Guys, guys GUYS! People get a grip, please. There's a thing called The Spoiler, whereby commentators on films will spoil the fun of getting to see the movie for other people by carelessly revealing a pivotal development, revelation, or secret held by a movie. The fun for viewers is to get to encounter that revelation on their own without having the moment ruined by knowing about it in advance.

"Nightmares" has such a revelation and it only comes in the very last minute of the film. The payoff was fantastic, and thank goodness I had not sought out reviews of the film beforehand or the fun would have been ruined. Almost every review, post, or synopsis of the movie contains that revelation which viewers should have to earn after sitting through the rest of it. By knowing in advance the potency of the scenes which lead up to it is diluted and there were some very potent scenes here which would have suffered from advance knowledge of the revelation.

Best way to sum up the story is to say that a patient from a secret drug treatment program for the criminally insane is released prematurely, goes off his personality modifying meds, and embarks on a journey through the seedy side of America's east coast during which he commits several gruesome killings. That's the extent of what should be revealed. Anything more would spoil the mind- screw of that last minute, and reduce the meaning of the film to a checklist of slasher movie components pieced together by an oblique story which will only serve to distract genre viewers from the horror of it all.

And hence the film's current status: Regarded as a classic by some but dismissed by many more as boring & derivative. Because without coming upon that revelation on your own it is sort of a 2nd rate overly arty if competently made slasher-type horror movie rating just about 5 out of 10: Covers the bases, constructed with skill but not really having anything too spectacular with a comparatively modest body count (I believe it is eight, if you count the big flashback scene). The gore effects may or may not have been "supervised" by Tom Savini, it doesn't really matter, they serve the film well enough. The extra notoriety the controversy generated only means more opportunities for reviewers to spill the beans for audience members who could care less.

I'm glad I ignored it all. With that spoiler intact I give the film a 7 out of ten, with very tight plotting that is only revealed as being more thorough than usual once that revelation takes place. The film is very well made from a technical standpoint with an interesting use of film speeds and droll, non-sensational music. But who watches slasher movies for their plotting, technical work or soundtracks? They are traditionally a series of gruesome set pieces connected by some sort of story which may or may not hold up to the light of day when evaluated separate from the gore. This one does and that alone is somewhat remarkable. Just don't read any more reviews until after watching it or you too may be tempted to dismiss the results for being something different than the usual brainless mayhem.

A mental patient (Baird Stafford), who is troubled with horrible nightmares, has escaped from his hospital. Now on the streets he cannot help killing innocent people. But there is one family he is more than interested in and when he tries to kill them, he finds that it is not that easy.

First of all, to properly enjoy this film, you need to see a good copy of it. Although I have not seen it, the Code Red DVD is apparently the best and as clear as could be wanted. The version I watched was pretty awful, grainy and discolored. This took nothing away from the fun, but made it seem even cheaper than it needed to be.

The plot is a bit disjointed, incoherent, and the editing is not flawless. Maybe Code Red fixed this, but it is most likely just a part of the film. The plot still makes sense, but trying to figure out who all the characters are and why they matter might take a bit of work even if you pay close attention. A second viewing (or third) could not hurt.

The best thing about the film is either the gore (which is great whether or not it was done by Tom Savini) or the kid (C. J. Cooke) who plays CJ. When he faces off against the "bad guy", the whole scene is priceless and well worth the build up.

Although Romano Scavolini has been directing since the 1960s, this is his best-known title and he has never really made himself a big star from his work. Baird Stafford has only one other credit, appearing in Scavolini's war film "Dog Tags" (1985). C. J. Cooke never acted again... a real shame.

Dangerously unstable schizophrenic psychopath George Tatum (ably played with harrowing conviction by Baird Stafford) escapes from a sanitarium and embarks on a bloodthirsty spree.

Writer/director Romano Scavolini grounds the harsh and seamy, yet still gripping and believable premise in a totally sordid and plausible drab workaday reality, brings a no-holds-barred nihilistic attitude to the bleak material (a little boy even gets killed!), maintains an unsparingly dark and grim tone throughout, delivers a handy helping of hideously graphic gore, and offers a satisfying smattering of sizzling sleaze and tasty bare distaff skin. The brutal murder scenes and overall clammy mood pack a super ferocious and unsettling punch. Giovanni Fiore Coltellaci's plain cinematography further enhances the sense of grungy verisimilitude. The funky'n'bluesy score by Jack Erik Williams hits the right-on groovy spot. Moreover, this film takes a radical break from the fright feature norm by having an annoying bratty kid (a spot-on obnoxious portrayal by C.J. Cooke) turn out to be the unlikely hero of the piece, plus warrants additional points by concluding everything on a properly downbeat note. A nice'n'nasty grindhouse nugget.