Headless

Headless began life as a fictional film within a film: an obscure late-70s slasher featured in 2012 indie horror Found. Now, as the result of a successful crowd funding campaign, it has been turned into a movie in its own right—a gloriously demented, retro-styled gore-fest that holds nothing back in its depiction of a mentally deranged and extremely vicious, mask-wearing, machete-wielding killer at work.

Director Arthur Cullipher starts as he means to go on: before the opening credits are over, he's already shown us a disgustingly gruesome decapitation, his antagonist (Shane Beasley) proceeding to scoop out and eat an eyeball, before boning the severed head in the neck—the killer's preferred modus-operandi. And so it continues, with numerous nubile young women meeting the same grisly fate, the wholesale slaughter interspersed by freaky hallucinatory scenes and disturbing memories from the killer's childhood, when he was caged like an animal by his mother (Emily Solt McGee) and tormented by his sister (Olivia Arnold/Jessica Schroeder).

It is through one of these flashbacks that we see how the sadistic sister made the mistake of unlocking the door to her sibling's prison; unsurprisingly, the lad seizes this opportunity to rid himself of both his tormentors, and, accompanied by his imaginary friend, a small boy with a skull-head, sets out on a long and bloody path of murder, one that ultimately leads to a roller rink where he targets the employees, including pretty waitress Jess Hardy (Kelsey Carlisle). Will Jess's decapitated and defiled head be added to The Killer's collection, or can she turn the tables on the sicko?

From the outset, Headless does well to capture the atmosphere of a genuine 70s slasher, with a gritty lo-fi look, great attention to period detail, and authentic sounding music. The film also delivers plenty of impressive old-school practical effects, although the level of depravity on display is far greater than anything I have ever seen in a genuine slasher from the purported era—even the most extreme examples. Not that I'm complaining: it's the mean-spirited violence and general deviancy that makes this such a blast…

How could any self-respecting gore-hound/sleaze-fan not have a good time with the following: horror hottie Haley Jay Madison getting a machete up the holiest of holies, before having her breast sliced off, and losing both of her legs to the madman; The Killer using a pretty hitch-hiker's head to get his rocks off on a pile of dismembered corpses; the twisted sister quenching her caged brother's thirst by urinating on him; the mother feeding her son a freshly severed rabbit's head; Jess's waster of a boyfriend having his junk cut off; The Killer doing his special routine on his own mother (including boffing her bonce!); and roller skate-wearing waitress Betsy (Ellie Church) doing the dirty with her sleazy boss before being chased topless across the roller rink by the killer. Trust me when I say that it's ALL done in the worst possible taste.

My only complaint with the film—and it's a small one—is that the whole ritual of decapitation, eye removal, and head-humping eventually becomes a little too repetitive. I know it's The Killer's signature (and an unmistakable one at that), but I'd liked to have seen him switch things up a bit. After all, variety is the spice of life—even for a criminally insane mass murderer with a creepy skull-headed boy for a best friend.

I write this review as a horror fan, seeking to inform other horror fans of what to expect with this film.

I'll be brief: like so many others here, I am drawn to extreme cinema, with visceral, shocking sequences of gore and violence. Honestly, I'm even down for cheesy, B-Movie style special effects. I love practical special effects, I love slashers, I love horror, and I love films that seek to push the limits. Naturally, Headless made its way onto my radar by seemingly checking all of these boxes. Like others, I had heard a lot of hype about this film, and was very excited to get my hands on it. (Minor spoilers ahead)

First the positive: The first 10ish minutes of this film are truly shocking and captivating moments of violent cinema. There are some unforgettable images in there, such as the killer sitting underneath the blood pouring from a body above him, the removal and eating of eyes, the infamous "head-hump", etc. The grain-y, 70s film visuals really work here, and the vibe is chilling and effective. A grim, fantastic start.

Now the bad: Not only does the film go absolutely nowhere here, but it's shown you most of its tricks and surprises right out of the gate. There's more eye-eating, more decapitation, more severed-head-copulation, but its nowhere near as effective as the first sequence. The directing gets really questionable here too, especially during kill scenes (disorienting is one thing...sloppy is another entirely). There's a backstory, but its pretty boring and predictable. There are other characters, but the cheesy acting and dialogue rarely comes off as funny/charming, and is almost always forgettable. It becomes clear almost immediately that this idea cannot sustain a full film. And yet here we are.

At the end of the day, this film's cardinal sin is simple: it's boring. Despite all of the gore and torture, this film will really struggle to capture your attention, and for a film like this, that's really not a good sign. It just goes to show that there needs to be SOMETHING more in order for a film to be truly shocking, sick and scary, and that "something" is not recycling the same 5 special effects tricks over and over.

The first 10 minutes are worth your time. After that, switch to something else. Truly wasted potential.

This is the type of film which lends itself to a bullet point review:

1. "Found" as a film was a solid offering with a pretty decent backstory and it led to some unrealistic expectations of "Headless".

2. The first ten mins both identified potential, which was unfortunately not build upon, and demonstrated how long and boring a "one trick pony" film can become.

3. Visual effects was a hit and miss. Some of it was really good (eg deep stab wounds) and some really bad (eg those "money shot" eye popping scenes) 4. Cinematography was often disastrous, especially in as far as angles were concerned. The 70s effects / found footage elements were decent.

5. Acting, in general, was terrible and the dialogue on par with an average porn film.

7. Some of the most extreme aspects of the film happened off camera which somewhat detracted from the entire extreme cinema intention.

8. The total absence of suspense in a slasher film just made it feel long and boring.

9. The score was actually decent but in consequence of the paperthin script, rigid acting and dodgy cinematography, it stood no chance of creating any atmosphere in vacua.

10. Direction was all over the place, but I must admit that the script did not really create opportunities.

I don't get the hype that some people write about. The movie is average and somewhat boring. The acting and dialogue (for what there is) are not so good. The story is also dull and gets repetitive. But, there are also some good things to say. Practical fx are on point and the music is well done.

Indeed a movie for real lovers of the genre, but it isn't groundbreaking.

I had never heard about this 2015 movie titled "Headless" prior to sitting down to watch it here in 2024. I figured that it was going to be a horror movie of sorts, given the movie's cover. But I have to admit that I was harboring zero expectations to the movie when I sat down to watch it.

Writers Nathan Erdel and Todd Rigney rather unique storyline and script. It is something that will not find a wider appeal to the general audience, given the graphic contents of the scenes and events in the storyline. But I am sure that there will be horror and gore fans out there that will find enjoyment in the script.

It is a pretty slow paced narrative. I had to check how far into the movie I was at a point, because it felt like I had been sitting through 90 minutes already, and it turned out that I was only 45 minutes into the 85 minutes run time. And I have to say that it was this incredibly slow narrative that killed the movie for me.

Of course I wasn't familiar with a single actor or actress on the cast list. And that is actually something that I enjoy when I sit down to watch a movie. However, it isn't like you're in for any Award winning performances throughout the course of "Headless". Some of the acting performances were fair enough, I will give the movie that much.

Some of the effects in the movie are good, and they are rather bloody and gory. And that, yes, that definitely spoke very well in favor of the movie, and helped to make the movie all the more bearable to sit through. I would actually say that "Headless" is worth watching for the gory visual effects alone.

It should be noted, however, that "Headless" is a not a movie that is for the faint or those easily offended, because there are some pretty disturbing imagery and scenes throughout the course of the movie.

"Headless" is a low budget movie, and it shows on the screen.

My rating of director Arthur Cullipher's 2015 movie "Headless" lands on a very generous four out of ten stars. Gore, brutality and grotesque imagery can only carry a movie so far.