BoardChiri Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Maleeha Vincent It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

Smoreni Zmaj Clive Barker is one of my favorite authors and his probably most famous work are stories published in six Books of Blood. First three definitely belong in horror hall of fame. This is adaptation of second story from third book. To what extent is this adaptation faithful to original story I can not say with much certainty because I read Books of Blood last time 17 years ago, but this movie inspired me to read them again as soon as possible. Considering fact that Barker personally adapted story for screen I believe that faithfulness is not too questionable. Story is great and it will be obvious to everyone who ever read any Barker's work that he is behind this plot, even if they did not read this particular story. Acting, directing and effects are decent and atmosphere is right. But Rawhead himself is complete failure. Monster is so unconvincing that he nullifies all horror effects other elements of the movie achieved. They should have used good old tricks to avoid showing it directly. They could have show it in dark, just glimpse of it, or its shadow, or even shoot its scenes through its eyes. If my memory serves me right, in original story that's exactly the way it's done and story is written from monster's point of view. This way they would amplify horror and avoid spoiling everything with stupid and unconvincing monster mask. Overall, this is must watch for fans of Barker and 80's B production, but the rest of you should skip it.6/10

dannyreillyboy This film is just classic. They tried so hard to make it 'professional' that it looks terrible. Its so obvious that this film was more about making the most of some sort of tax break or government incentive to lure Hollywood to Ireland (maybe I'm wrong) but this was never intended to be a masterpiece.Actors where terrible, scenes feel forced, film language is unnatural....storyline is all over the place BUT I loved it. Sit back and laugh at how poor this film is and I guarantee you will enjoy it. The scene where Rawhead Rex jumps out from behind the boxes and eats the farmer are hilarious but what follows is just brilliant. The monster breaks into the house and while the pregnant farmers wive is near paralysed by fear (or bad acting), Rawhead just spends the guts of 5 minutes in the kitchen wrecking and thrashing everything in sight (pointlessly).Perfect wind-down movie after a party or night out. A few of your mates and calm drunkenness highly recommended to get the best from this accidental piece of comedy!

robertmfreeman 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.

Frank Rizzo 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?