Lucker (1986) User Reviews

Disgusting crap.

[HumanoidOfFlesh · 4/10 · 25 September 2003]

"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.

One sick flick!

[BA_Harrison · 5/10 · 7 December 2008]

The year before Jörg Buttgereit's infamous movie Nekromantik shocked viewers with its graphic images of necrophilia, Belgian Johan Vandewoestijne gave fans of sick cinema his opus dedicated to the joys of corpse lovin': Lucker the Necrophagous.

Although Lucker isn't quite as compelling as it's German cousin, due to too many tedious scenes that just don't know when to quit (seemingly endless shots of women screaming; people running around corridors for an eternity, etc.), it does offer a couple of particularly nauseating moments that rival Nekromantik on the disgustometer, and the film should therefore be of some interest to anyone interested in extreme horror.

Vandewoestijne's grimy, low-budget sleaze-fest features Nick Van Suyt as balding serial killer John Lucker, who escapes from a private clinic (with absolutely zero security) in order to track down the woman who narrowly escaped his clutches several years earlier. Whilst attempting to locate this particular victim, nutty John takes time out to do a little killing and raping (in that order) to get himself back into the swing of things.

Lucker is not an easy film to endure: not only is it very violent and thoroughly repellent at times, but it is also an extremely amateurish production that features awful acting (and equally bad dubbing), a dodgy script, some iffy special make-up effects, terrible pacing, and crap editing. In short, it is going to appeal to a very limited audience. However, it is definitely the film to watch if you want to see a fat, hairy-assed guy in mirror shades going at it hammer and tongs with the maggoty, decomposing body of a hooker!!! It is also where you will find an equally charming scene where the titular character gropes and fingers the very same putrescent corpse, before proceeding to lick its disgusting, slimy effluence from his hands.

Those with a hair-trigger gag reflex may want to put down some paper or prepare a bucket before watching.

Dirty and nasty, but lacks staying power

[The_Void · 5/10 · 29 August 2006]

Despite the fact that it was clearly shot on a micro-budget and received an incognito release, Johan Vandewoestijne's Lucker has received cult status thanks to its legendary gore sequences. However, the gore scenes are either lacking in blood and/or completely ridiculous in their execution, and by putting the focus on making the central character as sick as possible; the director has forgotten to implement any horror with staying power into the movie, and it all feels a little bit flat. The central character - John Lucker - is presented as a man on a mission, and this is conveyed by the way he stays wordless for the majority of the movie, and by the fact that all his sick antics are leading up to one thing; namely, revenge. We are introduced to Lucker while he's staying at a mental hospital. Naturally, it doesn't take him long to break out and after killing and raping a couple of nurses, he's back on the street where his crime spree continues. Lucker's sick objective revolves around a young girl that he raped and intended to murder - only he didn't get the last part right, and that's what he's aiming to sort out.

The film only lasts for just over seventy minutes, which is a definite good thing as the plot is thinly applied even given that run time. A lot of the plot is concerned with watching the central character maraud around murdering people, and it's lucky that the director manages to introduce another sick sequence just about every time the film looks like it's getting a bit too boring. I have no idea what 'Necrophagous' means, but I'm guessing it has something to do with the fact that the title character enjoys using the women he kills after death. The sequence towards the end where he licks gore from one of his dead victims from his hands is the sickest in the movie...but it didn't offend me too much. The style of the film is down and dirty throughout, which definitely does the movie a lot of favours and the only other positive in the film comes from the lead actor - Nick Van Suyt - who does well in providing the right kind of feel for a character as sick as this one. The role doesn't require much actual acting, but at least he looks the part. Overall, I have to say this film doesn't really look up to its reputation, and while I sort of enjoyed it; I can't recommend it.

Lucker the Sickophagous

[Bogey Man · 1/10 · 16 March 2003]

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

Lucker : The Bore-ophagus...

[EVOL666 · 2/10 · 27 January 2006]

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

"Lucker" gets a fresh coat of paint, but he's still a bloody bore

[fertilecelluloid · 2/10 · 14 July 2008]

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.

New review for new release of a bad movie

[flamingyouth76 · 4/10 · 1 June 2008]

Since "Lucker" has now been released by Synapse Video here in the U.S., I felt like a new review for the DVD release would be appropriate.

