The Night Brings Charlie (1990 Video) User Reviews

Not the Worst Slasher Flick

[Chainsaw Slasher · 4/10 · 13 October 2009]

It really boggles my mind when someone comes across a movie like this and claims it to be one of the worst slasher films out there. This is by far not one of the worst out there, still not a good movie, but not the worst nonetheless. Go see something like Death Nurse or Blood Lake and then come back to me and tell me if you think the Night Brings Charlie is the worst. The film has decent camera work and editing, which is way more than I can say for many more extremely obscure slasher films.

The film doesn't deliver on the on-screen deaths, there's one death where you see his pruning saw rip into a neck, but all other deaths are hardly interesting. But the lack of on-screen graphic violence doesn't mean this isn't a slasher film, just a bad one.

The film was obviously intended not to be taken too seriously. The film came in at the end of the second slasher cycle, so it certainly was a reflection on traditional slasher elements, done in a tongue in cheek way. For example, after a kill, Charlie goes to the town's 'welcome' sign and marks the population down one less. This is something that can only get a laugh.

If you're into slasher films, definitely give this film a watch. It is slightly different than your usual slasher film with possibility of two killers, but not by much. The comedy of the movie is pretty much telling the audience to relax and not take the movie so god darn serious. You may forget the movie, you may remember it. I'll remember it because I love the name.

Careful with that chainsaw, Charlie!

[BA_Harrison · 6/10 · 19 September 2015]

In the tiny town of Pakoe (pronounced Pak-oh-wee), a masked maniac is pruning the pitiful population of 1251 by sawing the heads off teenagers. Could the killer possibly be hulking, disfigured tree-surgeon Charlie (Chuck Whiting), whose arrival in town just happens to have coincided with the spate of grisly murders? Well, duh! This isn't called 'The Night Brings Charlie' just for the fun of it. Of course, this being a dumb early-'90s slasher, the local sheriff and his men are utterly inept, remaining oblivious to any clues until late in the day, meaning that quite a few heads roll before the end credits do.

Director Tom Logan opens his film with a buxom, blonde teenager arriving home after a date, but kills her off before she can get inside and take a shower (boo!); her headless body is found the next morning by a paperboy (whose shocked reaction is priceless), but the killer's gruesome handiwork remains off-screen. With a missed opportunity for some gratuitous female nudity and a complete lack of splatter, it proves a rather disappointing way to start a slasher.

Thankfully, Logan soon sets about rectifying the matter, and before long he has delivered a spot of graphic violence (a bloody throat slashing and decapitated corpse) and what must be one of the most pointless (but welcome) shower scenes in any horror film, more than making up for his oversight at the beginning: as a busty babe busily soaps herself up, the killer loiters menacingly on the other side of the shower glass, before eventually slinking away leaving the girl totally unharmed (and very clean). The director also successfully ticks off quite a few genre clichés, with dumb teenagers ignoring common sense, an obnoxious jerk who likes to jump out and scare girls for a laugh, a totally unnecessary nightmare sequence, and creepy phone-calls from the killer.

From the halfway mark, there is a noticeable loss of momentum—the film becomes mired in dull police procedure and the script tries to be a little too clever for its own good with an extremely convoluted twist—but Logan picks things up again for the fun final act in which a guy has his (rubber) hand skewered by shears, a trio of bikers meet the business end of an axe, and the killer finally sets his sights on Jenny (Aimee Tenaglia), teenage step-daughter of town coroner Walt (Joe Fishback), pursuing her with a chainsaw, the power-tool of choice for any discerning movie maniac (even one whose messed-up face is the result of a chainsaw accident).

What the &%$^ was that?!

[counterrevolutionary · 1/10 · 8 January 2003]

I'm not a big fan of slasher flicks as a genre, but even by the standards of low-low-budget exploitation, this one is really lame. Even on a nudity-and-gore level, it's incredibly boring (there is some of both, but it's all sort of...meh). Before the home video revolution, it might not even have been released theatrically (though it might have; after all, *Plan 9 From Outer Space* played in theaters). There is precisely one good (and competently-delivered) line in the entire movie; I assume they stole it from somewhere.

