Cathy (Christine Moore) had a pretty rough childhood as she saw her mother murdered. Even worse, she lived in a brownstone that had ghosts ("Lurkers!") coming out of the walls. Things look to be picking up though as she is engaged to Bob (Gary Warner), a photographer who runs his business with former model Monica (Marina Taylor). Of course, this is NYC and you know you can't trust anyone there. This is another of Roberta Findlay's late 80s horror flicks so you'll know what to expect if you are familiar with her work from that period. Not much going on here, although it did confirm my suspicions that the gateway to hell is located in Washington Heights. To her credit, Findlay does get some nice NYC locations in and there are a couple of effective dream sequences. These bits are a bit marred by the ghost girl with the New Yawk accent though. Ed French supplied the Lurkers and they look pretty good for a low budget production. Much of the cast returned for her next production, PRIME EVIL (1989).
28 Reviews
Our House is a Very, Very Fine House
BaronBl00d25 March 2005
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.
So, we didn't get up to much lurking?
lost-in-limbo10 December 2006
After emotionally / psychically being abused by her mother, Cathy would hear tales that the lurkers would come and get her if she was naughty. These lurkers were ghostly figures that hanged around the apartment building and only she saw. While, playing with friends the skipping rope strangely finds itself around Cathy's neck with little concern from the other children. Then a mysterious lady shows up and everything goes back to normal. Then we skip 15 years into the present where Cathy is in a relationship with a photographer, Bob. They're happily in love, but there's something lurking under the surface and Cathy starts getting recurring nightmares of her traumatic childhood.
Roberta Findley might not have a great rep behind her films, but surprisingly I enjoyed "The Oracle", which made me grabbed this particular flick. The shame was that I didn't quite get into this shonky trash, despite an interestingly offbeat concept. Sadly I found it quite tough going as its terribly talky without really going anywhere with the idea. Sure, chat is fine, but when it strings you along and along with even more lifeless chitchat. The overall silliness of it shows up strongly that your hoping it would break out the madness, but it hardly eventuates. When it does. It's not for long, and back to pointless chitchat we go. Throw in plenty of redundant build-ups and odd stretches that fill like nothing more than fillers to pad out the running time. This only dragged out the slow pace even more. It should have been more fun than it was, as I found myself to be either bored or baffled.
The plotting of the flat story was a convoluted jumble (It skips in between a whole lot of elements) with many uneventful happenings. It's a nasty little item that doesn't explicitly show it, but it's grim and mean-spirited in nature. After a genuinely creepy and tight opening couple minutes when Cathy was a child and throw in some motherly love. Some inspired touches creep up here. It never seemed quite sure where to go and its poor execution shows it up immensely. The look and feel of it is quite amateurish and it can't seem to shake it or work around it without embarrassingly telegraphing to us.
Now it's better to leave the moronic script alone! While, the overwrought music score is quite a groaner and like something that would fit nicely in a silent film. The only real component technical aspect had to be that it was actually pretty well shot and caught the grimy locations. The acting was very indifferent and Christine Moore in the lead role was the only one to give a reasonable turn. Roy MacArthur had a bit a fun with his performance and lightened it up when on screen.
This forgettable, drab feature definitely squanders every opportunity to make something fulfilling out of this idea.
Roberta Findley might not have a great rep behind her films, but surprisingly I enjoyed "The Oracle", which made me grabbed this particular flick. The shame was that I didn't quite get into this shonky trash, despite an interestingly offbeat concept. Sadly I found it quite tough going as its terribly talky without really going anywhere with the idea. Sure, chat is fine, but when it strings you along and along with even more lifeless chitchat. The overall silliness of it shows up strongly that your hoping it would break out the madness, but it hardly eventuates. When it does. It's not for long, and back to pointless chitchat we go. Throw in plenty of redundant build-ups and odd stretches that fill like nothing more than fillers to pad out the running time. This only dragged out the slow pace even more. It should have been more fun than it was, as I found myself to be either bored or baffled.
The plotting of the flat story was a convoluted jumble (It skips in between a whole lot of elements) with many uneventful happenings. It's a nasty little item that doesn't explicitly show it, but it's grim and mean-spirited in nature. After a genuinely creepy and tight opening couple minutes when Cathy was a child and throw in some motherly love. Some inspired touches creep up here. It never seemed quite sure where to go and its poor execution shows it up immensely. The look and feel of it is quite amateurish and it can't seem to shake it or work around it without embarrassingly telegraphing to us.
Now it's better to leave the moronic script alone! While, the overwrought music score is quite a groaner and like something that would fit nicely in a silent film. The only real component technical aspect had to be that it was actually pretty well shot and caught the grimy locations. The acting was very indifferent and Christine Moore in the lead role was the only one to give a reasonable turn. Roy MacArthur had a bit a fun with his performance and lightened it up when on screen.