"Lucker" has been an (in)famous flick for over 20 years. Never released in the U.S., it could only be found as a multi-generational bootleg copy, the original negative long since destroyed. It made a huge splash in the late 80's because of the graphic content (remember, this is before "Nekromantik"), and I think it helped that the only copies available were blurry bootlegs. Viewed now with a little extra clarity, the effects are very poor.

The plot is so simple, I don't think I'm spoiling anything with this synopsis: a maniac escapes the hospital in search of the one surviving victim from his previous killing spree. Along the way, he encounters new victims as he searches for "the one that got away." There are a couple of decent gore scenes, and admittedly the corpse rape is pretty disgusting as long as you don't look too closely at the poor effects. Compared to "Nekromantik", this film just doesn't hold up. "Nekromantik" is much better filmed, of higher quality, and generally has better special effects.

One can even argue that Buttgereit backed off a little with his corpse sex as it is filmed with a blurred camera effect, as if to say, "You don't need every detail, just the idea of what is happening is sick enough." In contrast, John Lucker just hops on the corpse and grinds away--a much more depressing vision than "Nekromantik." This is probably the most disgusting as well as the most effective scene in the entire film.

But take away a couple of murders and the rape scene, and "Lucker" has absolutely nothing of interest to note. Mostly Lucker just wanders the streets in search of victims, but his ramblings are way too long and ultimately boring. The music is atrocious, the acting is non-existent, and as already mentioned, the plot is threadbare. In short, this film reminds me of a film I might make: I would want it to be gory and shocking, even over-the-top; however, it would be doomed to be bad because I have no knowledge of film-making and neither would the friends I might assemble to help me out. That's "Lucker" in a nutshell--very amateurish and poorly done.

The new DVD release comes with two versions of the film. One version is the original uncut version, taken from a Dutch VHS dupe. It's dubbed in English with Dutch subtitles, but for horror completists, it is a great gem to have as it represents the only original English-language version of what is essentially a "lost" film since the negative has been confirmed to have been destroyed. The second version is a "director's cut" but is essentially the same film, same plot, but with some new snippets filmed and added in while a couple of meaningless scenes have been removed.

The director's cut is certainly an oddity as it jumps from brand-new digital video footage to grainy, blurry, VHS footage. The new footage is meaningless as well--for example, extra shots of Lucker walking along the highway and shots of the elevator door with an "Out of Order" note on it. If I'm given money to re-shoot, you can bet I'm going out to re-shoot the important parts of the film, not the extraneous shots! The only good thing I can say is that the director's cut tightens the already-short film (74 mins.) to an even shorter 68 minutes.

The best DVD feature is an interview with the director who explains the background of the film and tells some stories about filming. I thought it was entertaining as well as enlightening.

All in all, this DVD is for hardcore horror completists only. Don't buy it just because you've never seen it--borrow a copy or rent from Netflix or something, because chances are you won't want to own it after you have viewed it.

Doesn't live up to the hype

[lovecraft231 · 1/10 · 27 May 2009]

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.

Luck of the Corpse

[Vomitron_G · 2/10 · 21 January 2010]

This movie is a deformity. We get to see a lunatic/necrophiliac escape from a mental institute and picking up his old, disgusting habits. The only thing that, very remotely, resembles a plot, is that he is going after the one girl that got away before they locked him up. The whole idea leans closely to films like "Maniac" (1980) and "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" (1986), but "Lucker" is really I-don't-know-how-many-times worse. Bad camera-work, bad acting, bad... oh, crap, bad everything. But it really is sick and disgusting. This, in fact, might be the sickest movie ever made in Belgium. But the gore looks fake (except for the real living, crawling maggots! Ugh!). I shouldn't rate this any higher than 1/10, really. So why 2/10? I'll give you more than one reason. Johan Vandewoestijne made himself immortal by producing the Belgian splatter-classic "Rabid Grannies" (okay, I admit, that doesn't have anything to do with this "Lucker"). He wrote, produced, directed AND edited "Lucker", and that's praiseworthy for a Belgian film, even if it IS trash. And boy, this movie really has one of the sickest scenes showing the act of necrophilia I have ever seen... And did I mention this is Belgian? Anyway, there are enough films out there that can make me proud of that. "Lucker" isn't one of them.