The acting is among the worst I have ever seen. I mean, even Ed Wood had a couple of competent actors, and the rest tended to be ludicrously hammy, which can be fun to watch. Anyway, most of his actors could pretty much pass as literate. Here, those who don't read their lines like cigar-store Indians sound like they learned them phonetically. And this film does have one distinction: it manages to be badly underplotted for most of the movie, then laughably overplotted for the ending.

(Update: I should have singled out the actress playing the receptionist as an exception. She is by no means wooden. Not that she's good, but she certainly isn't wooden.)

Even the worst slasher flicks are generally good for a few Puritan meditations on their grotesque offensiveness, but with this one, there doesn't even seem to be anything there to work up a moral outrage about.

And you know the funniest thing? They clearly expected to make a sequel!

It's so bad and boring that it actually becomes fascinating in a weird way. I sat enrapt through much of the video wondering why anyone would go to the bother of making it.

Boring, wannabe, tame slasher film

[Triple7 · 2/10 · 21 January 2000]

I rented this movie because I was browsing through the horror movie section for those movies that no one's heard of and could be a possible gem. I saw this and, since I'm a fan of violence and gore, I got it. It got the rating of EM which means: Extremely Mature. Thinking that this rare and high rating was totally meant for violence and everything else, I got it. The warning on the box said: Extreme Violence, Extreme Langauge, and Nudity. The "extreme violence" struck my fancy. The movie ended being a pretty tame slasher flick. It had one or two gory scenes but I've seen worse in a PG-13 movie. Of course the amount of gore in a movie isn't all that counts, right? You have plot also. Well, the plot was boring and there nothing really special about it. Don't rent it. I speak the truth. I can't imagine how someone could really enjoy it to the point where they say: "I'm gonna rent that again." It had it's moments where it kept you going but I'm never going to see that film again.

The Demented Man Will Have His Revenge!

[horror7777 · 28 August 2001]

(Includes Spoilers) Get this: a demented man who wears a mask is murdering people. He wears his mask during the day because he's deformed. Now, someone gets killed so naturally the doctor's daughter has to have a party. But first she has to take a shower and show us some gratuitous nudity. More people are getting killed at Charlie's barn, but that isn't good enough for the sheriff so Charlie is let go. More people die, I fell asleep only to awake and find the ending to be the typical slasher ending. In 1990, if producers hadn't gotten a clue that slasher films were as in as bell bottoms then they obviously needed as much help as Charlie. This is one cliche-ridden movie that's extremely laughable. I even remember *serious* dialogue like "there's a killer loose so I'm gonna walk home from your party Jamie." The killings are laughable, like a man whipped against a car, that I kinda though that Charlie might've been sexually deformed too. Really awful, I'm glad I only paid $2.00 to buy it. It's really boring too. *1/2out of****I'll give it the extra 1/2 just because I still can't look at the box cover without laughing hysterically.

Another slasher trash.

[HumanoidOfFlesh · 2/10 · 10 July 2001]

I really like slasher movies,but this one is truly awful.The acting is lame,the script is bad,and the atmosphere is non-existent.The plot is as follows:a deformed gardener Charlie Puckett slaughters people in a small American town.That's right-this is the plot.Very original,eh!"The Night Brings Charlie" isn't even gory enough-if the film ain't gonna be scary,at least they should make it bloody.Avoid this cheap piece of trash at all costs.If you want to see some good slasher flicks check out "Madman","The Burning","The Prowler","Just Before Dawn" or "Humongous"- just don't waste your precious time with this worthless piece of garbage.

And the Oscar for stupidest plot twist goes to...

[Coventry · 5/10 · 15 December 2009]

Here's another very obscure and tiresome late 80's/early 90's slasher (seriously, where do they keep emerging from?) with an ultra-thin plot and dim-witted characters, but hey, at least there's also some exciting gore and welcome gratuitous nudity on display as well. Thank God for that! "The Night Brings Charlie" – can't help loving the title – is one of those horror flicks that don't seem to bother giving the maniacal killer a double identity. Charlie is simply and straightforward introduced at the beginning, along with the rest of the uninteresting characters. He's a gardener who wears a bag over his head, but everybody seems to think that is completely normal. For you see, Charlie's face got heavily mutilated in a "chainsaw accident". How the hell can that even happen?!? Who "accidentally" cuts up his face with a freaking chainsaw? Either way, even though this appears to be the smallest community in the entire USA, Charlie can get away with cutting off teenager heads with a tree saw, making prank phone calls to the police force and even single-handedly modifying the number of population on the town's welcoming board. The local coroner, who has to investigate all the headless bodies, becomes very worried for the safety of his own teenage daughter. Heck, who wouldn't become nervous if you live in the town with the world's most incompetent police force looking for a deranged killer who's right under their nose?

