Nightworld: Door of Hell (2017) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
45 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Nightworld: Should have been a tad better
Platypuschow22 October 2017
I was drawn to this because of the cast, I tend to like the work of B movie twins the Londons and it goes without saying that Robert Englund is worth taking the time for.

Telling the story of a security guard given the task of protecting a single room but he isn't allowed in it. He has to watch the security footage of this pitch black room and gets to live rent free in the same building. Easiest job ever right? But doubts begin to arise as strange things begin to happen and his shady employers retain their secrets.

The movie starts off strong, it gives you a mystery and baits you making you desire to know the answers but when the answers come out they really aren't that good.

Nice concept, weak delivery but still not the worst out there.

Passable feature saved by some nice ideas and a decent cast.

The Good:

Decent cast

Nice idea

The Bad:

One actors accent repeatedly shifts

Story feels a bit incomplete

Things I Learnt From This Movie:

Jason London has the worlds hairiest nipples

If the world hangs in the balance if something isn't protected then just hire one single security guard and don't tell him anything
42 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A very promising plot with average execution
hasnain009910 December 2017
I liked the theme and still believe that the story had the potential to deliver a blockbuster movie but the film fell apart due to sloppy direction, script and time constraints. Half explained story and hurriedly completed scenes made this an average film. The acting was OK but really handicapped by the how the film evolved. First half was fairly enjoyable but the second half was rushed and left too many gaps.In short, This film needed a better director and script writer.
17 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Not bad, really.
patrick-41324 February 2018
I agree with a number of other reviews of this film: it started off really well. The acting was good, the premise strong, and the direction was deliberate and moody. However, where it should have kicked into high gear, it actually sort of fell apart. The last act could have stood at least one more good pass at the script, and the low budget really didn't help there either.

Overall I would say that you should know that the ending won't be as satisfying as you might like, and armed with that information you might enjoy it more. Unfortunately the movie must be thought of as a lost opportunity.
16 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Ends up being better than you'd expect
Sawyer-481516234223 October 2017
While this is not the best movie by any means it is pretty good. Better than I thought it would be, at least.

The best part is the mystery of the weird building. It reminded me of the Peter Clines novel 14, in that it involves a mysterious apartment where not everything is as it seems.

The ending and explanation are pretty good. I was somehow expecting to feel let down by the reveal and that wasn't the case.

The acting is pretty good, or maybe I should say its really good for this type of movie. The characters seemed nuanced and not just 2D cutouts are can be often found in these lower budget movies.

Plus I liked that the setting was somewhere other than the US, that added a little bit of extra charm to the movie.

Recommended, honestly this movie is better than I thought it would be and I was entertained for the whole 1.5 hours it took to watch.
17 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Had potential but didn't deliver
mjsreg10 May 2018
The story in general is interesting, and the setting perfect - but there is something missing in this film - or some things.

First is the acting. Why they chose Jason London to play the main character I really don't know. He just isn't a very convincing actor in this role (not that I remember ever hearing of him before) which means the character became unbelievable. The other actors were fine with good performances.

The second thing is either the script or editing. Some of the reactions and things that happen in the film are just so unbelievable and unnatural that they break the flow of the story to such an extent that it becomes annoying to watch.

Such a shame for a film that had potential.
9 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
So bad
barrettcinti2 October 2018
I've never been more bored watching a " horror " movie. The scenes drag on far too long, the acting is dry and forced and isnt scary in the least. I was excited when I saw Robert England's name attached, but it's a snooze fest. Don't waste your time.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Exceeded my expectations
mikaboorem-0735212 March 2018
I went to see this because of Robert Englund, huge fan of his. I didn't expect much and the film quickly made it clear it will be more of a psychological thriller than a straight out horror fest.

That being said I actually found it quite enjoyable and a rather welcome change of pace from the action-packed blockbusters and gore galore horrors. They really made the most of a creepy setting and it didn't feel as cheap as I feared at all. Of course it's not a world beater and not something we've never seen but it did a decent job of building up tension, nailed a ghostly atmosphere and revealed the secret at the right time. It wasn't what I expected (no spoilers, it surprised me even though it wasn't exactly mind blowing).

Set your expectations for a slow burner and you might find yourself enjoying this, otherwise you will be disappointed. I loved Englund's role, the man is sheer class and blew everyone off the screen in every scene he was in.
8 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Quite alright.
gothic-fiction6 March 2018
Jason London is one of the more underground actors which I really appreciate and after adding Robert Englund with him well surely enough I wasn't going to miss this movie.