I love the smell of rotting corpses in the morning

[Coventry · 10/10 · 9 September 2005]

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.

"Lucker " is Dead to the world **1/2 outta ****

[fudgepax261 · 3/10 · 2 June 2006]

John Lucker awakes in a hospital bed,from a failed suicide attempt a few years ago and he proceeds to escape only trying to dodge numerous hospital employees until he kills a man that discovers him.Somehow he puts on pants,sneakers, sunglasses and(haha well look at you!) a leather jacket and he kills the dead man's girlfriend. Johan Vandewoestijne's Lucker works as a portrait of a quiet serial killing necrophiliac who stalks women and kills them,made in 1986 just the year before Jorge Buttgereit's excellent Nekromantik.Nick Van Suyt's performance as the creepy,menacing John Lucker makes the film have a gritty feeling and the music builds the tense atmosphere.

Lucker learns one of his last victims is still alive,he becomes angry and starts killing his way towards her,he kills a prostitute and leaves her body for a few days until the sex starts,the sex scene with the corpse is gritty,doesn't look the same from Jorge Buttgereit's Nekromantik,a film that I dearly loved and admired for its work in the life of necrophiliacs.Since Jorge Buttgereit made necrophilia look like a good thing, Johan Vandewoestijne makes it look too good from that finger icky scene,there is plenty of misogyny around.

Lucker is a well crafted horror thriller with Nick Van Suyt's menacing,somewhat quiet performance as John Lucker,the ominous night stalking atmosphere that Johan Vandewoestijne had made.The film and music has a feeling of stark isolation of John Lucker being the only person dead to the world.Although I cant recommend it from not really getting to know John Lucker much,he seems like a guy you become friends with in a bar but doesn't say you're friends since he's too quiet to tell you why he's hanging with you.I would've liked to know why John Lucker became this way or why he's mentally sick and I don't wanna bring up Jorge Buttgereit' film again as an example.oh and one more thing:what's with those series of psychotic attacks?

By all accounts the worst film I have ever seen.

[De_Sam · 1/10 · 5 October 2015]

This was Johan Vandewoestijne's pet project, as is apparent from all the roles he fulfilled in the making of this atrocity; producer, directer, writer, screenplay, editor, production management & casting. All of which he did with the same level of inaptitude.

There is only one reason why this film is remembered at all, and it is the rape scene of a by-then-four-weeks-old corpse, which due to the incompetency of Vandewoestijne is more laughable than anything else.

Now the real reason why I proclaimed the title of this review is another scene. The film is not particularly long -74 minutes does feel like an eternity in this case, so you would expect that the tempo of the film would be at least average. Well, at the end of the film, after our protagonist has captured his next victim, we are presented with the most redundant scene in movie history that just screams: "I was put in to make the film longer!". Our protagonist sitting silently while his victim is moaning in the most unbelievable way possible. The redundancy is aggravated by the horrible camera angles (yes plural, triple the redundancy!) and during the scene all that happens is systematically cutting between this three camera angles of this one redundant scene. Now how many times do you think it would be necessary to cut between this angles? The correct answer would be zero, but if you had to, a normal human being would cut one time for every angle, in total three times.

Johan Vandewoestijne makes around 200 cuts between the camera angles, prolonging the scene to last several minutes. When I first saw this scene I could only laugh at this pathetic display, on the inside I was crying.

So, to conclude, if you want to see the worst film of all time and the worst scene of all time, go ahead. Know that there is no so-bad-it's-good to be found here.

No entertainment value whatsoever

[ClfGlltt · 1/10 · 23 December 2008]

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.

Total garbage.

[FATLOSER · 3 November 1999]

This film is without any remdeeming quality. Even the special makeup effects are primitive compared to Buttgerits and Serdas films on necrophilia. Terrible acting, cheesy English dubbing(the copy I saw had Dutch subtitles), and absolutely no plot. I didn't think the Dutch could make bad American style low budget horror movies but I guess I was wrong. Stay away from this bore.

See you in Hell, you sucker

[TheHrunting · 2/10 · 5 June 2011]

"Lucker the Necrophagous" is another homicidal horror film from the '80s that gives its sights to Michael Myers all over again, but this time in another country, running on a much lower budget, with less story and the selling appeal from the makers is a sensational one as our depraved guy here has a sexual appetite for the dead.

