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".

p-stepien If you were not frightened by the atrocity of The Leprechaun I must say that that movie has an older brother, which is even more atrocious and even more not frightening.Something evil in the forests of Ireland lurks - the terrifying Rawhead Rex. It has awoken from a centuries long slumber released from its womb of the earth.Red-eyed, ripped like Arnie in Commando and apparently 8-9 feet tall. Albeit the last feature is not much of a feat in countryside Ireland, since most Irish seem to be the same height as Rawhead Rex. It could be possible that Rawhead just didn't want to seem too tall on set (tall actors are mostly perceived as bad actors) and decided to crouch, so that he could see eye to eye with his meals. I must however state that he does try to give a delicious performance as a reject from Twisted Sister with a bad hair day and a piranha attached to his face.The movie itself can be used for Irish sex lessons for the catholically challenged. It gives great insight as to why pregnancy is a gift and also convincingly introduces you to the notion that kissing is gross.Apart from that one must admire the tremendous acting abilities of a certain priest (played by Ronan Wilmot), who hands out very well verbalised 'fcks' and does as stand up job as a latrine.Must give some negative comment about the lack of good screaming actresses, which did subtract somewhat from the watching pleasure. Also not enough chasing of females in woods and people tripping over their own feet.I had to double check if this wasn't a Troma film. Surprisingly it wasn't. I also double checked if Clive Barker really is responsible for the... ugh... I'll go out on a limb and call it a story. Amazingly he was.

robertmfreeman To sum up the movie, overall: Rawhead Rex is a monster that hunts and devours young boys, stopping only to violate women, and be worshipped as a God. How does he react to the worship? He pisses over his followers, which they eagerly accept as a blessing from their God.This movie is one of the creepiest and most disturbing ever made, and it doesn't matter how cheesy the makeup is. It's creepy and disturbing for the same reason all of Clive Barker's stories are: it's as much sexual fantasy as it is horror.Clive Barker is the creepy old man that sits on his porch all day, asking the young boys who pass if they'd like to sit on his lap and hear a scary story. We're too young to realize why these stories include so much torture and sado-masochistic imagery, and we understand even less why the storyteller seems so excited as he tells it, made all the more excited by the young listener's fear. As a straight, relatively well adjusted man, these dark dreams are all the more chilling, especially at a young age, when everything is already so confusing. Ultimately, no Clive Barker movie is ever as scary or disturbing as the concept itself, and no movie studio will allow the story to be as dark and horrifying as Clive Barker wants it to be. That's why Clive Barker's stories are so great. It's not really about selling books. It's about satisfying dark urges, and terrifying young boys.What I'm getting at is that it doesn't matter if Rawhead Rex looks scary. It's what he does, and the mere concept of his existence that is both terrifying and disturbing, made all the more terrifying when you're young, because let's face it: If Clive Barker dreamed of hunting and devouring young boys, then plenty of others have dreamed it to...and perhaps they aren't as willing as Clive is to merely allow his dark dreams to remain a fantasy.Like it or laugh at it, the story of Rawhead Rex is a dark reflection of the author's soul, and it is that reflection which is truly horrifying.

Alex Webster Awful, awful, awful. I am so disappointed I wasted 89 minutes of my life watching this dross. I'm thinking of turning to mighty god and asking for those valuable minutes back. I remember wondering into the video shop with a mate asking for a video to 'scare us out of our wits'. He told us about Rawhead Rex, and the box read just what we were looking for. How could we not be scared by something described as Pure evil, pure terror and so on. We had hardly got comfy when the film had started and you saw the 'purely evil' Rawhead Rex in the first nano second of the film. So the suspense vanished in a nano second too. So from there the film, leaps from awful to disgraceful. I never thought that the most 'evil thing in history's' idea of being evil would be to trash a caravan by spilling sugar, smashing trinkets and generally making a bit of a teenage mess. If you do see this video nestling in some box at Oxfam, pay no more than 20p (give a £1 to charity) and are curious about it, I suggest you do watch it, just to see how bad it really is. Then dispose of the video promptly to stop anyone else being exposed to it. I wish I had protested at the time, to the maker and protested in the most serious terms about him taking up another career, and also asking for my £1.00 back. I did ask for that back from the video shop arguing that the goods were not sold as described. I suggest that you just watch the hell raiser films over again and again... and again.