Headless

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.

From the director of Found (2012), a great piece of horror cinema that explored relations between an elder brother (murderer) and younger sibling, comes this train wreck.

I had high expectations for this film, as I loved the brutality met with character relationships and development that was found. However, this film fell short, very very short, of my expectations.

This film lacked any significant plot or conflict, and instead depicted simple blood and gore tactics; something that's been done a million times before. So if your looking for another run of the mill gore plotless horror film; this should hit the spot. If not, I'd advise moving your attention to Found and stopping it there.

Follow up.. Even the murder methods and gore scenes in this film were repeats of Found's "Headless" movie depiction. We get it, guy likes to eat eyeballs that go squish, and explore severed heads with his eggplant.

3/10 no effort film, bad acting, recycled gore.

This film was everything that a lover of the slasher sub-genre enjoys: gore, nudity, blood, and limbs being sawed off. The film overall was pretty typical, but it held a few pretty unique tweaks that you don't see very often in a slasher film. I wont give too much away, but just how the killer toys with Jess at the end, and the childhood story throughout the film are cool little bits that made this movie stand out. However, the one complaint that I just can't get over is the sub par acting. Now, not get me wrong, I understand that this was supposed to be a lost 70s slasher film (which were notorious for bad acting), but it just got distracting. If you haven't seen the film Found, which this movie is more or less from, I would suggest watching it as it supplements Headless as a whole.

The gory tale of an insane psychopath who was turned into a monster because of his horrible childhood, he goes around slaughtering women (sometimes men if they're in his way). It's just an absolute gorefest combined with other shocking acts of depravity, well it's very over the top but i enjoyed it. They also give you a glimpse into the maniac's psyche as well (which i won't spoil), there's a short plot of the supposed protagonist and her stoner boyfriend to fill the movie up but in the end we just want to see the killer mauling and slaughtering girls. Enough of me glorifying the gore, it's technically well made. The actors do their best but in the end it's just B acting, i think that Shane Beasly's the one who keeps everything interesting with his mad overacting. Are you a gore fan, just buy it once you find it anywhere. I asure you that it's anything but average.

"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.