John Lucker is being held in a minimal security mental ward under heavy sedation from being caught after committing a string of heinous murders. He shrugs off the drugs like it was an aspirin and easily escapes, but not before killing a random guy just to get the feeling back. He wears all black, gloves, shades and slicks his hair--if he had anything more to hide he might be mistaken for a ninja. His dialogue wouldn't even fill a memo but instead he stalks his victims with deadpan focus and a higher intuition, like a refined predatory sixth sense for all the social skills he lacks. Where Jason Voorhees and Freddy initially worked, even if they had no grounds in reality, the character here becomes a caricature of the '80s slasher as there's no grabbing background story and instead the filmmakers play off previous efforts. Trying to scare an audience with a guy who's the epitome of evil--not to mention who's one-dimensional and only skin-deep--all over again isn't as effective as, say, someone you wouldn't expect until it's too late like Rutger Hauer in "The Hitcher," or even a charming looking fellow like, say, Jeffery Dahmer, who's capable of doing his macabre hobbies right under society's unsuspecting nose.

One can see gorier films from the Italians back in the '70s, as this has makeshift effects with more blood spraying than gaping wounds. The exploitation part was shocking idea wise--especially how it involved sticky fingers--but ultimately done more effectively in the earlier film "Corpse Mania" from Hong Kong in 1981, as well as with much more believable effects in the later short "Aftermath" with "things" to do with cadavers. This one looks like a rough-around-the-edges, fake, black blob with a few live maggots on it. Instead of concentrating on story or character development, this instead attempts to go for atmosphere and mysteriousness, which would be fine except it makes the experience drawn out even at 74 minutes long. Pretending there's something of substance on screen by just subtly panning the camera in hopes to get lucky isn't going to cut it. "Lucker the Necrophagous" is a pointless exercise and not worth the time as there's very little to fall back on, even for someone like myself who watches low-budget genre flicks that have a bit of a nasty side. (Also submitted on http://fromblacktoredfilmreviews.blogspot.com/)

Painful

[tomgillespie2002 · 1/10 · 25 September 2011]

John Lucker (Nick Van Suyt) is a notorious serial killer who awakens from his long coma. He escapes from the hospital, but not without taking a few victims with him. His notoriety comes from the fact that he not only kills his victims in various horrific ways, he likes to (surprise, surprise, given the film's title) shag their corpses. We find out through a few flashbacks that he is on the hunt for a woman who escaped his clutches. But after picking up a prostitute in a bar, he goes back to her apartment building, in which, coincidentally, is empty apart from one couple ("no-one can hear a thing"). We know this as she explains it in detail to Lucker, something that we all would do to a strange man we have just met and are taking back to our home.

Well, where to start? I have my wonderful brother to thank for this monstrosity of 'film-making', as after he read a DVD review of it, claimed it sounded 'right up my street'. Perhaps I need to change people's outlook of me, as it is concerning that a family member would consider a film where a greasy Belgian leaves a corpse for a month to rot, smears his hands over her slimy body and then hungrily licks his hands, to be something I would like. I'd never actually vomited bile into my mouth before whilst watching a film, and although I welcome a film that can make me feel queasy and uneasy, I can only describe Lucker the Necrophagous as the cinematic equivalent of Two Girls One Cup.

This is genuinely the worst film I have ever seen. And I've seen all three August Underground films. Every second, every frame, every soundbite of it's slender 70 minute running time drained a little bit more life out of me. This film life-raped me. And while I'm no prude when it comes to nudity, the sight of a middle-aged, doughy skinned, double-chinned man's flabby arse is not something I want to see repeatedly, especially when it is wobbling on top of a corpse. Shock horror, this would be the last feature both director Johan Vandewoestijne would direct, and 'star' Van Suyt would appear. Lucker is the finest example as to why when something is labelled as 'notorious', it doesn't mean I should watch it. It does for notorious films what Gary Glitter does for notorious musicians. Avoid at all costs, and my dear brother, next time you want to recommend something, please watch it yourself first. Damn you!

www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

Worth a look

[Drillbitch · 9/10 · 5 February 2006]

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.

