Headless

I write this review as a horror fan, seeking to inform other horror fans of what to expect with this film.

I'll be brief: like so many others here, I am drawn to extreme cinema, with visceral, shocking sequences of gore and violence. Honestly, I'm even down for cheesy, B-Movie style special effects. I love practical special effects, I love slashers, I love horror, and I love films that seek to push the limits. Naturally, Headless made its way onto my radar by seemingly checking all of these boxes. Like others, I had heard a lot of hype about this film, and was very excited to get my hands on it. (Minor spoilers ahead)

First the positive: The first 10ish minutes of this film are truly shocking and captivating moments of violent cinema. There are some unforgettable images in there, such as the killer sitting underneath the blood pouring from a body above him, the removal and eating of eyes, the infamous "head-hump", etc. The grain-y, 70s film visuals really work here, and the vibe is chilling and effective. A grim, fantastic start.

Now the bad: Not only does the film go absolutely nowhere here, but it's shown you most of its tricks and surprises right out of the gate. There's more eye-eating, more decapitation, more severed-head-copulation, but its nowhere near as effective as the first sequence. The directing gets really questionable here too, especially during kill scenes (disorienting is one thing...sloppy is another entirely). There's a backstory, but its pretty boring and predictable. There are other characters, but the cheesy acting and dialogue rarely comes off as funny/charming, and is almost always forgettable. It becomes clear almost immediately that this idea cannot sustain a full film. And yet here we are.

At the end of the day, this film's cardinal sin is simple: it's boring. Despite all of the gore and torture, this film will really struggle to capture your attention, and for a film like this, that's really not a good sign. It just goes to show that there needs to be SOMETHING more in order for a film to be truly shocking, sick and scary, and that "something" is not recycling the same 5 special effects tricks over and over.

The first 10 minutes are worth your time. After that, switch to something else. Truly wasted potential.

"Headless" is one of those grubby little horror movies that looks like it was made with a few effects, gallons of blood, and people who owed the filmmaker a favour.

It's sickening and tedious in equal measure.

The 'plot' is something to do about a depraved maniac who was kept in a cage by his sadistic mother and now wears a mask and kills people.

The movie is actually less concerned with the 'kills' than what he does to the bodies afterwards. Repeatedly, he decapitates the corpses (hence the title, I guess) and then appears to have sex with the neck hole. He also often removes the bodies' right eye and eats it, the camera showing white fluid from the eyeball running down his mask.

Something else about the movie, which is easily forgotten because it adds nothing to the experience, is that it is presented as a lost film from 1978. The only possible use for this contrivance is that it justifies the movie's dingy production value and the fact that the entire movie seems to have been filmed through mud - as today's filmgoers may believe movies made in the seventies actually were.

Hell, the original "Halloween" and "Last House on the Left" were actually filmed in the seventies and on a shoe-string budget, and they didn't look this bad.

This is the type of film which lends itself to a bullet point review:

1. "Found" as a film was a solid offering with a pretty decent backstory and it led to some unrealistic expectations of "Headless".

2. The first ten mins both identified potential, which was unfortunately not build upon, and demonstrated how long and boring a "one trick pony" film can become.

3. Visual effects was a hit and miss. Some of it was really good (eg deep stab wounds) and some really bad (eg those "money shot" eye popping scenes) 4. Cinematography was often disastrous, especially in as far as angles were concerned. The 70s effects / found footage elements were decent.

5. Acting, in general, was terrible and the dialogue on par with an average porn film.

7. Some of the most extreme aspects of the film happened off camera which somewhat detracted from the entire extreme cinema intention.

8. The total absence of suspense in a slasher film just made it feel long and boring.

9. The score was actually decent but in consequence of the paperthin script, rigid acting and dodgy cinematography, it stood no chance of creating any atmosphere in vacua.

10. Direction was all over the place, but I must admit that the script did not really create opportunities.

I've taken a long break from the ultra violent flicks and needed something good to pull me back in. Glad I started here. Make to look like a lost slasher film from the heyday of popularity (mid 80s) yet pulls no punches with it's brutality and the disturbing nature of the killer. Given enough backstory into the nameless psycho to know why he does what he does yet let's us still guess where he went from there. It's a wonderfully sick film that will stick with you for a while.

I had never heard about this 2015 movie titled "Headless" prior to sitting down to watch it here in 2024. I figured that it was going to be a horror movie of sorts, given the movie's cover. But I have to admit that I was harboring zero expectations to the movie when I sat down to watch it.

Writers Nathan Erdel and Todd Rigney rather unique storyline and script. It is something that will not find a wider appeal to the general audience, given the graphic contents of the scenes and events in the storyline. But I am sure that there will be horror and gore fans out there that will find enjoyment in the script.

It is a pretty slow paced narrative. I had to check how far into the movie I was at a point, because it felt like I had been sitting through 90 minutes already, and it turned out that I was only 45 minutes into the 85 minutes run time. And I have to say that it was this incredibly slow narrative that killed the movie for me.

Of course I wasn't familiar with a single actor or actress on the cast list. And that is actually something that I enjoy when I sit down to watch a movie. However, it isn't like you're in for any Award winning performances throughout the course of "Headless". Some of the acting performances were fair enough, I will give the movie that much.

Some of the effects in the movie are good, and they are rather bloody and gory. And that, yes, that definitely spoke very well in favor of the movie, and helped to make the movie all the more bearable to sit through. I would actually say that "Headless" is worth watching for the gory visual effects alone.

It should be noted, however, that "Headless" is a not a movie that is for the faint or those easily offended, because there are some pretty disturbing imagery and scenes throughout the course of the movie.

"Headless" is a low budget movie, and it shows on the screen.

My rating of director Arthur Cullipher's 2015 movie "Headless" lands on a very generous four out of ten stars. Gore, brutality and grotesque imagery can only carry a movie so far.