This forgettable, drab feature definitely squanders every opportunity to make something fulfilling out of this idea.
Boring.
jharrismo9 July 2001
This movie, which is ostensibly a horror movie, fails on several levels: it does not make you care about what happens to the characters, it does not scare you, the atmosphere is not interesting. In other words, it's boring. A horror movie doesn't necessarily have to be really scary (most aren't), but it must NEVER bore you.
Terrible Horror Film,That's Very Boring
callanvass11 March 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This is a terrible horror film, that's very boring, and uninteresting. The acting is terrible, and i never really rooted for anyone, plus nothing happens until the last 15 to 20 minutes, and it's too talky with lots of extremely boring dialog. The twist near the end, is predictable, and dumb, and i was just thankful when this movie ended. It did have a couple of cool flashback moments, and Christine Moore is easy on the eyes, however, I was struggling to pay attention, since nothing happens!.I got this on a 8 horror movie 2 disc set. The Direction is terrible. Roberta Findlay, does a terrible job it's very bland,and the pace is awful!. There is a tiny bit of gore. We get a few bloody stabbings, and a decapitation. The Acting is extremely bad. Christine Moore, does good with the lousy script, however she had her off moments, still i liked her, plus she's gorgeous!,but her chemistry with, Gary Warner is off. Gary Warner, is terrible he over acts, and got on my nerves,and had no chemistry with Christine Moore what so ever. Overall AVOID! * out of 5
It takes some patience to get through it.
Hey_Sweden2 September 2014
As one of veteran exploitation director Roberta Findlay's 1980s horror movies, "Lurkers" is overall dull and draggy for the most part. There just isn't much "horror" in it, and it moves along at too slow a pace, with characters who are largely uninteresting. It DOES have its creepy and disturbing elements, but it takes until the end for this movie to finally start getting more watchable.
Beautiful Christine Moore plays Cathy, a classical musician who as a child had seen her mother murdered, and had even almost died herself. She'd also seen ghostly individuals emerge from the walls of her bedroom. Now, 15 years later, she's engaged to supposed nice guy photographer Bob (Gary Warner), but strange things are now occurring, and she's reminded of her childhood home and traumas.
One thing that does give "Lurkers" some passing interest is the scene where two models, played by Ruth Collins and Annie Grindlay, converse about the stock market (!) while undressing. It has no relevance to anything else in the movie but is so unexpected that it's rather amusing. As for the rest of it, there may not be enough of value for rabid horror fans. Ed French supplies some enjoyably gruesome makeup effects, and there's a sadistic creep (Tom Billett) who chases women with a sledgehammer. The electronic music score by Walter Sear is unbelievably awful at some points. The acting is tolerable at best; Moore has some appeal even if she's not much of an actress.
Horror lovers may want to see this for completions' sake, but it's not exactly a must-see.
Five out of 10.
Beautiful Christine Moore plays Cathy, a classical musician who as a child had seen her mother murdered, and had even almost died herself. She'd also seen ghostly individuals emerge from the walls of her bedroom. Now, 15 years later, she's engaged to supposed nice guy photographer Bob (Gary Warner), but strange things are now occurring, and she's reminded of her childhood home and traumas.
One thing that does give "Lurkers" some passing interest is the scene where two models, played by Ruth Collins and Annie Grindlay, converse about the stock market (!) while undressing. It has no relevance to anything else in the movie but is so unexpected that it's rather amusing. As for the rest of it, there may not be enough of value for rabid horror fans. Ed French supplies some enjoyably gruesome makeup effects, and there's a sadistic creep (Tom Billett) who chases women with a sledgehammer. The electronic music score by Walter Sear is unbelievably awful at some points. The acting is tolerable at best; Moore has some appeal even if she's not much of an actress.
Horror lovers may want to see this for completions' sake, but it's not exactly a must-see.
Five out of 10.
Could have been good
Tikkin18 November 2006
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.
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.
This is the worst movie ever made!
david-34523 July 2001
I read about Lurkers in the pages of "Fangoria Magazine." Always on the lookout for interesting horror films outside of the mainstream, I went down to a now defunct mom and pop video store not far from my home and rented Lurkers and a couple of other flicks. It was "get one free" day. Thank God for that fact as I would never, ever pay for Lurkers and you shouldn't either.
Lurkers is without doubt, the worst film ever made. It's not a "so bad it's good" deal but, "so bad it truly is a worthless peice of complete and total garbage that wasted film stock that could have been used on worthier projects" type of film. It's muddled script can't make up it's mind as to what it is. Is it a Horror film, a porno film (there are many gratuitous sex scenes, betraying the director's porno background), a tour of New York City (there is lots of padding featuring the main characters driving around the Big Apple), what is it? Who knows, certainly not the film makers. The film's pace drags on and on and on, seemingly with no end in sight. It's what the fast forward button was made for, trust me.
