Dead of Winter (1987) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
50 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
A Solid Little Thriller
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
17 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A wintry tale that is guaranteed to give you the shivers...
Doylenf10 October 2006
Once upon a time (1945 to be exact) there was a B-film from Columbia called MY NAME IS JULIA ROSS starring Nina Foch, Dame May Witty and George Macready. It caused quite a stir even though it played the lower half of double bills and lasted a mere 65 minutes.

DEAD OF WINTER is rather transparent in borrowing from MY NAME IS JULIA ROSS (the heroine's name is Julie Rose, for example), and it has taken the original material, expanded it with some clever additional plot lines, taken the Cornwall atmosphere and transported it to wintry New England for a weather-beaten effect, and turned out a smart little thriller that will give you plenty of winter chills no matter what the temperature is outside.

It's another one of those tales where nothing is what it seems. A pretty young actress (MARY STEENBURGEN) is a down on her luck gal who accepts the offer of a film test from a producer (RODDY McDOWALL) who invites her to his secluded mansion where the test will take place. Sure, it's an unbelievable plot contrivance, but that's part of the fun. Nothing is to be taken too seriously from this point on.

When a series of rather unpleasant incidents take place, the woman realizes she is in a trap, but neither she nor the audience understands why she is there and what the purpose is of keeping her prisoner.

STEENBURGEN is excellent as the frightened woman (who should have had more common sense than accepting such an offer), and McDOWALL's polite cat-and-mouse game with her is fascinating as it unfolds. It's a creepy film, filled with authentically wintry atmosphere and it builds toward a surprising and violent climax.

Under Arthur Penn's direction, this expanded version of the B-film is every bit as cleverly plotted and written, no matter what some of the other commentators here have said. It's an atmospheric mystery that's guaranteed to give you some satisfying wintry chills--and then some.
27 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Glad I watched this one on an exceptional hot summer night
Joyce Hauchart31 July 2001
The critics for this movie in the local newspaper and also on IMDB said this movie is a give away thriller. I totally disagree. It may be true that it takes too much time before we are confronted with the new personage Steenburgen has to play, but overall this is a nice Mousetrap. The actors are very well casted on I was sometimes surprised with the plot twists. Music helps keeping up an eerie atmosphere. Don't watch this movie if you're alone at night
27 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A Remake of "My Name is Julie Ross" 1945
whpratt120 April 2007
Enjoyed the 1945 film, "My Name is Julie Ross", 1945 starring Nina Foch, which was a great thrilling film for 1945. However, this 1987 remake held my interest from beginning to the very end. It was full of horror, thrills and plenty of chills in a very winter time of year with plenty of snow and howling winds and a creepy old home. Mary Steenburgen, (Julie Ross) plays the role of a struggling actress and tries out for an audition and secures the acting position and is required to stay in the producers home. Roddy McDowell, (Mr. Murray) guides Julie Ross into a large spider web of murder, torture and secret panels in the walls and plenty of blood. Jan Rubes, (Dr. Joseph Lewis) plays the so called doctor and producer who simply adores Julie Ross and simply does not want her to leave and go home to her husband. Mary Steenburgen gave an outstanding performance along with the great former actor, Roddy McDowell. Enjoy
13 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A Showcase For Steenburgen
ccthemovieman-115 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
"Routine" is the best word to describe this thriller about a woman trapped in an English house. But, overall, it entertains which is why I still give it a "7."

Mary Steenburgen yells and runs up and down stairs a lot. Yes, there are plenty of holes in the story and scenes where you say to yourself "Why are you doing this?" or "Why don't you do the sensible thing and do ---(whatever)?" It can be a tad frustrating as our Damsel In Distress, "Katie," can't seem to figure things out for a long time.

No matter, I enjoy looking at young Steenburgen's face. She has always fascinated me; that face and soft voice. Roddy McDowell and Jan Rubes co-star as "Mr. Murray" and "Dr. Lewis," respectively, the men who imprison her, and there is a weirdo named "Eveyln," but this is Steenburgen's movie.

