GamerTab That was an excellent one.

Tockinit not horrible nor great

Lancoor A very feeble attempt at affirmatie action

Glimmerubro It is not deep, but it is fun to watch. It does have a bit more of an edge to it than other similar films.

De_Sam This was Johan Vandewoestijne's pet project, as is apparent from all the roles he fulfilled in the making of this atrocity; producer, directer, writer, screenplay, editor, production management & casting. All of which he did with the same level of inaptitude.There is only one reason why this film is remembered at all, and it is the rape scene of a by-then-four-weeks-old corpse, which due to the incompetency of Vandewoestijne is more laughable than anything else.Now the real reason why I proclaimed the title of this review is another scene. The film is not particularly long -74 minutes does feel like an eternity in this case, so you would expect that the tempo of the film would be at least average. Well, at the end of the film, after our protagonist has captured his next victim, we are presented with the most redundant scene in movie history that just screams: "I was put in to make the film longer!". Our protagonist sitting silently while his victim is moaning in the most unbelievable way possible. The redundancy is aggravated by the horrible camera angles (yes plural, triple the redundancy!) and during the scene all that happens is systematically cutting between this three camera angles of this one redundant scene. Now how many times do you think it would be necessary to cut between this angles? The correct answer would be zero, but if you had to, a normal human being would cut one time for every angle, in total three times.Johan Vandewoestijne makes around 200 cuts between the camera angles, prolonging the scene to last several minutes. When I first saw this scene I could only laugh at this pathetic display, on the inside I was crying.So, to conclude, if you want to see the worst film of all time and the worst scene of all time, go ahead. Know that there is no so-bad-it's-good to be found here.

tomgillespie2002 John Lucker (Nick Van Suyt) is a notorious serial killer who awakens from his long coma. He escapes from the hospital, but not without taking a few victims with him. His notoriety comes from the fact that he not only kills his victims in various horrific ways, he likes to (surprise, surprise, given the film's title) shag their corpses. We find out through a few flashbacks that he is on the hunt for a woman who escaped his clutches. But after picking up a prostitute in a bar, he goes back to her apartment building, in which, coincidentally, is empty apart from one couple ("no-one can hear a thing"). We know this as she explains it in detail to Lucker, something that we all would do to a strange man we have just met and are taking back to our home.Well, where to start? I have my wonderful brother to thank for this monstrosity of 'film-making', as after he read a DVD review of it, claimed it sounded 'right up my street'. Perhaps I need to change people's outlook of me, as it is concerning that a family member would consider a film where a greasy Belgian leaves a corpse for a month to rot, smears his hands over her slimy body and then hungrily licks his hands, to be something I would like. I'd never actually vomited bile into my mouth before whilst watching a film, and although I welcome a film that can make me feel queasy and uneasy, I can only describe Lucker the Necrophagous as the cinematic equivalent of Two Girls One Cup.This is genuinely the worst film I have ever seen. And I've seen all three August Underground films. Every second, every frame, every soundbite of it's slender 70 minute running time drained a little bit more life out of me. This film life-raped me. And while I'm no prude when it comes to nudity, the sight of a middle-aged, doughy skinned, double-chinned man's flabby arse is not something I want to see repeatedly, especially when it is wobbling on top of a corpse. Shock horror, this would be the last feature both director Johan Vandewoestijne would direct, and 'star' Van Suyt would appear. Lucker is the finest example as to why when something is labelled as 'notorious', it doesn't mean I should watch it. It does for notorious films what Gary Glitter does for notorious musicians. Avoid at all costs, and my dear brother, next time you want to recommend something, please watch it yourself first. Damn you!www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

EVOL666 Sorry guys - this one blows. It blows in pretty much every conceivable way. Watching this jackass walk around the psych ward, then the highway, then the city for literally minutes and minutes on end is pretty much like watching paint dry. The kill scenes are not nearly as "rough" or nasty as they're made out to be, and the corpse-bang scene towards the end is far more forgettable than the somewhat similar scene in NEKROMANTIK. Maybe I got a chopped copy or something, I got mine from Visual-Pain, and it seems to be duped from Midnight Video as that logo comes up during the feature. If my copy IS uncut then I'm REALLY disappointed in this one...The basic story (for anyone who is still interested) is about John Lucker - a psycho and necrophiliac who escapes a mental hospital and goes on a rape/murder spree. His goal seems to be to find an ex-victim that he didn't get to "finish up" with, and to do this by walking around as dully as possible for almost the entire running time of the film...No offense, but I can't see how anyone could possibly like anything about this film. I like schlocky, exploit/gore films as much as the next guy (hell, probably WAY more than the next guy...) but I gotta draw the line somewhere - and LUCKER is that line. The ONLY 2 redeeming factors that I can find in this film, is that the rape and murder scenes are on par with other exploit-style films (though not NEARLY as rough or unique as you may be lead to believe)...and the guy that plays Lucker is relatively effective - mainly because he's pretty creepy looking and keeps his mouth shut til the last few minutes of the film. I'll give a point for each of those - and that's being generous. If you are thinking about buying this to see some sort of "extreme" gore/exploit film - please take my advice and don't bother...you will be sadly disappointed. 2/10