It starts quite normal, as any indie horrors, the known elements, surroundings, that familiar built up. As it progresses, it does manage to create something different, a movie that draws a little more attention than usual, so I was waiting to see what else was there to it. Nightworld had the potential of being great, because it offered a different premise, a plot that dared more and achieved quite a lot too. I think it got the most of its cast, budget and ideas. For a horror fan, this one will do quite alright. If you're not a fan of the genre but you think about laying an eye on it, I strongly suggest something else.

Nightworld is like whiskey. You either like it, or not.

8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Could have, should have been a better film
OohLaLlama22 October 2017
Firstly, what's with Martin's accent? Did he forget who he was?? The acting isn't great full stop but first he sounds East End London, then like a foreigner speaking English & then he gives up & has a Scottish accent!!

Secondly, the sex scenes are like watching Willian Shatner but anyway...

Onwards.. Not a particularly engaging film. Or scary. I'm not sure I care enough to keep on watching to find out what is in the damn room(there's 32 minutes left)
12 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Totally forgettable
daronstoker-899-6335716 December 2017
#StokerScore Too much time on my hands and a dearth of movies to watch meant I wasted ninety minutes on this complete load of codswallop.

The movies only redeeming features come from some interesting artwork that led me to believe this was going to be a Cthulhu-esque horror story that in reality turned out to be such a low-budget joke that I regret the time I gave over to it.

The acting was terrible with the singular exception of Robert Englund who was only mostly terrible and apart from a few exploding squibs there were no other special effects.

The shame is that there was potential in the story and considering that most Lovecraft horror is imagined I think they could still have gone that way and kept the budget low.

Who is this movie aimed at? Why and how did it get made? Your guess is as good as mine. Totally forgettable
11 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
This should have been Good Nightworld...
paul_haakonsen18 December 2018
I found "Nightworld" by sheer luck, and seeing that Robert Englund was in it and it being a horror movie, of course this was something I had to watch.

Normally, I am not a fan of the London brothers, but I will say that Brandon London actually did handle himself quite well in the movie and carried it quite well. Robert Englund, well he is Robert Englund after all, but this was hardly a memorable performance from him and not one of his better movies.

The storyline in "Nightworld", while it definitely did sound enticing on the synopsis on the back of the movie, then it did not come to fruition on the screen. The whole movie was unfathomably slow paced and nothing much of any interest - I kid you not - happened throughout the entire course of the movie. Once the movie can to an end my first thought was 'was that actually it?'

There is nothing scary about the movie, and there are no build ups to anything grand. And once it becomes revealed what is actually going on, you are so far past caring that it hardly mattered.

The movie had potential, for sure, but it wasn't utilized and the movie was unfathomably montone and mundane. To the point where it was becoming a struggle to keep being interested in watching the movie. I managed to endure this ordeal to the very end, and I can in all honesty say that I am never returning to watch this a second time around.

Oh, and you might want to bring a pillow along when you travel to "Nightworld", just a friendly heads up...
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
lord-of-the-lez28 June 2018
I found this movie's story to be very original and creepy, especially when we had absolutely no explanation for what was behind the door. Horror films with unknown anomalies always make my skin crawl in the best way. However, the movie fell short when it attempted to explain the horror elements and it struck me as a bit silly. It would've worked better if the thing didn't end up being something we've seen before in hundreds of other horror flicks. However, the ending was great and fittingly haunting.

Please ignore the low rating. It's a good movie that's worth at least one watch.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Original story line
chameleonaram23 October 2017
Giving this movie a higher rating than most others because I believe it earned more stars. If I look at the simple things as acting, music, story line and the way I was entertained for 1,5 hours this movie scored really good! I don't understand why it scores so low. OK, it does not contain that much scary moments but still it gives you a spooky feeling also because most of the movie you don't even understand what is happening but you know there must be something big going on. Probs to the makers for making a fantastic horror movie and thinking out of the box instead of all the others who do nothing more than build upon ideas of others. 9 stars well earned!
14 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Starts Out Strong-ish .....
joe662923 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
First, I'm being fairly lenient because it's obviously not a big-budget movie. The acting is OK - not painful to watch. Score is OK - not distracting or annoying. Cinematography is OK - about "TV Movie" quality.