After a few pointless but nevertheless exhilarating sequences, including a totally random showering interlude of a very hot chick with a lovely thong and an impressive pair of blouse-bunnies, the plot suddenly makes some very peculiar and even downright retarded twists that are nearly impossible to describe. Charlie has a doppelganger? Or someone who copycats his sinister appearance? And, finally, there's a very absurd twist that basically comes down to this: they guy whom you have been suspecting to be the killer since the beginning of the film already is, in fact, … the killer! Awesome! And now that's listing weird aspects anyway, there are a number of kooky supportive characters in this film as well, like a teenager with two different haircut styles, a bossy police radio operator and a Oliver Hardy look-alike coroner assistant who walks in and out of the screen during the most inappropriate moments. "The Night Brings Charlie" is a bizarre mixture of off-screen killings and explicitly nasty on screen murders. The film has a really stupid climax, but at least it's never boring. So, no complaints.

Let Your Night Bring A Different Movie

[ryan-10075 · 3/10 · 23 May 2018]

Murders start happening in a small Texas town where the heads of the victims are taken. The cops are investigating and Charlie turns out to be suspect # 1. I know that might sound interesting, but this amateurish early 90s horror flick isn't as good as it sounds. As well the sub-par acting brings this down. Not worth your time seeking out this rare horror movie.

Typical slasher but with an original weapon for killing!

[bfan83 · 5/10 · 10 January 2008]

The Night Brings Charlie is a little know, slasher lensed in Florida. It's your typical slasher with teenagers falling prey to a psychotic killer. However, this has to the first slasher to feature a true pruner as a weapon! Now, that's original! Unfortunately, it failed to deliver the goods. On the back of the box, it has a EM (Extremely mature) rating. With something like that, a person would think what they're getting is a relentless bloodbath. Wrong! None of the murders are actually shown. Just afterwards, when they police are at the crime scene. The good thing about this film, is that you don't have to wait 40 minutes or an hour for the first murder to occur. It slows down halfway into the film and pretty much stays that. Give it look if you're a die hard slasher fan. I'm sure you can find a copy of it on eBay for cheap. Happy Hunting!

worst ever

[katmeer · 1/10 · 20 March 2015]

The only way I could ever imagine this thing being finance it by the cast working for free food and board . The acting was the worst and from beginning to the very end there was absolutely not one attractive woman. I mean that's what these movies are famous for right? All was horrible , acting, stunts , such as the spastic in the fire suit. The women looked like waitresses after a double shift and not one could act their way out of a paper bag.

The one who probably really paid a high cost was the writer. I have no doubt his career went nowhere poor guy, but that's what happens when you take money you don't deserve.

I wonder where all these people are now? With the exception of Larry Sullivan I am sure its not Hollywood .

The night brings MURDER!

[BandSAboutMovies · 5/10 · 26 January 2019]

In the small town of Pakoe, a woman is decapitated by a killer wearing swimming goggles and a burlap sack. He's already killed before and chances are, he's going to kill again unless sheriff Carl Carson can stop him. Soon, the killings will pile up and the killer will get cocky and taunt Carson via phone. But just who is he?

The Night Brings Charlie came late to the slasher cycle, coming out in 1990 from director Tom Logan (Shakma) and writer Bruce Carson.

Everyone believes that the killer is Charlie Puckett, a disfigured gardener who has to wear a mask similar to the description of the killer. He's brought in for questioning but refuses to talk until he speaks with Walt, the coroner who served with him in Vietnam. Carson has doubts about the confession, so he sets a trap for the killer, who ends up being Walt. Yep, back in Vietnam, he killed a girl and was discharged. Now, his urge to kill has come back.

But wait - Walt says that Charlie a killer too. He helped kill the girl back in the war and he's killed everyone else after the second victim. Now, Charlie is coming after the kids in town and there's a chance to Carson won't be able to save them in time. So who is the killer? And can anyone be saved in time? And how awesome is it when people are set on fire?