I remember watching this movie on TV when I was like.... 8 years old and thinking it was really cool. Naturally being that it was regular TV, all the gore and nudity was cut out, so when I came across it in a blockbuster used videos for sale basket for $5.99, I snatched it up. That was almost 3 years ago and I still watch it on a regular basis. For the time it was made in, the effect were pretty decently done. The monster was kinda cheesy, I have even heard some people call it "cute" but his methods sure as hell weren't cute and thats what made the movie better. The appearance of Jeffery-Herbert West-Combs was a treat for me when I got the video home, because as a child, I always somehow managed to miss the beginning of the film. When I watched it from the start and saw him in in, I already had a smile on my face going into the movie. It doesn't have a deep, life enriching story, its not gonna educate the youth of America, but its a cool flick and I think most horror movie buffs will side with me on that. As I said, the effects are pretty decent- that decapitation was one for the record books.
This movie only had one thing that I really find to be a downer in horror films and that was off-screen kills. I hate it when horror movies cheap out like that, its like they are cheating the viewer. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the point of watching 9 out of every 7 horror movies is to watch people die in unique and gory ways? So when it happens off screen, the point is disabled.
SPOILERS AHEAD: There are only 2 off-screen kills in this movie. The one in the end, the death of Lisa, I might be able to attribute to them running low on the budget being that it was near the end of the movie. However, Amanda's off-screen death is the monsters first kill and if Lisa's death was off screen because of lack of funds, what was the reason for Amanda being killed off screen? Yes, I know, there was blood splashing on the walls, but that only gets you so far. There are people who are gonna read this and say "those 2 kills were off screen because you can't show people being ripped into pieces on screen" And as it happens, both Amanda and Lisa were ripped apart, and if I may go so far as to mention, the only nudity in the film, aside from the girl in the very start of the movie, is Lisa walking around in her room after getting out of the shower and finding her towel missing. She thinks the young guy (I don't remember his name off hand)took it and so she walks out into her room totally naked. It only shows her from the waist up, but her death is in that scene, which means the monster caught her, ripped her apart and ate her while she was naked. This could be another reason for the off-screen kill for that character. Some people would probably object enough to a woman being torn into pieces and eaten, and being that she was naked would have only made it worse. I don't know. But if thats the reason for the off screen kill, then again, why was Amanda's death off screen? Couldn't have been the budget, she was the monsters first victim and it couldn't have been the nudity, as in Lisa's case, because Amanda wasn't naked at the time of her death. As for it being because you can't show people being torn apart on screen, I'd say, why the hell not? The guys that made this movie should watch The Dead Alive sometime! I know, I know, Dead Alive was made in 1994 and all the gore happens to be in the Unrated version. OK, so why didn't they make an unrated version of this movie? If John Carpenter can show a guy getting vertically split in half (watch John Carpenters Vampire, you'll understand) then why the hell did what WOULD have and COULD have been this movies best 2 kill scenes get cut or not filmed at all? Anyway, if your looking for a culture enriching film, don't bother. But if you wanna sit down with a pizza and six pack of beer and watch a cool, but majorly under-rated 80's horror flick, then give this one a rent of you can find it, or pull it off of a cheap site like Half.Com for 2 or 3 bucks and give it a go. Overall, I'd give a 7 out of 10.
This movie only had one thing that I really find to be a downer in horror films and that was off-screen kills. I hate it when horror movies cheap out like that, its like they are cheating the viewer. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the point of watching 9 out of every 7 horror movies is to watch people die in unique and gory ways? So when it happens off screen, the point is disabled.
SPOILERS AHEAD: There are only 2 off-screen kills in this movie. The one in the end, the death of Lisa, I might be able to attribute to them running low on the budget being that it was near the end of the movie. However, Amanda's off-screen death is the monsters first kill and if Lisa's death was off screen because of lack of funds, what was the reason for Amanda being killed off screen? Yes, I know, there was blood splashing on the walls, but that only gets you so far. There are people who are gonna read this and say "those 2 kills were off screen because you can't show people being ripped into pieces on screen" And as it happens, both Amanda and Lisa were ripped apart, and if I may go so far as to mention, the only nudity in the film, aside from the girl in the very start of the movie, is Lisa walking around in her room after getting out of the shower and finding her towel missing. She thinks the young guy (I don't remember his name off hand)took it and so she walks out into her room totally naked. It only shows her from the waist up, but her death is in that scene, which means the monster caught her, ripped her apart and ate her while she was naked. This could be another reason for the off-screen kill for that character. Some people would probably object enough to a woman being torn into pieces and eaten, and being that she was naked would have only made it worse. I don't know. But if thats the reason for the off screen kill, then again, why was Amanda's death off screen? Couldn't have been the budget, she was the monsters first victim and it couldn't have been the nudity, as in Lisa's case, because Amanda wasn't naked at the time of her death. As for it being because you can't show people being torn apart on screen, I'd say, why the hell not? The guys that made this movie should watch The Dead Alive sometime! I know, I know, Dead Alive was made in 1994 and all the gore happens to be in the Unrated version. OK, so why didn't they make an unrated version of this movie? If John Carpenter can show a guy getting vertically split in half (watch John Carpenters Vampire, you'll understand) then why the hell did what WOULD have and COULD have been this movies best 2 kill scenes get cut or not filmed at all? Anyway, if your looking for a culture enriching film, don't bother. But if you wanna sit down with a pizza and six pack of beer and watch a cool, but majorly under-rated 80's horror flick, then give this one a rent of you can find it, or pull it off of a cheap site like Half.Com for 2 or 3 bucks and give it a go. Overall, I'd give a 7 out of 10.