My main issue is with the jumbly and non-sensical story (and severe lack of back-story). The movie starts out decently enough - a grieving former policeman decides to take a job as a security guard in a creepy old building to get his mind off of his loss (you're never told *why* his wife took her own life). The opening scenes are very reminiscent of "The Shining" - even down to the job interview. So far, so good. But then things start getting kind of disjointed (what's a dream, what's not) - especially as other characters are introduced. There are some pretty big jumps in the development of relationships that are kind of jarring. The romantic interest (like most of the rest of the plot) feels very forced and doesn't make much sense - especially at the pace it "progresses." It's always a little weird when some young girl (working at a coffee shop) is supposedly attracted to a guy her father's age's like "Hi, great coffee" then 5 minutes later they're ripping each other's clothes off ... WTH? To add to the mix of bizarre, Eglund plays a blind man who instead of using a typical blind-person's delicate cane, he's busy clubbing the crap out of everything in sight with a heavy walking cane - and nobody finds this odd. Then, Eglund's can't seem to locate who he's talking to (not a problem for any blind person I've met) ... and his changing accent ... and then the part where he reacts to the flickering lights - lol.

The focus of the "creepiness" is a mysterious set of doors in the basement of the building (made me think of "The Keep" with Scott Glenn) with some thumping/whooshy/moany sounds coming out of it. Unfortunately, instead of the movie building up tension and getting creepier ... it just became progressively more laughable. Most of the attempts to build tension end up being distracting instead because they don't make any sense. The attempts at "scary" feel more like an old "Twilight Zone" episode in their sophistication and timing.

Overall, "Nightworld" is watchable ... and as long as you're not expecting too much, you won't be disappointed.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Malevolent night
TheLittleSongbird5 August 2018
'Nightworld' had enough to intrigue me to watch it. It is hard not to enjoy Robert Englund, responsible for creating one of horror's most iconic villains, the concept was great and sounded really interesting and the advertising was cool. Despite it being lowly rated on here most of the reviews were better than average, so it was decided that 'Nightworld' should be given a go as part of my modest/low budget film completest quest (one of many recently).

My overall impression was 'Nightworld' was that while it wasn't great and didn't fully live up to its potential, being an example of a film of two halves, it was not a bad film at all. An average effort with a number of good things and definitely one of my better modest/low budget film viewings recently, which mostly has not been fulfilling. Seeing a film that wasn't bad was something of a refreshment even if it was still heavily problematic.

Will agree with everybody who has said that 'Nightworld' starts off really well. It had a slick look, an ominous ambience accentuated by a suitably moody score and assured direction and an interesting mystery being set up quite nicely.

Acting too was better than average. The best performance of course comes from Robert Englund, who is just magnetic. Jason London is a credible lead also. The secret reveal didn't feel like it was revealed too prematurely and some of the scripting provoked thought.

Like everybody else here, for me however the second half, especially the final third, was a let down and felt like a different film entirely. The pacing starts feeling very rushed and jumpy and too many things feel underdeveloped or worse unresolved, a real sense of incompleteness and implausibility here. 'Nightworld works much better as a slow-burner and should have stayed that way and about 10 minutes longer perhaps would have helped clear up at least a few of the loose ends and confusion.

Production values lose their slickness and instead become drab and chaotic, especially the photography, and the script gets very cheesy, overly silly and also verbose. There is an exception to the quality of the generally better than average acting, and that's an all over the place Gianni Capaldi and the inconsistent and not buyable for a second accent is only one of the problems.

Overall, very promising first half but also a disappointing final third, rounding it out as an average film. 5/10 Bethany Cox
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Passable, but just barely
Wizard-815 July 2018
While it's not unusual in this day and age to come across a B movie that was filmed in Bulgaria to cut costs, this is one of the few shot in Bulgaria B movies where the action is actually set in Bulgaria. That fact gave the movie some novelty, but the movie does have a few other strengths. Although the movie deals with supernatural stuff, it does so in a way that often feels more believable than in other supernatural horror movies. The characters act in way that is plausible, and their dialogue also comes across as realistic. The direction also for the most part comes across in a moody and atmospheric manner that is effective at times, more so than if a more blood and guts approach been executed. However, there are some significant problems with the movie all the same. While I won't reveal what happens at the end, I will mention that the ending feels unfinished, leaving the viewer hanging on several plot details that were introduced earlier but never properly resolved. The biggest problem with the movie, however, is that it is really slow and drawn out. While I wasn't bored at any moment, all the same I could feel a lot of padding. Although I am giving the movie a marginal recommendation, at the same time potential viewers should know that they aren't missing anything too significant should they be unable to watch it.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Keeps your attention but never really gets going.
LLgoatJ19 January 2018
Warning: Spoilers
This film tells the story of an ex-cop widower (his wife committed suicide) who gets a job in a strange house. His job is a sort of security guard. Every morning he has to check the CCTV of a pitch black mystery room that is kept locked.

