and Bobbi Sue Luther) is great, and there are enough nods to the original film (including a cameo from the still sexy Linnea Quigley and a bloody recreation of the famous disappearing lipstick act) to make this worth checking out. All in all, fan of the original or not, this remake of Night of the Demons is a worthwhile horror trek worth taking, as long as you don't expect too much out of it.

Good Film for the most part, just falls short. Takes too long to get going. Good enough to rent, worth one watch. Wouldnt buy it. Edward put on about 100 pounds, the females are clothed too long. Once the demons started chasing them it picked up and rocked. So I would rent the film, wouldnt waste money buying it.