There is a nice twist at the end, a clever way our heroine discovers to escape her lunatic kidnapper. It changes the film from being somewhat dumb to somewhat intelligent. I won't say how but it's not spoiling things to say she wins out in the end. That's always the case in films like this.

They say this is a re-make of the 1945 film, "My Name Is Julie Ross," but I've never seen that. Does anyone remember Samanatha Egger in a similar trapped-in-the-English house-movie in 1965 called "The Collector?"
16 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Surprisingly old-fashioned thriller
Wizard-830 March 2003
Even for 1987, "Dead Of Winter" still comes across as surprisingly old-fashioned. In fact, it reminded me a lot of those early 1970s made-for-TV movie thrillers. Those who enjoy such movies will find this seeming tribute nicely nostalgic.

However, unlike those made-for-TV movies of that era, DOW does not run a lean 75 minutes or so. It runs 100 minutes, and in this case less definitely would have been more - the movie clearly could have been tightened somewhat. However, there are hints that the rough unedited cut possibly had the answers to some glaring holes in the plot (like: Why does our heroine go outside at one point to hike for a long distance WITHOUT PUTTING ON A COAT?) There are also a few other instances where she could have saved herself from her predicament had she just used some common sense.

By the way, if anyone knows why this movie was rated "R", I'd appreciate hearing the explanation. Everything in the movie - even the blood and language - is pretty tastefully presented, and doesn't seem to deserve even a PG-13 rating.
13 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A Winter's Tale
sol-kay19 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
(Some Spoilers)We see right away that there's a lot more to the movie "Dead of Winter" then just an out of work actress looking for a part in a new film. A woman alone and driving out in sticks on the New York State Canadian border is attacked from behind in her car and strangled as her left ring finger is for some unknown reason, at that time, amputated by her killer.

Things start to jell later when we see actress Katie McGovern, Mary Steenburgen, going to audition a part for a movie and the theatrical agent Mr. Murray, Roddy McDowell, whom she's auditioning the part for just goes completely overboard with her both looks and acting ability. Getting the part on the spot Murray tells a very happily surprised Katie that she'll have to travel with him upstate to see the movie's director a doctor Lewis, Jan Rubes, whom Murray works for as a manservant. We later find out that Dr. Lewis is also a retired psychiatrist who's treating Murray as a patient.

It becomes quite clear that Katie is somehow being substituted for, what may very well be, the woman we first saw in the film who was brutally murdered. As the truth starts to sink into Katie's head about the real reason for her being picked by both Murray and his "Master" the wheel-chair bound Dr. Lewis. Murray & Dr. Lewis are trying to fool Evelyn the sister of the murdered Julia Rose the woman killed at the start of the movie*****SPOILER*****, both parts Evelyn & Julia also played played by Miss Steenburgen, into thinking that Julia is still alive!

There's also something that has to do with a suite-case filled with hundred dollars bills that we saw Julia take out of a locker and is later taken from her by her unknown murderer but it just disappears and is never seen or heard from again as if it never was there in the first place!

It's when Katie starts to ask too many questions about the part that both Murray and Dr.Lewis have for her in their new movie that she realizes that the part she's to play is that of the murdered Julia Rose! This in an effort to convince her hateful and conniving sister Evelyn that she's still alive.

It's never explained in the movie for what all this maneuvering around on both Murrays and Dr.Lewis' part have anything to do with anything that supposed to be going on in the movie? Did they have something going with Evelyn in murdering Julia or were they trying to fool Evelyn, who seemed to want her sister Julia dead in the first place, into thinking that Julia was alive. Finally what happened to the suite-case loaded with cash Julia had on her and even more who was the person who both murdered Julia and took the money?

The remainder of the movie "Dead of Winter" has Katie running and fighting for her life in an effort to save herself from these three murderous lunatics, Murray Dr. Lewis & Evelyn. The cops in the area, who aren't that interested in doing their job, aren't much help either as the desperate and injured, by having her ring finger chopped off, Katie runs for her life from both Murray & Dr. Lewis.

