Lurkers (1988)

Absolutely Fantastic

A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Troubled young lady Cathy (a sympathetic performance by the attractive Christine Moore) is haunted by visions of horribly disfigured deceased people and flashbacks of her late abusive mother. Director Roberta Findlay, working from a convoluted, yet intriguing script by Ed Kelleher and Harriette Vidal, relates the absorbing offbeat story at a hypnotically gradual pace, does a sound job of crafting a spooky surreal atmosphere, makes fine use of gritty New York City locations, delivers a reasonable amount of gore as well as a pleasing sprinkling of tasty gratuitous female nudity (plus there's even a pretty hot soft-core sex scene), grounds the fantastic premise in a plausibly drab workaday urban reality, and tosses in a few inspired kinky touches for good sleazy measure. The okay acting from the competent no-name cast keeps this picture on track: Gary Warner as caring photographer boyfriend Bob, Marina Taylor as glamorous socialite Monica, Roy MacArthur as the creepy Desmond, Peter Oliver-Norman as sniveling wimp Steve, Nancy Groff as loyal gal pal fortune teller Rita, Tom Billett as dangerous psycho Leo "The Hammer," and Carissa Channing as sunny barmaid Sally. Ubiquitous East Coast exploitation cinema regular Ruth Collins has a small part as a model while indie horror scream queen Debbie Rochon pops up in an unbilled bit as a party guest. The surprise grim ending packs a startling punch. Ed French's grotesque make-up for the titular ghastly ghouls is quite freaky and impressive. Findlay's fairly polished cinematography provides several unnerving images. Walter E. Sear's shivery score hits the spine-tingling spot. A nicely quirky fright flick.

IMDb says the film is from 1988, but the first thing you are going to notice about this one is that it looks much older than that. It starts off by setting up an interesting premise as a little girl is tormented by her mother, by the other children in the building she lives in and by strange specters that come out of the walls at night. However, once the film flashes forward to the young girl as a young woman about to be married the film moves at a very slow pace. Then as things begin to get revealed, you begin to realize that this is essentially a remake of the far superior "The Sentinel", only with no actors or actresses of note to be seen.The story, as I have stated, basically is a rehash of "The Sentinel". Sure, there are changes, but at its core it is that film. You have a young girl who is tormented which is different and you wonder what is up with the one strange girl, but then as the film progresses and you get to that party you realize that the film is closely following the better film right down to the strange lesbian encounter. The ending differs, but is also kind of the same. The only reason I continued watching this film is that I was hoping it would reveal who the strange girl is that seemed out to torment and kill young Cathy (the main character) and who the strange lady is that seemed as if she was helping. Neither reveal really worked as I still was not sure about the girl and once you knew who the woman was, you pretty much knew where the ending was going.So the film is not very original, the acting is not all that good, there isn't much in the way of gore and much of the nudity was of the extreme pointless variety and a couple of those times I could have passed on it. The interesting premise is wasted as they do basically nothing with it, instead copying an earlier and much better film. Still, it did keep me watching thanks to the opening, so in that way it at least help my interest for a little while anyway. Just not a film I am going to be watching again, anytime soon.

I quite liked Roberta Findlay's film "The Oracle" so I thought I'd give this one a go, especially as I thought the VHS cover looked quite cool. Sadly it turned out to be rather boring. It actually has quite a good storyline behind it, but is just done in a very boring way. Which of course means little gore and suspense, and too much talking.I sort of like the cheap and dirty feel to it - I've always thought cheapness adds a murky atmosphere to horror flicks, take "Midnight" by John Russo for example. It's a shame Findlay didn't go for blood and gore over the "talky" bits as that would have made it much more watchable. Using better actors would also have lifted it out of boring mediocrity. Overall, Lurkers may be of interest to those who collect rare horror flicks, but gore and suspense fans should stay away.

Director Roberta Findley, wife of cult legend Michael, directs yet another bizarre, cheaply made, vulgar film. This one, Lurkers, named for the dead that can be seen by some "lurking" about, primarily tells the tale of a girl having a bad home life in New York in an apartment house where she sees these lurkers. We are introduced to her in a somewhat inventive and at the same time crude opening sequence where the young girl, having just been verbally/physically abused by her mother, goes outside to play and while playing jump rope - the rope mysteriously entwines around her neck as the children idly smile and watch. A young woman who will be seen later in the movie arrives, and the rope stops. Quickly we move to the present when the young girl has turned into a young musician in love with a photographer. The film then relates this relationship - but to say any more would give away the plot. And I wouldn't want to do that to you - or would I(might save you!) I think of all about this film that I did like - and granted that was not much - was the story. It is somewhat talky and you soon know where it is going, but it has shades reminiscent of Rosemary's Baby with regards to the man-woman relationship and a future conspiracy. I even thought the end, reminiscent of The Sentinel, was just quirky enough to be interesting. The real problem with this movie is that it never can shake the cheap look and feel it has. This can be easily seen in the settings, the lack of good, quality actors, and the special effects(what few there are). Christine Moore plays the lead - and she is pretty - but beyond that nothing very special. She is better than virtually everyone else in the film. Findley also has some obvious, how shall we say, peculiar interests as we are shown various scenes suggesting sexual aberration of some kind and scenes suggesting sick violence with a sledge hammer. The film is not particularly gory though. One scene that stood out for me was a scene between two beautiful models - both highly attractive - disrobing and talking about the stock market. It has nothing to do with anything yet has an interesting humorous edge as well as other pluses aimed to peak one's interest.