Headless

I didn't know what to expect at first. I thought because it was such an old movie that it wouldn't be all that good. But it was! It was so different. Not your usual slasher movie. It wasn't boring, & even though there wasn't anything remarkable about the storyline, it was the brutality, the sickness & the retro grittyness of the movie that makes it so good. I would've given it one more star if the acting was a tad more convincing & the special fx were a little more realistic. But all in all, I don't think you will be disappointed if you enjoyed movies like: House Of 1000 Corpses, Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Dani Filth's Cradle Of Fear...

"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 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.