D. Ceased Ahhh, '80s monster movies. Even if you claim to hate them, deep down you really love them. Every time you look at one of the covers, or read the name, you envision some giant mutant or monster picking people off in gory and grotesque ways. Cellar Dweller is like any '80s monster movies, it has a campy story, way off acting, and loaded with effects. The problem is, there's not much of this in it.The movie starts off with a comic artist, played by Jeffrey Combs, accidentally unleashing an evil monster upon this earth. The comic book page is destroyed and the monster disappears... but it will return again. We cut forward in time as Cellar Dweller, that comic, is being relaunched. Whitney, whose favorite comic is Cellar Dweller, gets brought on to do the art. She winds up finding a forgotten crypt which contains old, unreleased Cellar Dweller pages, as well as an arcane book of unknown origins (one that gives the monster life.) She takes these and uses them in her artwork, unbeknownst to her that it brings the creature to this world to kill. When Amanda, a rival artist, tries to expose her, she is drawn into the comic, and eaten by the monster (WHO'S NEXT!) When her seedy boss starts spying in on her work, he too is written in the comic, and killed off by the monster. Whitney ends up realizing that the creature has came to life through her drawings and she sets out to destroy them. This ends with the rest of cast catching on fire and dying. I think there were a few fake out endings, but I don't really remember them.This movie had a lot going for it, the drawings coming to life is a great concept, and the altering of reality through the drawing (e.g. the banana peel), could have worked real well. However, it is under utilized in this, and it kinda bums me out. The effects are pretty good, the monster look pretty cool, and the face movements are awesome. It's not that intimidating though, and that kinda hurts the movie. There's a good amount of gore effect, like a sweet head rip. Unfortunately there is a lot of off screen kills. The acting is pretty good, Combs obviously being the best (he's under utilized as well.) The worst part though, is that this movie is too short for anything to get really rolling. There's too little plot or character development and there's interesting ideas that aren't fully developed or fleshed out. 6/10, for fans of the classic monster movie, or pure '80s cheese.

movieman_kev Jeffrey Combs is Colin Childress, an occult comic book illustrator, whom inadvertently sets a demon loose in his basement after he draws him on the comic page. He's able to destroy him, but in his wonderment he fails to notice that a fire has started before it's too late and he is engulfed along with the monster. That was 30 years ago. Now a huge fun of Mr. Chilress and another cartoonist herself, Whitney (Debrah Farentino of "Eath 2" cult fame) has come to Colin's house, now part of an artist's colony. She meets a new friend, Phillip (Bian Robbins primarily know for being Eric from 'Head of the Class'), he's the only one who actually likes her of the group of artists. Meanwhile, she's unaware that her drawings are resurrecting the creature to kill once more. Jeffrey Combs is great for the very limited amount of screen time that has. The rest of the film is fun enough, but it all felt too insubstantial, fluffy even. An entertaining little film, too bad it's not on DVD yet.My Grade: C- Eye Candy: Miranda Wilson is topless just getting out of a shower

Jeff Sample I remember watching this movie on TV when I was like.... 8 years old and thinking it was really cool. Naturally being that it was regular TV, all the gore and nudity was cut out, so when I came across it in a blockbuster used videos for sale basket for $5.99, I snatched it up. That was almost 3 years ago and I still watch it on a regular basis. For the time it was made in, the effect were pretty decently done. The monster was kinda cheesy, I have even heard some people call it "cute" but his methods sure as hell weren't cute and thats what made the movie better. The appearance of Jeffery-Herbert West-Combs was a treat for me when I got the video home, because as a child, I always somehow managed to miss the beginning of the film. When I watched it from the start and saw him in in, I already had a smile on my face going into the movie. It doesn't have a deep, life enriching story, its not gonna educate the youth of America, but its a cool flick and I think most horror movie buffs will side with me on that. As I said, the effects are pretty decent- that decapitation was one for the record books. This movie only had one thing that I really find to be a downer in horror films and that was off-screen kills. I hate it when horror movies cheap out like that, its like they are cheating the viewer. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the point of watching 9 out of every 7 horror movies is to watch people die in unique and gory ways? So when it happens off screen, the point is disabled. SPOILERS AHEAD: There are only 2 off-screen kills in this movie. The one in the end, the death of Lisa, I might be able to attribute to them running low on the budget being that it was near the end of the movie. However, Amanda's off-screen death is the monsters first kill and if Lisa's death was off screen because of lack of funds, what was the reason for Amanda being killed off screen? Yes, I know, there was blood splashing on the walls, but that only gets you so far. There are people who are gonna read this and say "those 2 kills were off screen because you can't show people being ripped into pieces on screen" And as it happens, both Amanda and Lisa were ripped apart, and if I may go so far as to mention, the only nudity in the film, aside from the girl in the very start of the movie, is Lisa walking around in her room after getting out of the shower and finding her towel missing. She thinks the young guy (I don't remember his name off hand)took it and so she walks out into her room totally naked. It only shows her from the waist up, but her death is in that scene, which means the monster caught her, ripped her apart and ate her while she was naked. This could be another reason for the off-screen kill for that character. Some people would probably object enough to a woman being torn into pieces and eaten, and being that she was naked would have only made it worse. I don't know. But if thats the reason for the off screen kill, then again, why was Amanda's death off screen? Couldn't have been the budget, she was the monsters first victim and it couldn't have been the nudity, as in Lisa's case, because Amanda wasn't naked at the time of her death. As for it being because you can't show people being torn apart on screen, I'd say, why the hell not? The guys that made this movie should watch The Dead Alive sometime! I know, I know, Dead Alive was made in 1994 and all the gore happens to be in the Unrated version. OK, so why didn't they make an unrated version of this movie? If John Carpenter can show a guy getting vertically split in half (watch John Carpenters Vampire, you'll understand) then why the hell did what WOULD have and COULD have been this movies best 2 kill scenes get cut or not filmed at all? Anyway, if your looking for a culture enriching film, don't bother. But if you wanna sit down with a pizza and six pack of beer and watch a cool, but majorly under-rated 80's horror flick, then give this one a rent of you can find it, or pull it off of a cheap site like Half.Com for 2 or 3 bucks and give it a go. Overall, I'd give a 7 out of 10.

Freya(sableOnBlond) the-real-roobeemoon This is a cheap horror flick with TONS of gore. I seen this one on @ 3 AM again - had to see it only because the title itself drew me in. Actually , I wasnt too disappointed. I love all horror flicks. Has a totally late-80s horror genre feel to it. I wish I could find this VHS also. Rare stuff. PEACE