FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Mandeep Tyson The acting in this movie is really good.

HumanoidOfFlesh A bloodthirsty and sadistic Romanian warrior named Nikos is inadvertently brought back to life during a pish-posh art gallery opening in New York.He butchers a lot of stupid people,then the carnage spills onto the streets of New York eventually taking us to a lesbian bar,a movie theater and a video store."Nikos" is a trashy horror flick loaded with tons of gore and awful acting.The body count is very high,though.The characters are poorly developed,but certainly the film delivers the grue.Heads are chopped and squished,breasts are torn off,the guts are spilled and the body parts are cut.The gore is pretty extreme and there is a lot of familiar faces including Felissa Rose,Lloyd Kaufman and Debbie Rochon.Overall,"Nikos" is a lot better than dull "Demonium",but still I'd like to recommend it only for die-hard fans of German gore.5 out of 10.

Billybob-Shatner I do not use the term "Worst film of all time" lightly. Make no mistake, Nikos the Impaler is truly, the worst motion picture I have ever seen. And it's shocking to me this isn't in the IMDb bottom 250, let alone bottom 5. I guess some people see gore and that's all they need. Which is understandable, if you're a psychopath. So where to start? Well, lets start with the partially lobotomized director's approach at writing. I dared to put on the commentary. When he came to an early character scene, he said the following "this is one of those blah blah scenes, when we're waiting for the cool bloody stuff to happen". I'm slightly paraphrasing, but why the hell is this guy even making movies? Simply to stage over the top gore, and often rather fake looking gore? The man looks at character scenes simply as filler. Not ways to further the story, to involve the audience in their plight, to make you understand them so you can understand what they do. It's all negligible to him, and damned does it show. Because these are the most poorly illustrated, non descript, two dimensional characters you'll ever see. And there's a handful of performers who show potential here and there, but they're squandered. For a movie trying to emulate a film look, they do a terrible terrible job. And most of the characters heads are cut off! (I mean by the framing of the picture, later in the picture, their heads will be cut off.. perhaps its foreshadowing) But after doing a little research, it may in fact be the dumbbell director's fault and not the director of photography. The framing went south in a poorly done DVD transfer. After an extremely uninvolving, unbelievably poorly directed opening act, Nikos is brought back to life, and begins hacking up people in New York. Folks, that's the whole rest of the movie. I'm not kidding. Not to mention, there's one obligatory nudie shower scene simply for the hell of it. Andre, if I ever meet you in person, I want to let you know, you are the absolute worst director, in human history. Yes, I understand it's an extremely low budget film, but for the love of God, put some effort into something other than over the top, horribly unbelievable blood splatter. This movie is a crime against motion pictures in general and its success will only mean we're going to see more work from this disgustingly untalented filmmaker. And you know what's funny? I hear this is his best film! Dear Lord.

yank_soto My questions is-How much were people paid to give positive reviews for this piece of crap? Maybe they were sent free screener copies of film and they felt obligated to say nice things about it? I say this because I was fooled by the reviews and I went out and bought this piece of garbage. I was expecting a semi professional film at least but I was wrong! This thing is nothing more then a glorified home video and a really poor one at that.The gore was maybe the worst, most amateur looking work that I've ever seen in a film. The acting was horrid. Everything about this movie was terrible! I mean, if this is the director's best work, then I can't imagine how bad his other films had to be. How can any film be worse then this thing?!Do yourself a favor. Take my word for it, this movie is awful! Not so bad it's good or anything like that, it's just plain awful. A complete waste of time and money. AVOID IT.

Kristian Bakdal Wow, I'm rather amazed I've seen a lot of bad horror movies in my life, but this one is probably the worst yet. I haven't seen any of Andreas Schnaas' other movie, but from what I've read this is his best movie. So I might just have to see the rest to see if it's really possible to make anything worse then this one. The acting was crappy, not really the biggest surprise this is after all a low-budget B-movie. But usually B-movie know how to make fun/interesting killing. This is not the case in Nikos. Basically Nikos is just a crappy Jason-clone who walks around killing people with his big-ass broadsword. and that's all he does! A guy walking around killing people with a big sword can actually make a decent movie, if the killer does it in new and interesting ways. Nikos doesn't do that, he just lobs of people's heads (with a few exceptions not may though).I wouldn't recommend this money to my worst enemy, no one should be made to watch this movie, it's simply too crappy.