The ending really saved the movie from being a total disaster by having a "Wait until Dark" like ending in reverse with the crippled would-be psycho-killer Dr. Lewis, stumbling and bobbling all over the place, trying to get his hands on and murdering Katie.

Katie having had no trouble earlier dispatching the infirmed Dr.Lewis' healthy but somewhat brain-damaged manservant Mr. Murray has to fight for her life in holding the far older and much less mobile mad doctor. Even Dr. Lewis getting a knife in his back and stepping on a bear-trap was not enough to slow the old and crazy guy down.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Well done thriller of 80's
nexus-3729 June 2015
I didn't know what to except, reviews didn't give a clue what I'm going to watch.

Well first of all, big minus for the beginning, somewhere in 10 minutes or so you get the idea of whole movie. Don't get me wrong, this was very interesting and very well acted and all, nicely put together, and the ending was little twist that saved a lot.

Few parts doesn't make any sense in the movie but that didn't bother me. It was lovely to watch the whole movie with huge interest for the ending.

Truly worth of watch if you can handle thrillers and 80's style doesn't bother you.

And for the last words, this was pretty original for a thriller.. legendary maybe. Now I got lost in nostalgic, enjoy!
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Mary, Mary, Mary ... Too many bloody Mary's!
Coventry26 August 2020
A while ago, a friend of mine purchased a dazzlingly magnificent Blu-Ray DVD pack called the ultimate 80s Slasher collection. It sure is, since it contains bad but legendary slasher movies like "The Mutilator" and "The Nail Gun Massacre". One movie included in the collection, however, totally doesn't belong, and that is "Dead of Winter". It's not a slasher, and even if it would feature a few minor slasher trademarks, it still wouldn't be at home in a collection with the aforementioned titles and others of that type. Don't get me wrong, though, because I hugely prefer unhinged, filthy and sleazy 80s teen-slashers over pretentious, dull and unbelievable thrillers like "Dead of Winter".

