Dead of Winter (1987)

Absolutely Brilliant!

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

I was torn between giving a 6 or a 7. Really I would say this is about a 6.5. It's an entertaining movie, there is no doubt about that. It is suspenseful and has a nice pace. The score, acting, setting, camera work... all that is fine if not good.There is nothing really new here. I can't think of any other movies that have the exact same plot, but yet it all still seems very familiar. Reminds me of other better movies like The Shining. It has few nice little twists and turns and never gets boring, but it's also not terribly memorable.One thing that it suffers from, in my opinion, is the same problem I had with the first Friday The 13th movie, an old crippled man who can barely walk just isn't all that menacing. Just like in Friday the 13th when you find out the killer is an old grandma, it just becomes a bit less scary.It seems as though not many people have heard of this movie, and I suppose that is because there is nothing that really stands out about it, but if you like horror, suspense, mystery movies, then you will most likely enjoy this.

Awful says it all. I switched to another channel when the police came and did not take Mary S. with them to the police station and did not try to verify her story.And if she had called 911, they would have been able to trace the call.The movie is ridiculous. Another failed attempt by Hollywood to present a credible storyline.If you think about most movie plots and break them down, they just do not make sense. Pure entertainment and fantasy. I like to be challenged mentally when I watch a movie and more often than not the challenge is to figure out why plot is ridiculous. But many people simply go to movies because they have nothing better or more interesting to do and let the movie makers do their thinking for them. It surely is still a good excuse to sit and eat a big container of popcorn and a Diet Coke with your significant other and friends even if the movie is awful.When you think about moviegoers as educated consumers, you can see why most of what comes out of studios today is garbage. On the other hand, there are enough rare exceptions to keep our interest. This is one of the throw-aways.However, Mary does do a nice job of acting. Her mistake is not throwing the script back at the filmmaker and asking for a rewrite. On the other hand, she probably had fun making the movie and got a big paycheck. But it surely was a waster of talent and money.Also, another reviewer mentioned that the Director took over from a neophyte who got fired. It does seem like a half-hearted attempt by the Director to clean up a pretty awful mess. Of course, he got paid for it, so the only ones who suffered are the investors and the viewers. I had the good sense to switch channels. Fortunately, I did not pay to see this trash in a theater.

DEAD OF WINTER is a fine 1980s thriller with a solid, small cast. The plot centers on a naive actress, played well by Mary Steenburgen, who accepts a job on a rather hush-hush production. She is told that she is to replace a troubled actress who walked off set, however, she never quite makes the set. Instead, she is taken to an isolated mansion where eccentric millionaire Jan Rubes claims to be the film's producer. Mary does everything Rubes and his assistant, Roddy McDowell, ask of her because she views this as her big break.But things aren't what they seem in the mansion. With a blizzard raging outside, Steenburegn is essentially trapped indoors with two men she hardly knows who may or may not be working on a movie. Mary makes a few shocking discoveries while she wastes time in the mansion, locating photographs of a dead woman that Rubes claims to be the actress she is to replace. Mary and the deceased actress bare a striking resemblance and as time rolls along, she feels that their machinations are devious and that her life is in danger.STORY: $$$ (The story doesn't really offer anything new. There are a few moments when you'll ask why Mary's character does the things that she does, but all in all the script isn't too bad. The screenplay builds enough terror and offers jolts in the right places. Also, from the beginning of the film, we know Mary Steenburgen's character is desperate so her going along with the game seems justifiable).ACTING: $$$$ (Mary Steenburgen essentially plays three roles in this film: the main character, the murdered actress and the murdered actress' sister. She does a fine job in all three roles and effectively turns off the naive aspiring actress role when she has to play the calculating sister of the dead thespian. Roddy McDowell is a treat as always in his role as Jan Rubes' sidekick and Rubes, confound to a wheelchair, is exceptional is his role of eccentric man of means. When he chases Mary up the stairs, walking for the first time in years, he'll give you the willies).NUDITY: None

Unconvincing potboiler takes a ridiculous premise and does nothing to enhance it. Steenburgen, a fine actress in numerous other films, can be forgiven for accepting this showy 'triple' role; suffice to say, she's not responsible for the resulting blandness. Roddy McDowall tries hard to enliven the supposedly creepy plot shenanigans, but his efforts are undermined by the fact that his compatriot, Jan Rubes, had just played Santa Claus in ONE MAGIC Christmas, far more convincingly in that than as a villainous mastermind here.Esteemed veteran Arthur Penn took over directing after first-timer (and co-screenwriter) Marc Shmuger was fired. His heart doesn't seem in it, however, and the lackadaisical effort wastes some fine sets and wintry Ontario locations. Note co-scripter Mark Malone's amateurish stumbling and bumbling as Steenburgen's brother.