IMDb > Death Nurse (1987) (V) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb

Reviews & Ratings for
Death Nurse (V) More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Index 7 reviews in total 

8 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

Moldy Cheese

Author: Chainsaw Slasher from Long Island, New York
26 February 2006

I've seen some classic shot-on-video movies from the 80's, such as Blood Cult, Dreamaniac, Boardinghouse, GoreMet Zombie Chef From Hell, Cannibal Campout, 555, etc. All these movies in which could have some laughable entertainment value and noticeable effort to make a film on literally a zero budget. But then we have Death Nurse.

This movie, well, why even call this a movie? There was no effort put into making this mess. like the previous reviewer has stated, it seems they had filmed this film and ripped the tape right out of the camcorder and thats exactly how it feels. The editing must've been done on two VCRs, and a good 15 minutes of the film are clips from the Directors previous film, Criminally Insane, keep in mind this movie is only about 55 minutes long, not even a full length movie. Its quite obvious that this film was made to fill the box art it came in.

The only reason to watch this film is for the learning experience on how low cinema could go just to cash in a buck. This is absolutely the lowest your going to find. I once thought that Blood Lake was the worse, well, Death Nurse takes the cake.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

*Head shake*

Author: Illyngophobia from United States
17 August 2009

This is one of those very poorly made,straight to VHS movies from the 80s.I don't know where to begin with this.Well we have two siblings.Edith and Gordon. Edith is a nurse and Gordon is a doctor.They open this clinic (and it doesn't even look like one I might add) and we find out that they kill the patients for their health care and money.The movie is about 60 minutes in length.

This movie is just awful. The acting is really bad,the quality is bad.And when they transfer it,a frame can get stuck and it makes it look really bad.Plus,they extend scenes for way too long.For example,Gordon digging a whole takes almost two or three full minutes then it cuts to him eating ice cream.Not to mention that the actors are all from Nick Millard's other movies like Criminally Insane.So a third of the movie is nothing but clips and scenes from Criminally Insane,and we're suppost to believe that these are Edith's dreams.

Just stay away from this movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Oh My God! Kill Me Now!

Author: mrlegofan404 from England
23 September 2013

The movie starts out with Priscilla Alden playing as Edith, who works as a nurse, lives with her brother in a suburban house. They kill new patients to keep up the bill for their state care. Okay, the plot is decent, but that's the only good thing about the film. Alden also has a nice creepy laugh.

I was very disappointed by this film. It's simply one of Nick's worst movies, and I felt like I got the biggest b*tch slap in the face. I mean what happened? This film is so incredibly boring that I couldn't get along with the plot any longer. The opening and ending titles, this movie doesn't have any. It's only footage that he ripped from Criminally Insane. There is very little gore, and very little kills. The whole movie itself is poorly edited, there isn't any originality into the sets, the sets were only re-used from Satan's Black Wedding for this movie. Nick, what were you thinking? It doesn't take this much to make a simple horror movie. You put effort on your other movies, they had nice quality, good sound, and it looked it you took time to make those movies. This looks like some crappy home video you and your family recorded, put it together with two VHS's, and sold it off as a "horror" film. Not even I would enjoy it.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

my least favorite bad movie, in fact, i hate all bad movies, but this my most hated!

Author: Transformers_Carl from United States
19 December 2013

nick millard's 1987 sov slasher, death nurse, is a movie about a overweight nurse and his brother, who has this clinic where they take care of people, but what people don't know, that the nurse is a rampaging murderer with the thirst for blood to keep up their bills.

now may i want to ask, why do i hate this movie so much other than it's a shot on a camcorder movie? nothing literally happens at death nurse! it's poorly edited, it has absolutely no soundtrack, no good special effects, and you know what's the worst part? this film is supposed to be taken seriously.

death nurse is a movie so bad it's funny, but not funny bad, it's awful. we never get to see the actual characters get a little touch by a plastic meat cleaver, the results end for one second or probably zero, the sounds always cut off, that's how bad the editing is! don't get me to the acting either, they're not even trying to act, they're not trying to even try at all, there's too many scenes of the nurse having nightmares of this other character which is not edith from criminally insane, and many other footage that has nothing to do with the plot! f*ck this movie! the term "worst movie ever" isn't enough to describe this poor effort. nothing can. only a s*it brown would.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse...