That's right, "Dead of Winter" is a tremendous disappointment! I don't understand how gifted people like Mary Steenburgen ("Time After Time"), Roddy McDowell ("The Legend of Hell House") and director Artur Penn ("Bonnie & Clyde") got involved in this. The plot is weak and implausible, but particularly the character drawings and casting choices irritated me immensely. Okay, I'm probably biased, because Mary Steenburgen is a favorite actress of mine and I always considered her as a very intelligent and sophisticated woman. Because of that perception, I really don't see her in the role of an aspiring actress, naïve and desperate enough to accept a job that requires to live in a mansion with an old cripple and change her looks. Of course, there isn't a film production, and her kidnappers only "cast" Katie because she's the doppelganger of a dead woman they absolutely need to be alive. Steenburgen even appears in a third role, as the twin-sister of the dead one, but I completely lost interest at this point already. The "villains" are preposterous and laughable. Are we supposed to be scared of an old man in a wheelchair and his ageing and homosexual man-servant?!? In his idle attempts to generate suspense, Arthur Penn revers to dire cliches like self-playing pianos and secret doors behind mirrors. Admittedly there are a few good moments, like when Katie wakes up with a finger missing, but not nearly enough for a film of this caliber.
9 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Entertaining
fmwongmd21 November 2018
Well acted,well directed, suspenseful thriller. Mary Steenburger at her best.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Dead of thought
masterjk223 August 2009
Warning: Spoilers
What a stinker. The only reason I bothered to watch until the end was to see Steenburgen and see how bad it could get. Pretty bad. Steenburgen is supposed out of work actress, living in NYC. Maybe she just moved there from Klamath Falls. It never occurs to her to get any real names, addresses or verify anything... just like a New Yorker, right? It was filmed in 1987, not 1927, when people might have been a little more trusting. So off she trots with one of the bad guys, not having been paid one dime yet. She arrives in the lovely house, gets a tour and goes to bed. Next day, the big shoot. She knows her lines. She's "hired." But when she tries to call home, the phone lines are dead. Next day, the car won't start. Then she see that her driver's license is burning in the fireplace and finds all her identification is missing. What to do. Now I realize that she's under a lot of pressure. But trying to run out of the house while the two evil doers are still puttering around and then running up a hill in a snow storm, leaving tracks all the way seems... dumb. Later having lost only a finger so far, when the evil ones leave the house trying to find her, she kills her "sister" (not), manages to change clothes with her, dump her in the window box and then wander around the house in her mink coat instead of just leaving (the "sister" arrived so she must have had a car or did she come by broom?) Meanwhile, the Keystone cops are getting an earful from her husband and are on the way... they had failed to figure out anything the first time, they believe the "dr." was treating her. Later, back in the attic, the movable body has once again appeared in a closet. Now stop a minute. This body is of the woman who Steenburgen was supposed to impersonate and she's been dead about 10 days... no embalming. Whew! No one smelling anything yet? This movie has one of the worst plots I've ever scene in this genre. I'm surprised that Steenburgen allowed her name to appear. Where the credits list her with her three roles, it should have listed the actress as "Madame X". Obscurity is best sometimes.
11 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A Great Suspense in One of the Best Performances of Mary Steenburgen
claudio_carvalho18 September 2010
In New York, the unemployed actress Katie McGovern (Mary Steenburgen) is invited to an audition to replace the actress Julie Rose that had a nervous breakdown in the middle of a filmmaking. She gets the job and travels with Mr. Murray (Roddy McDowell) to a remote manor upstate to meet the producer Dr. Joseph Lewis (Jan Rubes) that prepares footage with a test to be sent to the director. She is lodged in the mansion but when Katie sees her driving license burning in the fireplace, she finds that all her documents and credit cards are missing from her wallet and the telephone line is actually cut off the wall. Soon she finds that she was lured by the two men and is trapped in the house in a blackmail scheme.

"Dead of Winter" is a great suspense in one of the best performances of Mary Steenburgen in a triple role. Despite a couple of bad reviews, the theatrical and claustrophobic dark story of murder, greedy, blackmail and a stiletto is one of the best thrillers of the 80's. The few external locations are awesome and unfortunately the VHS does not highlight the cinematography. This is the fourth or fifth time that I watch this film and I still like it. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Morte no Inferno" ("Death in the Hell")

Note: On 23 January 2021, I saw this film again.
28 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Directors ignore Hitchcock at their own peril.
grizzledgeezer1 January 2018
Alfred Hitchcock is arguably the greatest director of the sound era (D W Griffith holding the comparable honor for silent films). It's unlikely this will ever change.

Hitchcock famously said "The director's job is to manipulate the audience." This is critical in a thriller or suspense film, but Arthur Penn fails to do it consistently. The story unfolds at a too-leisurely pace, without the fluctuating tension that would keep the audience on the edge of its seat. The audience has to be thoroughly confused as to the motivations of the doctor and his assistant, but not enough is revealed (or even suggested) to create viewer tension that parallels the heroine's.

The director isn't obliged to interpret a script literally, but too much of Penn's direction is annoyingly literal. Hitchcock's success in repeatedly confusing the audience throughout "Psycho" owes a much to his working closely with Joseph Stefano to create exactly the right situations and dialog to produce the desired effects.

