Nightbreed (1990)

Having read the book after watching the movie I was surprised to see exactly how closely the movie was. Some of the lines and acting in this movie are amazing. Lines like 'we are the sons of the free' spoken before embarking on the apocalypse was so cool.

Every character in this movie is played out and acted in sculpture like artistic quality. The whole 'ancient' graveyard median location is done so well it just carries you there.

The real treat from the movie that you don't get in the book comes from the last 15-20mins of the movie. I can't say what these characters are without adding spoilers but this is where the movie improved on the book in explosive fashion. Have fun, enjoy! But before you go, I've got to show you my real face. Yes yes, that's how it works you see. First I show you then they'll take me.

Fmovies: Boone is a man plagued by secrets and nightmares. His situation is greatly worsened when his therapist reveals his darkest deeds. With his girlfriend in tow and the therapist hot on his heels will Boone be able to find this town of monsters in his dreams and what will happen when he finds it and they find him. I've always enjoyed this film since its' release. It is a good solid monster flick with some gore and a little mythology to boot. The creature effects are even to this day some of the darkest and twisted ever seen. The directing and look of the film are solid. Translating Clive Barker's imagination is probably very hardÂ…even by Barker himself. The acting of the leads is very good and Cronenberg (a director in his own right) is sedate and creepy. If Hopkins wasn't available to play Hannibal the cannibal I would have chose him. The main detractor is the way the studio hacked up the original cut. And poor marketing didn't help either. Please release a director's cut someone. 7/10

Nightbreed is not only great, it is also unique, even taking into account other Barker's movies, which never lack originality. An amazing adaptation of a very interesting idea for a book. For the horror genre, it has quite a few of subtle symbolics and references. Certainly a lot of fun to have, a a bit to think about, if one cares to. And, not to forget, a nice music score. Well, the special effects, as usual, get old faster than anything, but that is probably the only drawback. I've just seen it again after ten years, and I still find it something to recommend.

Nightbreed fmovies. Clive Barker is, by far, the best horror writer of this century, and a fine visual artist as well. Few of the films made from his fiction are satisfactory "Clive Barker Experiences". This is partly because his main strength as a writer is, naturally, his use of language to provoke emotional reactions and to evoke very special moods above (beneath?) and beyond ordinary shock and revulsion. He raises horrific imagery and psychological situations to the level of poetry. This is not easy to do in film, a purely visual medium. The image of a monster or a monstrous act in film is a picture: there it is before you. A description of same in fiction can be given all sorts of depths and angles in the mind in writing. "Nightbreed" almost works as an adaptation of Barker's "Cabal". Unfortunately, as is apparent, most of Barker's budget was blown on the monsters (which are excellent movie monsters), with insufficient funds remaining for factors like cast. The actor who played the all-important role of Boone was not up to it at all. He conveyed almost nothing of the depth of Boone's torment, which exists on a number of levels. A talent should have been sought instead of a hunk. This is symptomatic of the film's weakness in general. Too many (albeit high-quality) monsters and too little time and attention spent on the basic human values (simply, character) which must underlie all fiction, no matter what its genre.

Fascinating is an excellent word to describe NIGHTBREED: it doesn't necessarily mean it is good or bad, just interesting. Indeed, Im still not sure whether or not this film is good or bad.

On the credits side, the sets, costumes, make-up, special effects, even the matte paintings are gorgeous, grotesque, perfect for what is required. I was amazed that such fantastic production values could be found in a movie that on the surface seems so schlocky. There is such a wealth of imagination here that one can hardly take time out to think about the flaws. I was so amazed by the knock-out apocalyptic finale that I could barely think about how silly the context is (a bunch of redneck Canadians blow-torching a cemetary.)

he film's biggest flaw is it's sheer magnitude- there are SO many characters, plots, subtexts, overlays, and so on, that no really coherent or involving center emerges. It can be interpreted as: a story about how love conquers the supernatural (a la Dead Again), a Silence-of-the-lambs-like psychodrama about a serial killer; a dreamy horror flick reminiscent of Nightmare on Elm Street and especially Little Monsters; a Gilliam-inspired fantasy (the teeming underworld city is strongly reminiscent of Brazil and the Fortress of Ultimate Darkness in Time Bandits, while other parts are reminiscent of The Adventures of Baron Munchausen); a symbolic tale of racial tolerance; and on and on. So much happens, so many characters are involved, so many subtexts present themselves, its hard to know what is going on at all.

Still, one really does have to see the film to believe it. The underworld city is stunning, its atmosphere created perfectly by both the production design and a series of bizarre tableaux of its residents. It is a mark of Barker's screenwriting talent (so often evident in his other films if you can look beneath the shlock) that all the characters, even monsters seen only briefly, ring true in some strange way. The many stories are actually touching. Also, the ending is cleverly conceived; it doesnt go out of its way to leave the door open for a sequel, rather the open door is integral to the plot. I would love to see a follow-up just to know how Barker carries through the mythical aspects he introduces in this film's last part.

Perhaps the film could have been more focused, with fewer subsidiary characters; perhaps the completely inappropriate (but obviously intentional) humor could have been dropped; perhaps the entire serial-killer sub-plot could have been excised completely. In any case, this film is a knock-out.

I was peeved that the best make-up academy award went to Dick Tracy, a horrible film with horrible make-up. The Nightbreed (based on the better titled "Cabal" novella) look terrific, the acting is excellent and David Chroneburg makes for a truly creepy and terrific antagonist.

The plot focus's on Aaron Boone, who has recurring nightmares about a society of monsters living under a cemetery. Is he making it up or are they real and calling to him? His Pyschologist (Chroneburg) convinces him he's a murderer, a slayer of families.

Troubled and suicidal, Boone seeks refuge in Midian but the monsters don't want him at first. He is also tracked by his girlfriend, Lori who refuses to give up on him even after he dies and comes back cold and monstrous.

But Decker isn't about to let Boone continue on. He raises the locals on an all out assault on Midian, like a holy war in gods name led by the devil.

Barkers themes of misunderstood monsters may come from his experiences as a homosexual male, but they are always strong and honest. Nightbreed turns the genre on it's head. The monsters are just trying to survive and want to be left alone, but man is hunting them.

A 20+ minute longer cut was originally submitted by Barker, but the studio chopped it into this fractured masterpiece. Barker is hard at work trying to locate the missing footage for a directors cut release. Until then, this version will have to do.