Rish Outfield's reviews
One of the greatest movie titles ever. I've mentioned it before about cheap but effective Horror, this is the kind of movie I'd like to make.
A young woman is nearly killed in a drag-racing accident that claims the life of her friends and moves on with her life. Along the way, she is confronted by a mysterious, creepy-looking figure whose intentions are unknown.
The female lead, played by Candace Hilligoss, is oddly likeable. You feel sorry for her and she's actually quite attractive and reminds me of somebody, but I don't know who. The main male character of the film is remarkably sleazy, probably much more so than would be featured in a mainstream film of the time. The film plays upon a handful of my own personal fears, namely seeing someone looking in your bedroom window or while driving, seeing someone behind you in a mirror, fear of insanity, being alone at night, and getting a job in Utah. I believe I've mentioned my driving fears before, and I talked to a good friend recently about the terror he's had since he was a child of something appearing at the window of a car while you're driving at night. Since it's featured in a movie forty years old, I guess that's universal.
Though it was obviously low-budget--even lower than Night of the Living Dead, with which it seems to have similarities, the story is well-told and I found it well worth seeing. A movie this cheap, some might dismiss out of hand. But take a look at the first scene, where there's a bunch of old cars drag racing. There's no outdated process screens here or stationary camera cars--the real actors are really in the cars! That alone is cool. It also had a good ending (I wonder which Hitchcock would say was more important, the opening of a film or the ending--my bet would be the ending), even if it's well telegraphed (and shown on the cover). The final moments, where the doctor and the priest give each other a look isn't too great, and I wonder if the final shot really shocked anybody back in '62 (wow, 1962 seems about fifteen years late!) when "The Twilight Zone" had already been on for a couple years, but it probably disturbed a ton of drive-in filmgoers.
I know this has developed a cult following, and that's good. It's a very nice little film, even if it feels like a student feature adapted from an old play. The characters aren't too bad, it has pretty good dialogue, some nice acting, and the black and white photography makes everything starker, lonelier, bleaker. I know it wasn't for ambience, but it worked. As does the minimalist musical score (a spooky organ melody), which fit in with the organist angle of the story. Though said cars are old, something feels modern about all this. It's almost compelling in spite of itself, if that makes any sense at all. Perhaps I gave it more leeway than I would've a studio film or a recent no-titties slasher, and if so, the film really benefitted from it.
The film was horribly grainy and the sound cut out when there wasn't a constant hum-- I saw it on a crappy EP videotape copy and totally enjoyed it. Just imagine how good the Criterion DVD is. Sadly, though, the whole time I was watching it, I was asking myself what I'd do if I remade the film today. Shameful, but true.
Line To Remember: Clerk: "Good luck, Mary. Stop by and see us the next time you're in."
Mary: "Thank you . . . but I'm never coming back."
Note: I don't know that the title really fits the film. It's awesome, like I said, but the abandoned Pavilion isn't featured as prominently as other elements, and when it's shown, it's not really a carnival. Still, when you've got a title like that, t'would be a shame to waste it.

The tyranist's thoughts
I don't know if I'm just a modern, jaded horror film fan or if this movie was really just not good. I love the title and even the main idea behind the story, but the delivery just lacked a lot for me.
It wasn't the fault of the acting, although I didn't like any of the characters much. It also doesn't seem to be the script to me. It was thought out and appeared to be executed how they wanted it to be. Perhaps there is just a lack of courage on the part of the filmmaker. Other than some nice see the dead guy, now he's gone type scares, the movie just doesn't work for me and on the whole seemed timid and bland.
Perhaps an even larger problem for me was the lack of suspense. I kept wanting to shout out such remarks as "I can see dead people" and "BUT SHE'S DEAD!" Sorry if that ruins the movie for you.
There seems to be something of a cult status to this film, but I just don't see it. Perhaps in a different audience on a different day, maybe, but for me, it was just another '60s stab at horror that had great potential and fell short in the delivery.