Lurkers

As one of veteran exploitation director Roberta Findlay's 1980s horror movies, "Lurkers" is overall dull and draggy for the most part. There just isn't much "horror" in it, and it moves along at too slow a pace, with characters who are largely uninteresting. It DOES have its creepy and disturbing elements, but it takes until the end for this movie to finally start getting more watchable.

Beautiful Christine Moore plays Cathy, a classical musician who as a child had seen her mother murdered, and had even almost died herself. She'd also seen ghostly individuals emerge from the walls of her bedroom. Now, 15 years later, she's engaged to supposed nice guy photographer Bob (Gary Warner), but strange things are now occurring, and she's reminded of her childhood home and traumas.

One thing that does give "Lurkers" some passing interest is the scene where two models, played by Ruth Collins and Annie Grindlay, converse about the stock market (!) while undressing. It has no relevance to anything else in the movie but is so unexpected that it's rather amusing. As for the rest of it, there may not be enough of value for rabid horror fans. Ed French supplies some enjoyably gruesome makeup effects, and there's a sadistic creep (Tom Billett) who chases women with a sledgehammer. The electronic music score by Walter Sear is unbelievably awful at some points. The acting is tolerable at best; Moore has some appeal even if she's not much of an actress.

Horror lovers may want to see this for completions' sake, but it's not exactly a must-see.

Five out of 10.

I watched this movie at eight o'clock in the morning after being awake for two days. The front of the box hardly looked promising, but when I read the summary on the back, (She's into her boyfriend, Bob. Just like he's into Satan!) I realized that I had to give this movie a chance. Honestly, it must be one of the worst movies I've ever seen (and I am a fan of Plan 9 From Outer Space). There is plot but hardly a point. The scene when Bob asks "Orange you forgetting something?" made the whole movie worthwhile as well as a few other choice words I'll leave you to discover. I would honestly recommending watching it while you are a little overtired because it provides some laughs and a lot of confusion. Be prepared to giggle and scratch your head at the dialogue and scenarios. I agree with the chap above and gave it a ten. It's cinema at it's worst and that's something to be proud of.

I quite liked Roberta Findlay's film "The Oracle" so I thought I'd give this one a go, especially as I thought the VHS cover looked quite cool. Sadly it turned out to be rather boring. It actually has quite a good storyline behind it, but is just done in a very boring way. Which of course means little gore and suspense, and too much talking.

I sort of like the cheap and dirty feel to it - I've always thought cheapness adds a murky atmosphere to horror flicks, take "Midnight" by John Russo for example. It's a shame Findlay didn't go for blood and gore over the "talky" bits as that would have made it much more watchable. Using better actors would also have lifted it out of boring mediocrity.

Overall, Lurkers may be of interest to those who collect rare horror flicks, but gore and suspense fans should stay away.

This movie, which is ostensibly a horror movie, fails on several levels: it does not make you care about what happens to the characters, it does not scare you, the atmosphere is not interesting. In other words, it's boring. A horror movie doesn't necessarily have to be really scary (most aren't), but it must NEVER bore you.

Director Roberta Findley, wife of cult legend Michael, directs yet another bizarre, cheaply made, vulgar film. This one, Lurkers, named for the dead that can be seen by some "lurking" about, primarily tells the tale of a girl having a bad home life in New York in an apartment house where she sees these lurkers. We are introduced to her in a somewhat inventive and at the same time crude opening sequence where the young girl, having just been verbally/physically abused by her mother, goes outside to play and while playing jump rope - the rope mysteriously entwines around her neck as the children idly smile and watch. A young woman who will be seen later in the movie arrives, and the rope stops. Quickly we move to the present when the young girl has turned into a young musician in love with a photographer. The film then relates this relationship - but to say any more would give away the plot. And I wouldn't want to do that to you - or would I(might save you!) I think of all about this film that I did like - and granted that was not much - was the story. It is somewhat talky and you soon know where it is going, but it has shades reminiscent of Rosemary's Baby with regards to the man-woman relationship and a future conspiracy. I even thought the end, reminiscent of The Sentinel, was just quirky enough to be interesting. The real problem with this movie is that it never can shake the cheap look and feel it has. This can be easily seen in the settings, the lack of good, quality actors, and the special effects(what few there are). Christine Moore plays the lead - and she is pretty - but beyond that nothing very special. She is better than virtually everyone else in the film. Findley also has some obvious, how shall we say, peculiar interests as we are shown various scenes suggesting sexual aberration of some kind and scenes suggesting sick violence with a sledge hammer. The film is not particularly gory though. One scene that stood out for me was a scene between two beautiful models - both highly attractive - disrobing and talking about the stock market. It has nothing to do with anything yet has an interesting humorous edge as well as other pluses aimed to peak one's interest.