Rawhead Rex

[krakenslayer]

Everyone bashes this movie, but I just saw it yesterday and love it.

A farmer trying to uproot a standing stone in his field unleashes an ancient Celtic godling called Rawhead, who was worshipped and feared in Ireland long before Christianity. Rawhead is the basically an elemental of pure masculine power, so he goes around smashing people to bits, crushing mobile homes for shits and giggles, and laughing at crucifixes. Oh yeah, and he's played by a man in a suit!

Clive Barker has disowned this one because he feels they castrated his story and watered down the whole concept of Rawhead as the angry, life-taking male-force incarnate who can only be stopped by a female life-giving force incarnate by playing Rawhead as a straight demon/monster on the loose. And, yes, the monster is just a bodybuilder in a mask and furs. But he's a prett cool badass, IMO.

It's a fun film, and it has more than a hint of American Werewolf in London to it, some cool set-pieces, over-the-top performances and more-than-acceptable gore. I'd recommend checking it out, but don't spend more than a few quid on it.

[wayzim]

Everyone bashes this movie, but I just saw it yesterday and love it.

A farmer trying to uproot a standing stone in his field unleashes an ancient Celtic godling called Rawhead, who was worshipped and feared in Ireland long before Christianity. Rawhead is the basically an elemental of pure masculine power, so he goes around smashing people to bits, crushing mobile homes for shits and giggles, and laughing at crucifixes. Oh yeah, and he's played by a man in a suit!

Clive Barker has disowned this one because he feels they castrated his story and watered down the whole concept of Rawhead as the angry, life-taking male-force incarnate who can only be stopped by a female life-giving force incarnate by playing Rawhead as a straight demon/monster on the loose. And, yes, the monster is just a bodybuilder in a mask and furs. But he's a prett cool badass, IMO.

It's a fun film, and it has more than a hint of American Werewolf in London to it, some cool set-pieces, over-the-top performances and more-than-acceptable gore. I'd recommend checking it out, but don't spend more than a few quid on it.

It was a fun film the few times I watched it, but probably Rawhead was the reason for Clive to demand as much creative control as he did over his later movie projects.
I got to meet Clive Barker at a book signing for his young readers work; The Thief of Always, 1992 ( which is a scary fun read about a house where all seasons happen in a single day, but the children it lures inside must pay the price. )
Clive was very friendly(the kind that book sellers hate because he talks at length with everyone. ) and he asked me what I'd thought about Coppola's Dracula film (Bram Stoker's Dracula ) I told him it was a very expensive B-Movie which we both got a chuckle over that.
Nightbreed will always be one of my favorite films though.

Wayne Z

[Crappingbear]

Everyone bashes this movie, but I just saw it yesterday and love it.

A farmer trying to uproot a standing stone in his field unleashes an ancient Celtic godling called Rawhead, who was worshipped and feared in Ireland long before Christianity. Rawhead is the basically an elemental of pure masculine power, so he goes around smashing people to bits, crushing mobile homes for shits and giggles, and laughing at crucifixes. Oh yeah, and he's played by a man in a suit!

Clive Barker has disowned this one because he feels they castrated his story and watered down the whole concept of Rawhead as the angry, life-taking male-force incarnate who can only be stopped by a female life-giving force incarnate by playing Rawhead as a straight demon/monster on the loose. And, yes, the monster is just a bodybuilder in a mask and furs. But he's a prett cool badass, IMO.

It's a fun film, and it has more than a hint of American Werewolf in London to it, some cool set-pieces, over-the-top performances and more-than-acceptable gore. I'd recommend checking it out, but don't spend more than a few quid on it.

I liked the Barker story more than the movie. Been a long time since I read it or saw the flick though.

[krakenslayer]

I liked the Barker story more than the movie. Been a long time since I read it or saw the flick though.

Hey CB! Not seen you round these parts in a while. :D

Yes the story is better and has more for the old grey cells to chew on, but movie is a fun monster-on-the-loose flick anyway. It certainly doesn't feel like Clive Barker film, though.

[Mike70]

Everyone bashes this movie, but I just saw it yesterday and love it.


i have a soft spot for this flick. it is one of those late friday night flicks to me. i'll pop this in from time to time, fire up a bowl or two, sit back and enjoy it.

the original story is great and is miles more disturbing than the movie. that's one of the things i've always really dug about barker, he has the ability to make me extremely uncomfortable while i'm reading. he also has one of the most wild imaginations of anyone ever to pick up a pen. some of his shit is so out there words fail. for example, "babel's children" a story about racing frogs that decide the fate of pretty much everything in the world. then there is my favorite barker story and one of my favorite short stories ever, "in the hills, the cities." my language skills fail me when i try to describe just how much i love that particular tale.

[clanglee]

I really enjoyed this movie a kid. I tried to rewatch it a few years ago and just couln't get into it. (might have been a mood thing) I might give it a whirl again sometime.

As far as Barker goes. . .I find him to be very imaginative. . . .but a poor writer. He's got these great ideas and he almost conveys them. . but ultimately fails or gets sidetracked. meh

[bd2999]

Been a really long time since I saw this one last. I remember it being a fun movie though. It was not bad by any means. I do recall Barker being dissappointed with how it turned out but I think it could have been much much worse. Again, I liked it.