"Dead of Winter" isn't a terrible film -- just a disappointing one.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Hammy distress thriller holds the audience hostage...
moonspinner5525 November 2006
Actress Mary Steenburgen, desperate for work, accepts a job "acting" for a couple of old coots living in an isolated manor; turns out they need her to complete an outlandish blackmail plot (which of course will leave their hired victim expendable). A good cast and a fine director end up wading through a murky story that is, by turns, manipulative and downright foolish. Though not particularly violent, the film--a box-office failure in 1987--is pushy and ugly, exhibiting no sympathy for either Steenburgen nor the audience (both are trapped). Loosely based on the legendary short film "My Name Is Julia Ross", which did the whole thing much better in half the time and on half the budget. * from ****
16 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Engrossing.
gridoon22 August 1999
Engrossing, sometimes gruesome thriller with an atmospheric music score and exceptional performances (McDowall's nervous acting style reminded me a lot of Anthony Perkins). But, like many thrillers, it's is a little weak on plot. It reveals all its secrets earlier than it should, and the film, after those revelations, becomes rather standard.
8 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not bad for what it is...
gtylerpayne6 June 2015
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.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A Young Woman Is Oblivious of Her Peril
romanorum121 January 2016
On New Years Eve, a woman (we later learn that she is Julie Rose) drives in the snow to an almost deserted bus terminal where she removes a cash-filled briefcase from a locker. After she returns to her car in an empty parking lot, she is strangled by a lone assailant. Then the scene shifts to an apartment of an out-of-work actress Katie McGovern (Mary Steenburgen) and her husband.

Katie answers an ad for an actress and eventually passes the audition held by creepy-looking Mr. Murray (Roddy McDowall). Murray drives Katie in a snowstorm to an isolated country mansion in northern New York state for a screen test. At the mansion she meets a polite old gentleman, Dr. Joseph Lewis (Jan Rubes) in a wheelchair. He tells her that she is needed as a double in a new movie for an actress who was replaced because of job stress. So Katie studies the pictures of the woman and also alters her appearance until a video is made of her. But we find out before the 45-minute mark that something sinister is afloat.

The feeling of tension is increasingly felt when Katie gradually discovers that all is not as it seems. She discovers pictures of a dead woman that looks like her. Then Katie finds her own identification documents, like her driver's license, being burned in a fireplace. Supposedly the snowstorm has knocked out the telephone lines; later she finds the inside line cut. But the telephone in the attic works well, but why is there even a phone in the attic? Why doesn't the car start when it is needed? What's with the two-way mirrors? Incidentally, why can't the two investigating cops possess at least one brain between them?

PLOT EXPLANATION: The two men only hired Katie because she happens to be an exact double of the dead woman in the first scene. There is a blackmail plot that involves two sisters, one of whom (Julie Rose) married and murdered for money. By coincidence she later became a patient of Dr. Lewis. The other sister, Evelyn, later had Julie murdered in that parking lot, and had her left ring finger removed. Lewis and Murray want to convince Evelyn that Julie Rose is still alive. They will only release her (Katie) over to Evelyn if they get the stashed money. And when Katie's usefulness dissolves, it's probably the end of her life. The ending will not be disclosed here.

The movie does have several surprising and tense moments, such as when Katie discovers a body on more than one occasion. Another tense scene has Katie clawing her way up an icy hillside in a blizzard. There is tension when Evelyn arrives. In addition to all of this, there is one rather shocking moment when Katie awakens to find blood on her sheets. But why does Katie act so stupidly at times, especially when a disabled and unsteady man chases her up the stairs? Before that, our protagonist never even noticed the city name on the sleeve patches of the cops.

Mary Steenburgen plays all three female roles: Julie Rose, Evelyn, and Katie. Roddy McDowall and Jan Rubes are sufficiently menacing and evil; McDowall is especially obsequious. Despite its flaws, this is a suspenseful and well-crafted thriller.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Creepy but a bit much
rivertam2621 January 2020
An actress accepts a mysterious job from a peculiar group of strangers that have her go up to a desolate house in the "dead of winter" and audition. Before she knows it she finds herself in the middle of a nightmare where dark secrets are unveiled and horrible things begin to happen to her. The movie is packed with twists and the more complex it gets the less scary it is. Not to say it's not creepy because there are some really dark chilling moments. And the performances from Mary Steenburgen and Roddy McDowell are both solid. The pacing is a bit slow but it's a solid film even if they try just a bit too much with the culmination.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Good atmosphere, dull script
lhmcm18 December 2023
1980s horror movies can be fun, but here, I was disappointed. It tells the story of a young actress who goes to a remote house in the middle of nowhere, only to find herself trapped in a scheme involving murder and blackmail. A classic thriller plot.

