Dotsthavesp I wanted to but couldn't!

UnowPriceless hyped garbage

JinRoz For all the hype it got I was expecting a lot more!

Kaydan Christian A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Excaliber82 So the year is 2011 and time has not been kind to poor old Rawhead Rex (1986) and the monster horror genre in general.Anyone who has read Clive Barker's short story Rawhead Rex knows that this is a downright disturbing and wicked tale. The monster Rawhead has sexual issues, he hates women, he pisses on priests and has an appetite for eating small children/babies. However, all these awful things are what makes the story such a page turner and adds more depth to what would otherwise be a mindless monster work.The movie Rawhead Rex (1986) suffers from a very low budget. The main offender is Rawhead's mask itself. Its cheap rubber with little to no animatronics and the rubber shakes as the actor tries to move quickly. A higher budget would have done this monster so much justice, if only a creature master like Stan Winston had gotten involved, this would have been a whole different movie experience.I would love to see Rawhead Rex remade today with all the trimmings, but unfortunately Hollywood is a complete mess. Bad actors are thrown into quick PG-13 horror crap fests and CGI technology has become the only main focus of everything.I think it's time for someone to step up to the plate and re-boot the monster movie genre. Rawhead Rex could be an action/monster movie extravaganza if remade correctly. Hollywood simply refuses to take any chances and because of this, the horror genre is more or less dead. In the end, Rawhead Rex is still an enjoyable monster flick for the bored late night horror buff. But it just doesn't measure up to the more well-made 80s monster classics like "Pumpkinhead".

microfame 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.....

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?

karlharvey1972 I've given this a 10 to bump up the average, because 4.2 doesn't reflect the core 'horror' quality that is a strong undercurrent to this movie. I saw Rawhead when I was quite a bit younger but all those who saw it with me said the same thing; that this movie contains a genuine flavor of something you can't quite put your finger on, but other directors / collectors of horror should take note of.Don't dismiss this movie, its stupid on many levels, but like Evil Dead (One) contains that low budget horror magic that only a few directors can capture.Am I wrong?