Lucker : autobiography producer

[fripmusiceuropehits · 9/10 · 10 October 2006]

Hi ! I have been knowing the producer of this sensational bad movie; since his childhood, so I can tell you why he has been making this movie, and all of his movies. The guy, John VdWoestijne, has never had a woman,never had a girlfriend in his whole life, and he has never xxxxed !! He dreams to fxxx a lady so hard, but only when she is dead; it is so much easier, and she is not refusing or struggling back....

Regretfully in Belgium, some guys like Marc Dutroux execute or experience their dreams in reality...& get sentenced for life.

VdWoestijne knows better; he lives his fantasies thru' his actor(s) (Nick van Suyt)in his movie(s). VdWoestijne is Lucker and vice versa.

Therefor this film deserves a 9 on 10 !! The sights of the small town of Kortrijk are fantastic, romantic and scary.....Only thing missing to build the suspense; the police. In the originalscript this was foreseen,but regretfully it was not filmed in the end, and that is why this film gets boring... Luckily there is a great musical score, but the wrong single was picked otherwise it would have hit the USA

Be cautious, in 10 or 20 yrs, after 1 or 2 remakes,this film will be a blockbuster,your present copy handled at Sotheby's.

I agree the rest of VdWoestijne "oeuvres" are too poor,to be considered as good bad movies,if you understand what I mean. But I was not longer involved. Signed; the man with prostitute (might be autobiographic as well)

A very gross and nasty serial killer flick

[Woodyanders · 8/10 · 8 November 2010]

Vicious and depraved rapist, serial killer, and necrophiliac John Lucker (a creepy and convincing performance by the plain, pudgy, and balding Nick Van Suyt) escapes from a clinic and embarks on a savage murderous spree while searching for Cathy Jordan (well played by Helga Vandevelde), who was the lone survivor of Lucker's previous appalling rampage. Writer/director Johan Vandewoestijne ably crafts a suffocatingly dark, grim, and gloomy tone that becomes more increasingly bleak and oppressive as the tight narrative unfolds towards a harrowing climactic chase between Lucker and Jordan in an apartment complex basement. Moreover, Vandewoestijne manages to display a reasonable amount of flair, style, and polish despite the extremely low budget and doesn't pull any punches with his straightforward depiction of the vile and unpleasant subject matter: The ferocious murder set pieces are quite bloody and brutal, the revolting moments of unflinchingly explicit necrophilia which include the infamous finger-lickin' good scene (yuck!) are truly nauseating, and there's a raw'n'ugly energy and intensity evident throughout that's pretty tough to shake. John Kupferschmidt's rough and grainy cinematography further adds to the pervasive unnerving seediness. Mark Ickx's shuddery score likewise hits the pulsating spot. Foul and disgusting for sure, but still undeniably effective and disturbing all the same.

Lucker: the complete waste of time

[gunslinger861 · 21 November 2011]

First things first I as a horror fan am not a real fan of the small but small non the less prevalent sub-genre of horror and art films focusing on the subject of necrophilia. Personally it just does not do anything for me....just not my cup of tea and that may or may not make this review sound biased so i will try to be as objective as possible. I found out about this film around seven or eight years ago give or take and from what i had initially read this sounded like a seriously depraved piece of film. The review made the films come of as something comparable to nekromantik or aftermath but it floated in obscurity until 2009 when the good people at synapse films put out a very, very nice print of an otherwise worthless film.

I sat through most of the films in this sub-genre, nekromantik 1 and 2,aftermath, parts of kissed, still yet have to see love me dealy. However unlike the first previous mentioned three films everything that made these films compelling , disturbing, or even remotely entertaining was just not there with this film. THe story line revolves around a depraved killer who wakes up from a coma only to continue his spree witch automatically made me question the idea that director had ripped off Halloween. THe character is like stone, he wanders for the majority of the film ( that is when he is not killing and humping...in that order) he is wandering like some mindless zombie, not even speaking till the end. Even then he starts ranting that he had some type of relationship with the protagonist again i cant help but think of Halloween.

The dialog is atrocious even for a c grade exploitation film. The violence is moderate no more blood than any other slasher films. what got me was how many people said how disgusting the scene with the prostitute was. I was leary of this scene when i first slipped in the DVD because personally this type of thing really does get under my skin. However i have to say that the scene was so fake unrealistic that i got rather board with it and ended up fast forwarding through it entirely all in all this film is not worth it. If you are interested check it out just don't let someone rob you for this film it is not worth it in the slightest.