Rawhead Rex (2017)

For a film that quickly found obscurity RAWHEAD REX is a horror film with a very poor reputation . On its release it quickly disappeared without a mummer and even in the VHS era it was a film that hardly anyone thought was worth hiring from a video shop . One legacy it did do was that screenwriter and original author Clive Barker decided if you wanted someone to adapt your work as a film then it's a good idea to direct the movie yourself which led to Barker directing HELLRAISER , one of the most memorable and haunting horror films ever made . So is RAWHEAD REX as bad as is often made out ?In truth it's not dreadful but neither is much good . Seen over 20 years after it was produced there's something painfully old fashioned in every aspect of its conception and execution . ,. A monster stalking the nocturnal countryside , it's something that we've all seen in science fiction B movies from the 1950s or DOCTOR WHO , or read about in medieval folklore , it's a story that's effectively centuries old and RAWHEAD REX brings nothing to to this type of tale . Perhaps most disappointingly Barker brings little new to his original short story and merely pads it out with needless characters and the occasional bloody set piece One obvious problem with the film is the production values which are often laughable and unfortunately this extends to the eponymous monster itself which resembles a man in a badly fitting rubber suit and is never menacing and often laughable as it head wobbles around whilst dispatching sundry monster fodder . victims . . The horror genre is not known for its cerebral ethos but when you've got a monster that elicits chuckles rather than chills then someone has made a huge mistake In summary RAWHEAD REX is a very cheesy old fashioned creature feature . That said it's completely unpretentious which is not something that can used to describe much of Barker's output and many of us have a soft spot for this type of silly B movie horror

Though not without faults, this movie has some damned effective moments. Particularly chilling was the scene of the family driving away from the Rawhead-plagued village, and them seeing "something" large in a field, through a break in the brush and stone walls. When they stop the van, and begin backing up to "check it out", it's a classic "Don't do it!" moment. Of course, it's a fake scare, but then something bad does come to pass...In this day of everything being put out on cheap DVD, it's frustrating that this movie is not in production. I'm sure there's money to be made on a DVD re-release. They put out the god-awful Alien 3000, which makes Rawhead look like Oscar material.....

To sum up the movie, overall: Rawhead Rex is a monster that hunts and devours young boys, stopping only to violate women, and be worshipped as a God. How does he react to the worship? He pisses over his followers, which they eagerly accept as a blessing from their God.This movie is one of the creepiest and most disturbing ever made, and it doesn't matter how cheesy the makeup is. It's creepy and disturbing for the same reason all of Clive Barker's stories are: it's as much sexual fantasy as it is horror.Clive Barker is the creepy old man that sits on his porch all day, asking the young boys who pass if they'd like to sit on his lap and hear a scary story. We're too young to realize why these stories include so much torture and sado-masochistic imagery, and we understand even less why the storyteller seems so excited as he tells it, made all the more excited by the young listener's fear. As a straight, relatively well adjusted man, these dark dreams are all the more chilling, especially at a young age, when everything is already so confusing. Ultimately, no Clive Barker movie is ever as scary or disturbing as the concept itself, and no movie studio will allow the story to be as dark and horrifying as Clive Barker wants it to be. That's why Clive Barker's stories are so great. It's not really about selling books. It's about satisfying dark urges, and terrifying young boys.What I'm getting at is that it doesn't matter if Rawhead Rex looks scary. It's what he does, and the mere concept of his existence that is both terrifying and disturbing, made all the more terrifying when you're young, because let's face it: If Clive Barker dreamed of hunting and devouring young boys, then plenty of others have dreamed it to...and perhaps they aren't as willing as Clive is to merely allow his dark dreams to remain a fantasy.Like it or laugh at it, the story of Rawhead Rex is a dark reflection of the author's soul, and it is that reflection which is truly horrifying.

Rawhead Rex (1986) is proof that filmmakers can lack any sense of creativity given a low budget and a list of unknowns to make a movie. The film's scriptwriter, Clive Barker, has every right to be disappointed at the final result.A monster known as Rawhead is resurrected from his underground prison and decides to wreak bloody havoc on an Irish countryside by killing and eating the town's residents. It's up to a visiting American father (David Dukes) to convince the police that a monster is really on the loose.There's not a shred of creativity or believability to be found within its characters (but at least a group of dumb teenagers know it's not right to go out in the woods alone). The characters are dumb and boring and the monster is just what it looks like: a deformed rubber ape with glowing red lights in its eyes to show that it's angry. Compared to the other terrifying movie monsters of our time, Rawhead Rex is one that stoops at the bottom of the barrel.What's laughable is the story and its crucial plot points. Be amazed at how the cops discover that there's really a monster on a rampage. The baffling ending involving cheesy special effects. And oh, you can't forget this one: a scene in which the monster literally urinates on a priest who worships him.The death scenes are hardly creative. They make the ones in the Freddy and Jason movies look like art.Not a lot of resources went into this movie and it shows. If I could, I would name a lot of low-budget films that are more better than this one. Some come in mind, though. How about the one where Clive Barker took the director's chair a year later?