The film's snowy aesthetic is very well made. The windy sound design and blurry lighting really make you feel like you're in the same place as the characters. The film also maintains a good atmosphere of suspense. Unfortunately, the script is disappointingly bland.

The screenplay is basic and cliche. There are some good thrills and moments of suspense, but for the most part, it's rather dull. That's a shame. If more effort were put into the story, this could be a great suspense film. Instead, it's a decent but forgettable one.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Disappointing, dull and almost unwatchable
kannibalcorpsegrinder11 March 2017
Heading for an audition, an actress drives out to a large mansion to prepare for the role only to find that a strange conspiracy appears to involve one of his former patients trying to kill her, and she soon learns of deeper ties to their plot and must put a stop to them before it's too late.

There were a few good parts to this one. One of the better parts to this is the house's look, which actually works to the film's advantage in creating a dark, chilling atmosphere due to several key factors. From the large size that offers up hidden passageways, alternate rooms and more to the decorations that adorn the walls and layout, there's plenty to enjoy about the setting to this one. There's also the film's somewhat engaging mystery when it first starts throwing them out there. From the burning license in the fire and the lies about the phones to when it starts in with the hidden rooms and passageways, along with their behavior towards her, it makes this part of the film really entertaining and enjoyable, which is a good thing and is definitely very appreciated. The only other good part of this one is the final chase in here, which is really good from the first instances where the escape plan is put into motion, the different confrontations throughout the house are very good as well, and once it moves into the attic where it gets really fun. From the kills to the suspense and the action all combine to make this the only section of the film where something is happening. These here are all that work for this one as it has a couple flaws that severely hold it back. One of the main ones is the fact that the film just doesn't have any kind of action or horror-related scenes for a near eternity. It's close to fifty minutes in before any kind of danger is detected, and it's still not anything that would move the film along with any kind of speed or momentum at all, and usually resort to being quickly written off at the time to get back to the slow, snail-like pace that has been going on until then. That just makes the film go so long that it's really almost impossible to get into the film with any kind of intimacy, due to the fact that the time when it should be making us interested in the film it spends them showcasing these boring aspects instead, and that is really off- putting and extremely uninteresting. The other big problem with this one is the fact that the twist, when it occurs late in the film, not only doesn't change matters much but seemingly re-writes the film to the point of utter confusion. This would take forever to fully get all the way out, and instead, it just doesn't do much at all to the film as a whole. It's quite a lame twist and doesn't help the film at all. There are a couple other minor flaws, but none of them are as detrimental as these.

Rated R: Violence and Language.
7 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Did She Have to be so Weak?
view_and_review30 January 2020
Warning: Spoilers
This movie had a good premise and was cruising along fine until it was time for the men in the room to talk and ignore the woman.

"Dead of Winter" begins with an unknown woman being killed. She grabbed a bag of money from a locker and was strangled in her car soon afterwards. Mystery right away.

The movie went to more normal life with Katie McGovern (Mary Steenburgen) preparing for and eventually getting a role in a movie. Or so she thought. Little did she know, she was to play a stand-in for the murdered woman who was the main piece of a blackmail scheme. Katie found herself being held hostage at a home in the country in the dead of winter.

She was astute, she caught on quickly that something wasn't right. She tried to escape and couldn't and after that point she committed a fatal error. As I said, she knew that the two men who were hosting her were not on the up and up. Still, she drank the hot chocolate that was made for her and of course it had a tranquilizer in it. The moment I realize that the company I'm with is crooked, that's when I don't trust anything they give me.