Author: alanmora from United States
28 July 2009

I didn't even know this movie existed until recently and now that I've seen it, I know why! What a horrible, hideous, god-awful waste of time and effort this one is! Just like it's predecessor "Crazy Fat Ethel 2" "Death Nurse" is shot on video. It is also a pseudo-sequel to "Criminally Insane". Talk about milking a story to death! Obviously Nick Millard aka Nick Phillips was totally devoid of all thoughts and ideas at this point and simply decided to recycle the same old lousy story for a third time. To make matters even worse, he put even less effort into this "film" (and I use that term loosely) than in the previous sequel. Once again we get recycled, crappy footage from "Criminally Insane" and a rapidly aging Priscilla Alden cast in the lead. The storyline in this 'film' is not even remotely related to that of "Criminally Insane" and Priscilla Alden's character has a name change which makes all of the footage from "Criminally Insane" seem awkwardly out of place. There is nothing about this "film" that makes any sense and I really do not get the point of wasting time making it!

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Home Movie Shot in Tacky House Masquerades as Cinema!

Author: rockybottom from Syracuse, NY
27 October 2000

This movie was horrible. It looked like bad porn! It was supposedly shot by the same party behind CRIMINALLY INSANE, but compared to that tarnished little jewel, this film is utter and complete trash. Unedited, unscripted, and un-acted, this piece of VHS video was obviously ripped clean out of the camcorder and thrown onto video store shelves without even the most rudimentary post-production tinkering.

The film supposedly takes place in a state-run "clinic," although the viewer soon wonders why the state would refer patients to a tacky tract house with cottage cheese ceilings and bad wood paneling.

Terrible. Simply terrible. And disappointing, too. Quite sad, actually. I'm crying right now because of this film. That's how bad it was.

This was not a real film. This was a home movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

Usual Millard recipe: impossible to sit through and still fascinating

Author: Sandcooler from Belgium
10 February 2015

You know how in most god-awful B-movies, directors try (and usually fail) to come up with some kind of creative solution when they can't find the location or prop they're looking for? A boiler room can double as a prison, a school classroom can fill in for a police station, an ambulance can just be the production van after a quick paint-job: it's a lot of work, but it seems like one of the perks of low-budget filmmaking. "Death Nurse" director Nick Millard however takes the bold decision of simply not giving a damn. His screenplay requires some kind of clinic but screw it, his dilapidated house will probably be fine. I'm not sure which state this is set in, but please don't get sick over there. Whether you're an alcoholic, a terminal tuberculosis patient (who, I kid you not, is walked to the clinic) or a woman whose illness is never explained and probably just doesn't have a bed at home, you'll always be sent to some dirty, rat-infested house in the suburbs with just one doctor and one nurse (a death nurse at that). Oh yeah, that clinic whose patients without any exception are never seen again and where they call a regular kitchen knife a scalpel: if those people can't help out, who can?

Nick Millard is an incessantly intriguing filmmaker because he takes not caring to such a bizarre level: his only goal is to fill an hour of videotape, and he's not keen on hiding it. Almost a third of this movie is stock footage from Millard's earlier (and much better) work "Criminally Insane", but it's not even really stock footage: he literally just plays the movie on his TV and films the screen. Even with just forty minutes of new footage, the padding keeps on coming. Death nurse makes tea, the doctor digs a hole and then makes himself a sundae, that doesn't need to be shown in real time for an audience to understand but Millard takes no chances. Then suddenly, an hour of your life has vanished and you get the most ridiculous non-ending you've ever seen...thank God you also have "Death Nurse 2". Nick Millard is one hell of a drug.

Was the above review useful to you?

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings External reviews
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history