The film is quite a slow burn mystery-horror. However you don't get to the real horror part until about 10mins from the end. Then it seems quite rushed and the film is over. Nothing is really explained or resolved.

The acting was good and the atmosphere was well created. However the ex-cop widower seems quite blaise about it all. He doesn't seem bothered that they have multiple cameras in a room that is in pitch black.

He doesn't seem bothered about the fact the man that is sent to him when he does see something on the camera is blind. I mean wouldn't you stop and think that maybe it was a bit stupid sending someone blind when you spotted something on CCTV. Also why did the guy bother coming out to him?? He could have described it down the phone.

Also at the end when he has his new girlfriend who is bleeding to death and his wife who has come back from the dead either side of him. He doesn't seem to comprehend the situation that he finds himself in. In fact the whole film he seems un-bothered by everything going on. The only time he seems to come alive and horrified is when he wakes up late.

The main thing I thought about while watching this is that the lead actor looks like he should be Tom Hanks brother.

If they ever do a sequel to this then you might want to watch this. However I would really not bother. The end of the film just makes you feel like you have lost 90mins. Or just watch the last 15mins, you won't miss much.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Quick review
d-shilling-123 September 2018
I found this very slow, it never really kicks in. Robert Englund can't even save this one.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Not great, but not bad. Worth the time to see. Englund's character is interesting.
fnorgby9 June 2018
I liked the movie overall. But for one element, it's not a standout. Things proceed pretty simply according to textbook pace and scene division. It sets up some pegs in Act I (dead wife, need new surroundings, take weird job, weird building that his bosses are cagey about) keeps them present in Act II, and knocks them down in Act III.

The pacing pretty effective. There aren't a lot of trying-to-be-Kubric wide panos or other cinematography cliches. There wasn't a huge long wait in Act II before interesting creepy things happen.

The element that stands out is the backstory. It seems a lot richer and more complex than this kind of movie usually has. That's what I found compelling about the whole thing. Unfortunately, it doesn't really deliver anything close to what it could have. A good or great movie will leave things out to heighten the sense of mystery. The original Blade Runner is a classic example of this -- don't bore us with long expository scenes. Just throw it at us and we'll figure it out (and fill in the gaps from having watched and read a ton of other works in the genre.)

I think that might be what they were going for here. And it worked to a point. It kept me watching. I'd love to see a sequel (or a prequel even).

Englund is good in his role as creepy blind guy who knows what's going on but doesn't reveal more than the main character needs to know. His character slips a few times -- but that is editing/direction (and tiny budget for reshoots I'd imagine). There's one "British" guy, played by an Italian actor, whose accent isn't consistent from one scene to another.

Lorina Kamburova ("Zara") has some growth, or at least change, over the course of the movie. Robert Englund ("Jacob") has his own backstory, but not much of an interesting story arc. But that's still more than the main character ("Brett", played by Jason London). He's pretty flat the whole way through.

Overall it was enjoyable. One comment about the 7 stars: I rate horror films differently from the way I rate other genres. The reason is that "good for a horror film" is kind of like what Jewish people say when they refer to something as "good for Passover" -- meaning it's not great, but given the constraints we're working with, it's good for what it is understood to be.