The next point of frustration wasn't due to her, it was due to the men. I hate to say that because it sounds like a lame #metoo slogan, but it's true. Katie was able to successfully call the police. The police showed up and she pretty much thrusts herself upon them pleading that her life is in danger. Instead of taking her seriously and removing her from the house they tell her to calm down and basically ignore her while the "Doctor" spoke. The "Doctor" was able to convince these pea-brained cops that she was his patient and she hacked her own finger off. The police treated her like a child and allowed her to be sent to her room. They didn't show the least bit of concern. It would seem to me that any adult making a plea to be rescued should be honored even if errantly. They may as well have patted her on her head and made cooing noises while praising her for being "such a big girl."

Katie McGovern exuded weakness and it was frustrating. I understand that that was essential for the plot, but it was frustrating nonetheless. She was a thin woman with a weak voice and a weak resolve. Yes, she triumphed in the end by outsmarting her captors, but her weakness was essential. She couldn't effectively escape, she couldn't avoid being injected with a sedative (I would've been flopping like a fish out of water), she couldn't convince the police that she was in trouble (that was more their incompetence I know), and she couldn't fight a crippled old man. I thought for sure once she took care of Mr. Murray (Roddy McDowall) that she'd attack Dr. Lewis (Jan Rubes) like a pit bull. Instead she ran from the old lame. I'm not looking for Ms. Marvel or Wonder Woman, but she didn't have to be on the opposite end of the spectrum either. Cool plot, cool movie, frustrating lead character.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Campy, uneven, and ultimately dull thriller
drownsoda9019 November 2018
"Dead of Winter" follows an aspiring actress who leaves New York City for a purported acting job at a rural mansion upstate. Little does she know, a doctor and his casting director have different plans.

Loosely based on the 1940s thriller "My Name is Julia Ross," this Arthur Penn-directed thriller is campy, but not necessarily in a good way. The premise seems promising, and the first thirty minutes or so are decent, but the film seems to unravel as it clunks toward its climax. Atmospherically, there is a lot of potential here, but Penn unfortunately does not even wring the wintry setting for what it's worth.

Narratively speaking, the film poses situation after situation that feels wholly unrealistic, while Steenburgen's character in and of herself registers as intuitive to an extent, but wholly unaware of herself. Steenburgen's performance is also remarkably uneven here, which is odd given that she has done some fantastic work both before and since; her ability to emote in this role is virtually non-existent. Roddy McDowall and Jan Rubes are decent enough here, though their roles as the film's antagonists also come across as non-threatening, which further detracts from the proceedings.

The film's last act is comparatively better than everything before it, but it again feels hokey and dull where it could have at least been hokey and amusing. As a conventional thriller, "Dead of Winter" ticks all the boxes, but it does so in a way that is rote and uninspired. Moreover, it is frankly just dull, and I find it surprising the amount of respect it has from genre fans. 4/10.
6 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Old-Fashioned Thriller
telegonus21 April 2005
This Arthur Penn-directed remake of My Name Is Julia Ross represents yet another attempt to revive an old Hollywood formula, in this case the lady-in-distress thriller. There are of course some new, kinky wrinkles in this film, which has some grisly moments. For the most part the movie worked well for me. Mary Steenburgen makes an attractive and sympathetic heroine as a woman trapped in a snowbound mansion by two very strange men. There are some shocks along the way but in the end the movie is fairly conventional, a technical exercise, if you will, featuring some good, offbeat performances. The movie, in other words, delivers the goods, and is unashamedly old wine in a new bottle. It's no classic, but if its genre appeals to you, it's reasonably effective in its quiet way.
22 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
we see the classic glass of milk being taken up the stairs
christopher-underwood2 November 2018
Although this begins dramatically enough there is initially a bit of a lull while we are introduced to husband and brother. There is enough here during the non action to warn us that not all is going to be sweet and light. Indeed after the introduction of a rather sinister wheelchair bound Jan Rubes and a nervy Roddy McDowall we see the classic glass of milk being taken up the stairs and we just where we are going. Actually it is not quite as simple as that and I must confess that the last half hour or so are quite a treat. More complicated than at first it seemed and boy, once Rubes gets out of his chair, does that man go!
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Dead of boredom.
jckruize5 September 2003
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.
9 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

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


Recently Viewed