Bogey Man Belgian film maker Johan Vandewoestijne (one of the producers of Emmanuel Kervyn's gory Rabid Grannies from 1989) wrote and directed this ultra low budget sickie when he was 25 years old. He had obviously seen a lot of those strong and graphic Italian, American and other nasties from the seventies and eighties and wanted to surpass them all with this tale of a necrophiliac psychopath killing women and raping them afterwards. On that strong sicko level, I can't say anything else than he definitely succeeded but otherwise this is nothing but extremely braindead garbage.A coma patient Lucker (played by a guy named Nick Van Suyt) wakes up in the hospital and kills some people there. It is told that he was seven years in coma after being caught by the police. Once he has waken, he starts his killing spree in the city as he stalks innocent victims, mostly women, in order to first kill them brutally and then make love to their (also) rotten bodies. We follow these acts as there really isn't anything else going on in this so called film.There aren't any positive or noteworthy things that could be said about Lucker other than those extremely nauseating gore scenes and sadism on display even though I wouldn't mention them "positive" or any merits to make this film rate any higher. This is like the first Violent Shit (1987) movie by German Andreas Schnaas: the killer just walks around, kills and (in Lucker's case) rapes the corpses, and then the circle begins again. Of course imagery and goings-on like this is extremely boring and Lucker features some of the most unnecessary and annoyingly prolonged sequences I've ever seen as we see takes of people walking around or hiding from the killer and these scenes may last even ten minutes! They are there only to make this run a little over an hour so that it could be called a feature film and that's why they are so painfully boring and stupid as they don't have any acceptable reason to their existence.There are none of the cinematic magic shown in German Jorg Buttgereit's Nekromantik (1987) as that film has a wonderful soundtrack, music and visuals in it to make the illusion almost surreal at times and also the scenes of necrophilia not so disgusting as they aren't even meant to be. But Lucker has nothing so special, it has only the gory murders (which are quite explicit and very misogynistic), one mind blowingly disgusting corpse abusing scene and those mentioned prolonged braindead scenes.One thing Lucker manages to make stronger than Nekromantik is the above mentioned necrophiliac love making scene which Lucker performs with a corpse he has killed seven days ago. He killed the girl and left him lie on the bed and then waited so that the body would turn into something more interesting (I guess) and then he performs his act, which will make those suffering from weak stomaches or repulsion towards this kind of idea cringe in disgust as I, too, felt almost forced to turn my eyes off the screen filled with such calculated images of perversion. The body he makes love with is covered with something I won't even try to describe here but it is also filled with maggots and worms to make the damn hellish scene as sick as possible. This is something even Buttgereit didn't want to show and why should've he? I don't think Buttgereit's Nekromantik is "sick" at all as it has many things to tell about human nature with its, OK let's admit it, unconventional and also "suspicious" imagery to make the actual "corpse scenes" not so off-putting as they could be and as they are in this Belgium case. I felt something moving upwards in my stomach while watching this one scene in Lucker so no one should even think about watching this if scared of slithery creatures and more importantly repelled by subject matter like this. Lucker is among the sickest film experiences there is and it's also among the worst. The acting is very mediocre and occasionally irritating, the English dubbing is horrible and very over-the-top "dramatic", and this film in many ways reminds me of the Italian sleaze giallo Giallo a Venezia (1979) by Mario Landi as that film, too, is nothing but one mean spirited film filled with sex, perversion and sadistic violence without any real cinematic merits to raise it a little higher. If the late Italian exploitation king Joe D'Amato had made a child with Landi, that child's film would have probably been something like Lucker. That metaphor gives a clue what kind of an experience will this Belgium trash be. 1/10