So to me, this is "above average" for horror, in that it was comprehensible, had no major storytelling flaws, and was ultimately interesting with competent acting.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Moody, But Pointless
Humuhumunukunukuapaa28 April 2019
If you like plot holes, logical contradictions, and meandering scenes that serve no purpose, then this movie may be for you. The director certainly builds a dreary atmosphere, while trying to drum up some initial suspense. But the only real mystery here is why Brett would take a job as a security guard for a couple of creepy guys who won't tell him anything about their business. Oh, and also, who keeps an eye on things when the Brett is off-duty?
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Slow burn
Stevieboy66618 December 2018
A retired LA cop gets a job on security at an old Bulgarian apartment block, which turns out to be built on one of the seven gateways to the other side. So many movies are filmed in Bulgaria but set in the USA these days, it's nice to see a film actually set in Bulgaria. As my headline says this is a slow burn but the story held my interest. That is until the final 20 minutes or so where it all became rather predictable and disappointing. The obvious similarity to me was Lucio Fulci's The Beyond, a FAR superior movie. The character played by Gianni Capaldi could not decide if he was Scottish or a Londoner judging by his varying accents. Good to see Robert Englund though - he's been in some real turkeys since his Elm St days but this is not one of them. Overall this is a reasonably creepy but forgettable movie. Could have been better. Could have been worse.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A Nice Idea, But More Paranormal Activity Was Needed
By-TorX-129 August 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Nightworld is an interesting film that clearly evokes elements of Michael Winner's 'The Sentinel' and Lucio Fulci's 'The Beyond', but sadly does not come close to either film in terms of ultimate execution and visceral effect. I did like the focus on the Brett Anderson character in terms of backstory, and Jason London looks suitably haunted, and the mysterious hangar is an intriguing space, especially with its Lovecraftian visual motifs. Furthermore, Robert Englund is always value for money in any horror film, and he lends his presence well as the knower-of-all. However, while the climax of the film is really good (with a great set of final scenes), the film leaves it too late to deliver on the ghosts and the unearthly attack and threat. As such, while the nightmares are intrinsic to Anderson's turmoil, there are too many of them, and a little more supernatural foreshadowing and atmospherics earlier in the narrative in their place would have made the conclusion even more effective and satisfying. So, not a great horror film by any means, but a thoughtful, interesting and atmospheric one, and it certainly deserves a higher rating than it currently has on IMDB.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Just what the world needs
Leofwine_draca29 August 2018
Warning: Spoilers
NIGHTWORLD is just what the world needs - another cheap, digitally-shot and predictable horror movie made in Bulgaria. This one stars a middle-aged Jason London, virtually unrecognisable from his younger days, playing a washed-up cop turned security guard who takes on a job at an old apartment building that turns out, unsurprisingly, to be haunted. Sadly, hackneyed, cliched jump scenes are the order of the day, alongside a half-baked plot that seems to have been borrowed from the likes of THE SENTINEL and THE BEYOND. Robert Englund does his best in a spooky role and I've always liked London, but this is one of those waste-of-time movies.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
My Review Of "Nightworld"
ASouthernHorrorFan8 July 2018
The film is a Euro-horror filled with heavy, stylized atmosphere both Gothic and ghosty. It plays of tempered elements of Italian horror masters like Fulci with weak results.

The story is a classic ghost story with the notable presence of mid-20th century megalomania in that the big bad has an apocalyptic agenda against humanity. The film is saturated with spooky atmospheric moments built on Eurocentric melodrama. Think Eastern European soap operas. London gives a credible performance in the lead which almost makes you wonder why his career did a 180 all those years ago. Englund sadly gives a mediocre performance that shows either an issue with script or money. My guess is script material which almost seems to phone it in.

The special effects are limited and subpar at best, driven by eerie, creepy music and Gothic spectacle that doesn't quite get you there. Practical and CGI FX work barely meets basic cable paranormal shtick found on almost all networks. Shadows, ghosty sounds and low budget horror are the soup-du-jour. Most fall flat and by no means give fright.

Overall "Nightworld" doesn't really do much for the paranormal genre other than provide a nice slice visual beauty that can be found in Eastern Europe. London'so performance, as good as it was, isn't enough to entertain and the scare-adjacent theatrics are "too little to late". Englund adds a little value to fans looking to have all his projects adorn media shelves, but "Nightworld" only warrants the standard once-over.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A complete waste of time - really, really bad movie
atinlook11 December 2017
I'm not going to waste a lot of time on this garbage movie. The acting was horrible (even from Robert Englund), the plot was ridiculous, the sets were crap...everything about this movie stunk. In fact, I chuckled more than I jumped because it was so cheesy, predictable, and badly acted. There wasn't a single scary scene in the entire movie.

If I walked into a place and this guy was the "security guard", I'd laugh and go right on my way taking whatever I wanted to take, knowing it would probably require little more than a mean look and a snarl to stop him in his tracks. I've never seen an actor spend an entire movie looking and acting confused and just plain dumb.
5 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed