IMDb > Lucker (1986) > IMDb user comments

IMDb user comments for
Lucker (1986) More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
Index 17 comments in total 

10 out of 11 people found the following comment useful :-
I love the smell of rotting corpses in the morning…, 9 September 2005
10/10
Author: Coventry from the Draconian Swamp of Unholy Souls

Some people have seriously sick and twisted world perspectives!! The beautiful country of Belgium (where yours truly lives) is terribly small and "Lucker" is the ONLY sicko-cult gem that was ever made here. Yet, I had to move heaven and earth in order to finally obtain a copy! Eventually, I had to contact writer/director John Vandewoestijne personally, so that he could send me a DVD of it (he's a really nice guy although the content of his film leads you to suspect otherwise!). Well, it was definitely worth going through all these efforts but only because I'm a die-hard fan of this type of extreme horror movies. This is one messed up piece of independent film-making, I assure you. We're introduced to quite possibly the sickest villain in horror cinema history, a thirty-something serial killer/necrophiliac named John Lucker. He awakes from a coma in a private clinic and immediately escapes the facility, killing and raping a couple of doctors and nurses on his way out. Once Lucker is back at large in his old city, he finds out that one the victims of his first killing spree, eight years ago, survived his deadly assault and he can't cope with that. He perpetrates into her apartment building and patiently plots to settle the old score. Meanwhile, he feasts his perverted lusts on the severely decomposing corpse of a prostitute he killed earlier. "Lucker" is a film experience unlike anything you ever had before in your life. It's mean, sadistic and the constantly disturbing atmosphere doesn't really allow you to breath. Other infamous video-nasties (like "Maniac" or "The Prowler") simply pale in comparison with "Lucker" and it actually made them look like soft, ordinary midweek TV-thrillers. The only movies that slightly live up to this are the ones made by German weirdo Andreas Schnaas, only "Lucker" doesn't feature that typically pretentious "oh look at me, I'm so nasty"-attitude Schnaas' movies suffer from. This is one of the most low-budgeted movies ever released but that's not what counts. You don't require money and fancy visuals in order to deliver a shocking picture and Johan Vandewoestijne terrifically proved that here. The extended necrophilia-sequence definitely is the grossest thing I ever saw. The finger-licking moment (you'll know when you see it) stands as the only sequence ever that managed to make my stomach turn upside down. You can either take that as a recommendation…or a warning.

Was the above comment useful to you?

11 out of 13 people found the following comment useful :-
Disgusting crap., 25 September 2003
4/10
Author: HumanoidOfFlesh from Chyby, Poland

"Lucker the Necrophagus" is total garbage on any other level than the sicko/puke level on which it definitely succeeds.The film is loaded with gore and violence,but there is plenty of boring scenes too.The murders are quite explicit and misogynistic,but the sickest and most nauseating scene is the necrophilia scene that comes near the end.It is ten times sicker and more off-putting than anything Buttgereit ever filmed.You know in Lucker's case,the rotting body is also filled with worms and maggots and some disgusting pus that this sicko rapist licks from his hands.Then he,of course,makes love to the body and this thing really made my stomach angry and if I had eaten something I would have probably been forced to turn my head off immediately because this scene is so sick and repellent."Lucker" is nothing but exploitation,and as sick as that can be.The gore effects are well-done and the music is occasionally pretty good.Worth watching only for fans of seedy exploitation flicks.

Was the above comment useful to you?

5 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
Worth a look, 5 February 2006
9/10
Author: Drillbitch from United Kingdom

I know I'm certainly in a minority here but I have a soft spot for Lucker. I picked my copy up at a film fair years ago. I was wearing a Nekromantik t-shirt at the time and a trader suggested it might be of interest to me if I was that way inclined. Although I agree that the acting is a bit sketchy and the effects are not as well executed as some I do think that the film has one saving grace in that Lucker himself is one of the most repulsive characters in genre history...he's so ordinary to look at and that's what makes him so creepy. As for the infamous corpse-love scene? It sure gives a new meaning to 'finger licking good' but I wouldn't credit it with being as nauseating as others have suggested...all in all if you're a bit of a horror completist who enjoyed Nekromantik and you're in a forgiving mood it's well worth a look.

Was the above comment useful to you?

7 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :-
Lucker the Sickophagous, 16 March 2003
1/10
Author: Bogey Man from Finland

Belgian film maker Johan Vandewoestijne (one of the producers of Emmanuel Kervyn's gory Rabid Grannies from 1989) wrote and directed this ultra low budget sickie when he was 25 years old. He had obviously seen a lot of those strong and graphic Italian, American and other nasties from the seventies and eighties and wanted to surpass them all with this tale of a necrophiliac psychopath killing women and raping them afterwards. On that strong sicko level, I can't say anything else than he definitely succeeded but otherwise this is nothing but extremely braindead garbage.

A coma patient Lucker (played by a guy named Nick Van Suyt) wakes up in the hospital and kills some people there. It is told that he was seven years in coma after being caught by the police. Once he has waken, he starts his killing spree in the city as he stalks innocent victims, mostly women, in order to first kill them brutally and then make love to their (also) rotten bodies. We follow these acts as there really isn't anything else going on in this so called film.

There aren't any positive or noteworthy things that could be said about Lucker other than those extremely nauseating gore scenes and sadism on display even though I wouldn't mention them "positive" or any merits to make this film rate any higher. This is like the first Violent Shit (1987) movie by German Andreas Schnaas: the killer just walks around, kills and (in Lucker's case) rapes the corpses, and then the circle begins again. Of course imagery and goings-on like this is extremely boring and Lucker features some of the most unnecessary and annoyingly prolonged sequences I've ever seen as we see takes of people walking around or hiding from the killer and these scenes may last even ten minutes! They are there only to make this run a little over an hour so that it could be called a feature film and that's why they are so painfully boring and stupid as they don't have any acceptable reason to their existence.

There are none of the cinematic magic shown in German Jorg Buttgereit's Nekromantik (1987) as that film has a wonderful soundtrack, music and visuals in it to make the illusion almost surreal at times and also the scenes of necrophilia not so disgusting as they aren't even meant to be. But Lucker has nothing so special, it has only the gory murders (which are quite explicit and very misogynistic), one mind blowingly disgusting corpse abusing scene and those mentioned prolonged braindead scenes.

One thing Lucker manages to make stronger than Nekromantik is the above mentioned necrophiliac love making scene which Lucker performs with a corpse he has killed seven days ago. He killed the girl and left him lie on the bed and then waited so that the body would turn into something more interesting (I guess) and then he performs his act, which will make those suffering from weak stomaches or repulsion towards this kind of idea cringe in disgust as I, too, felt almost forced to turn my eyes off the screen filled with such calculated images of perversion. The body he makes love with is covered with something I won't even try to describe here but it is also filled with maggots and worms to make the damn hellish scene as sick as possible. This is something even Buttgereit didn't want to show and why should've he? I don't think Buttgereit's Nekromantik is "sick" at all as it has many things to tell about human nature with its, OK let's admit it, unconventional and also "suspicious" imagery to make the actual "corpse scenes" not so off-putting as they could be and as they are in this Belgium case. I felt something moving upwards in my stomach while watching this one scene in Lucker so no one should even think about watching this if scared of slithery creatures and more importantly repelled by subject matter like this.

Lucker is among the sickest film experiences there is and it's also among the worst. The acting is very mediocre and occasionally irritating, the English dubbing is horrible and very over-the-top "dramatic", and this film in many ways reminds me of the Italian sleaze giallo Giallo a Venezia (1979) by Mario Landi as that film, too, is nothing but one mean spirited film filled with sex, perversion and sadistic violence without any real cinematic merits to raise it a little higher. If the late Italian exploitation king Joe D'Amato had made a child with Landi, that child's film would have probably been something like Lucker. That metaphor gives a clue what kind of an experience will this Belgium trash be. 1/10

Was the above comment useful to you?

4 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
Lame and a waste of time, 18 March 2006
2/10
Author: Scott_from_Modesto (danofthedead80@yahoo.com) from Bear, Delaware

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I found nothing of interest in this supposed gore classic that made no claim to its sick-o status.

Randy murderer and corpse rapist John Lucker has a good time picking off people and boning dead bodies. That's the story. The infamous scene in which Lucker licks the cadaver goo of his hands after fingering a raunchy putrid corpse is not really anything to write home about and the other gory bits are not that strong.

This film had an incredibly cheap and grubby feel to it and I really did not find it enjoyable in any way. I am a fan of such filth and I guess my palate is just a tad too discerning. Boring--2/10.

Was the above comment useful to you?

4 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
Lucker : The Bore-ophagus..., 27 January 2006
2/10
Author: EVOL666 from St. John's Abortion Clinic

Sorry guys - this one blows. It blows in pretty much every conceivable way. Watching this jackass walk around the psych ward, then the highway, then the city for literally minutes and minutes on end is pretty much like watching paint dry. The kill scenes are not nearly as "rough" or nasty as they're made out to be, and the corpse-bang scene towards the end is far more forgettable than the somewhat similar scene in NEKROMANTIK. Maybe I got a chopped copy or something, I got mine from Visual-Pain, and it seems to be duped from Midnight Video as that logo comes up during the feature. If my copy IS uncut then I'm REALLY disappointed in this one...

The basic story (for anyone who is still interested) is about John Lucker - a psycho and necrophiliac who escapes a mental hospital and goes on a rape/murder spree. His goal seems to be to find an ex-victim that he didn't get to "finish up" with, and to do this by walking around as dully as possible for almost the entire running time of the film...

No offense, but I can't see how anyone could possibly like anything about this film. I like schlocky, exploit/gore films as much as the next guy (hell, probably WAY more than the next guy...) but I gotta draw the line somewhere - and LUCKER is that line. The ONLY 2 redeeming factors that I can find in this film, is that the rape and murder scenes are on par with other exploit-style films (though not NEARLY as rough or unique as you may be lead to believe)...and the guy that plays Lucker is relatively effective - mainly because he's pretty creepy looking and keeps his mouth shut til the last few minutes of the film. I'll give a point for each of those - and that's being generous. If you are thinking about buying this to see some sort of "extreme" gore/exploit film - please take my advice and don't bother...you will be sadly disappointed. 2/10

Was the above comment useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
"Lucker" gets a fresh coat of paint, but he's still a bloody bore, 14 July 2008
2/10
Author: fertilecelluloid from Mountains of Madness

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Though I have reviewed this before, a new edition with some improvements in color and some directorial changes has necessitated a fresh review. The new DVD is mastered from a surviving 1" tape; the original negs and positives no longer exist. The picture has more color and less crud than the dupe of a cruddy VHS I was familiar with. Unfortunately, the technical improvements, courtesy of Synapse, do not change my opinion of the film -- it is still a torturous bore. The writing is of the blatantly obvious kind. There is no subtlety at all. Characters state exactly what they are thinking. In this case, the killer/rapist/necrophile John Lucker expresses his hatred of women in the most direct, uninteresting way. Like everybody else in the cast, the actor portraying Lucker overacts. There is no style, no vision, and no suspense. The director made the movie out of a desire to shock a government film body, not a desire to tell a disturbing story. The infamous scene in which Lucker paws a decaying corpse and licks his fingers is a bit gross, but there's nothing clever or interesting about this scene or anything else in the film. Parts of the film have a "Maniac" feel; other parts resemble Shaun Costello's "Forced Entry". When all is said and undone, "Lucker" is inept rubbish with as much aesthetic value as a gonzo porn flick. Come to think of it, I'd prefer gonzo porn any day.

Was the above comment useful to you?

3 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
Finger-licking good!, 19 May 2006
7/10
Author: Helltopay27 from United States

Lucker the Necrophagous is a testament to the type of film that you either love it or hate it; there is no in between. The general consensus is that it's a terrible, disgusting movie with absolutely no redeeming values. That's right, it is. Frankly, it's downright appalling. It's another rare movie that exists only to be as atrocious as it can be, without any sort of justification. I'm a part of the minority, however, who found it worth their while. Undoubtedly, there are several boring scenes, and of course, the dubbing and acting are terrible, but there are some completely unexpected moments of sheer dread that I couldn't help but to enjoy myself. Naturally, Lucker remains as a complete surprise to me. It stays as one of the most depraved, misogynist, and disturbing movies ever conceived, but along with this grotesque content are some tense and fear-inspiring scenes. I think I found Lucker so effective is because I didn't have any expectations for it, but I was still exhilarated to see not just a famous obscurity, but one of the most shocking and appalling movies ever made. It was really a charged experience.

John Lucker has attempted suicide during a mental institution transfer, and now lies heavily sedated in a private clinic. Of course, he wakes up. He lurks around the hospital and eventually kills one of his doctors (this is one scene that has a few minutes of walking, but pays off with a brutally gory scene). He then kills the doctor's girlfriend in her car, drives off, and has sex with her fresh corpse. The next morning, he walks his way (again, for a few minutes) to town where he finds that a victim of his crimes from eight years ago, Cathy Jordan, has survived. Outraged, he continues to fulfill his sick lust by stalking and brutally murdering women, yet he becomes so overcome with rage and shame for not killing Cathy off that it develops into a physical psychosis. He decides it can wait a week, however, as one of the women he's killed since escaping (a prostitute) has turned into a nice, pus-filled corpse, presenting the infamous necrophilia scene that remains as one of the very few movie scenes that made me want to gag. He then finally arrives at Cathy Jordan's apartment building with yet another victim, and plays a sick game of simply watching her psychological torment and listening to her scream. Lucker eventually gets bored and kills Cathy's husband and goes after her. He leaves her with his other still-living victim, but she gets loose, stabs Lucker, and escapes. Lucker's mad as hell and must bring this to an end, once and for all.

This is not a perfect film by any means. Some parts indeed are rather slow, and the acting and dialogue were some of the most humorous (and then turned incredibly annoying). It was easy enough to do, as some of the content is so appalling that the dialogue faded into the background as I watched these overwhelming displays. Though Lucker tries to be the most insanely putrid movie imaginable with necrophilia and misogyny, it also has the simple structure and execution of the standard slasher movie. These elements, though cliché and watered down, are very creepy in the film's rough atmosphere, even though there's essentially no reason to fear for the victims. All characters present are simply meant to pad the body count and to make excuses for putrid scenes of overly-dramatic blood and guts. Why I think it's effective is because there's such an insane fear of the villain, not for the victims. Each time Lucker began to kill someone was a moment for me to wonder with dread what he was going to do this time (this all works because Nick Van Suyt plays such a good psychopath). Because of this natural tension being spewed by a most vile killer, I didn't mind the longer periods of walking and stalking, which seem to be the biggest complaint of this film. In fact, it was almost a relief from some of the stress produced by the mere presence of John Lucker. His uncaring and unforgiving attitude in how he kills people creates some truly unrelenting terror. This is also amplified by the music, which had a very creepy electronic tone that reminded me of the music from The Shining. There's a eerie feeling to the whole movie.

Though some horror elements here are standard, Lucker is still one of the most disgusting and unapologizing movies I've ever seen. The sheer brutality of not only the murders, but of the necrophilia angle is stomach churning. There are no limits set to how Vandewoestijne tries to shock and horrify his audience, most notably by the famous finger-licking scene. Other than just the incredibly sick necrophilia angle, the misogyny expressed in this film is outrageous and even maddening sometimes. Scenes of Lucker pulling up a chair to watch his victim scream in pain, agony, and terror are unbelievably barbaric, and his efforts at humiliation and degradation are terrifying and enraging. Those who have seen I Spit on Your Grave will see much of the same disgust and disrespect for women that this shows, maybe even more, so be sure to hold onto your hats. I can easily imagine showing this to someone who will have to leave the room to vomit. It's that type of exploitation, and it should never be taken lightly. Like I said, the slow points and humorously annoying acting are almost saving relief from what atrocities are committed in unflinching, in-your-face detail. As exploitation goes, Lucker's on the extreme!

Was the above comment useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
Doesn't live up to the hype, 27 May 2009
1/10
Author: lovecraft231 from United States

A deranged serial killer/rapist/necrophiliac escapes the mental ward (do these guys ever stay there in these movies?) and goes back to his old ways, killing, raping and having sex with corpses. When he learns that one of his past victims has escaped, he's got some unfinished business to attend to.

Done in an era where the old Grindhouse theaters were a thing of the past, and plenty of nasty little movies were making their way to VHS, "Lucker the Necrophagous" is a notoriously nasty and mean piece of work. Sadly, it doesn't live up to the cult reputation it has, and is a chore to get through.

While you get the requisite gore and disgusting moments(including a nasty bit with a rotting corpse)it's also rather dull to sit though. Sure, it's got all the bad taste, but it doesn't have any talent to make it interesting. The acting is terrible, with the killer actually being a rather dull character-and he's the main character too. After the third or fourth time he starts rambling to himself, you'll want to either turn it off or fast forward though it.

In spite of it's convincing gore and grotesque moments, "Lucker" is too dull and uneventful to be a memorable viewing experience. It's basically like watching a kid try to gross you out, but tries too hard, and has nothing to recommend. As it stands, even hardcore gore fanatics will find this to be a challenge to stay awake through.

Was the above comment useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
No entertainment value whatsoever, 23 December 2008
1/10
Author: ClfGlltt from England

I don't normally leave comments about films (usually just read them) but after watching this pile of dog dung, I felt compelled to warn people to keep away. A lot of films I watch are no budget z grades, I watch a few block busters now and again to regain some sanity. I love the b movie thing but this IS the worse film I can remember, EVER. This even beats the awful "Necro files" and "Goblet of gore". Yes there was gore but the gratuitous corpse "thing" come off it how long did that go on for. Yes I should have turned it off, don't know why I didn't it certainly wasn't because of any entertainment value. Film quality rubbish of a poor VHS source, acting.....what acting, story then....what story, no burn any evidence of this now and teach the children never to embark on this kind of thing ever again.

Was the above comment useful to you?
Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]

Add another comment

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings External reviews
Plot keywords Main details Your user comments
Your vote history