There is nothing, nothing even remotely entertaining about Lurkers. The gore, the naked women, nothing lives up this truly awful turkey. Do not waste your time trying to track down this film, it vanished for a reason. It's no good!
Lurkers is without doubt, the worst film ever made. It's not a "so bad it's good" deal but, "so bad it truly is a worthless peice of complete and total garbage that wasted film stock that could have been used on worthier projects" type of film. It's muddled script can't make up it's mind as to what it is. Is it a Horror film, a porno film (there are many gratuitous sex scenes, betraying the director's porno background), a tour of New York City (there is lots of padding featuring the main characters driving around the Big Apple), what is it? Who knows, certainly not the film makers. The film's pace drags on and on and on, seemingly with no end in sight. It's what the fast forward button was made for, trust me.
There is nothing, nothing even remotely entertaining about Lurkers. The gore, the naked women, nothing lives up this truly awful turkey. Do not waste your time trying to track down this film, it vanished for a reason. It's no good!
Muddled mess, its only real high points are the scenes of NYC before the clean up
dbborroughs30 August 2009
Warning: Spoilers
This is a muddled mess of a movie that has something to do with people who were born in a particular New York City apartment building being evil and how they become Lurkers undead creatures if they die at that building. I'm not really sure what happens because I don't think it was ever clear. In the films favor the muddledness of the movie does add some creepiness to the film because you never can get a handle on what is really happening, but at the same time the film falls apart because what you do understand doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense. An exploitation "semi-classic" by Roberts Findlay this is the sort of thing that would have played in the old Times Square grind-houses. Actually the one good thing about this film is the copious shots of New York in the late 1980's which record the city before urban renewal changed everything for the better. This film feels like its related to Findlay's Prime Evil which has many of the same actors and locations. For those seeking to see every horror film ever made or those wishing to track the final films of the grind-house theaters and early days of home video.
They are lurking in the shadows of New York.
HumanoidOfFlesh17 October 2010
The premise of Roberta Findlay's "Lurkers" is certainly fascinating:the group of ghostly tenants are forced to spend an eternity in a creepy New York building.The main character,a violinist is terrorized by the Lurkers. "Lurkes" is an amusing late 80's horror cheapie made by highly prolific Roberta Findlay.The special effects are bad and there is no gore,but some scenes of child abuse are quite unsettling.There are few scenes of nudity,so I am not complaining."Lurkers" is a pure cheese with terrible acting and slow-moving script.If you enjoyed "Prime Evil" any other low-budget horror movie made by Roberta Findlay check this one out.6 out of 10.Just remember:Lurkers are NOT lurking.
Sleep deprivation and Lurkers.
rocknrollpartymachine1 September 2006
I watched this movie at eight o'clock in the morning after being awake for two days. The front of the box hardly looked promising, but when I read the summary on the back, (She's into her boyfriend, Bob. Just like he's into Satan!) I realized that I had to give this movie a chance. Honestly, it must be one of the worst movies I've ever seen (and I am a fan of Plan 9 From Outer Space). There is plot but hardly a point. The scene when Bob asks "Orange you forgetting something?" made the whole movie worthwhile as well as a few other choice words I'll leave you to discover. I would honestly recommending watching it while you are a little overtired because it provides some laughs and a lot of confusion. Be prepared to giggle and scratch your head at the dialogue and scenarios. I agree with the chap above and gave it a ten. It's cinema at it's worst and that's something to be proud of.
I gave this a 10
Edam '9927 March 1999
This film is so bad... I've watched it sober and drunk in both states it still seems to follow the smallest and loosest concept of a plot ever. I gave it a 10 because it has to be deliberate, no film could use two women strippers for no... NO reason whatsoever have such a scary family and have offers of sex from grandparents.I've seen bad films (I watched the Siege) but this is a masterpiece crafted from excrement.
Man, I love Roberta Findlay
BandSAboutMovies20 March 2021
Warning: Spoilers
I'm still trying to figure out what to call the genre where a woman goes back to her childhood home or has a memory from her past or who inherits some family plot or goes away on a vacation to find herself and always, always, always runs directly into the supernatural.
This is one more to add the the list.
When Cathy (Christine Moore, Prime Evil) was young, her mother murdered her father right in front of her. Now, her life is dominated by the nightmares of that memory, which leads her back to her childhood home.
Cathy has no idea, but her boyfriend Bob got into her life just to lure her back to the apartment building that she grew up in so that he and his friends can shove her off the building to die. That's because Vathy's old home really is Hell and everyone born there must be destroyed and come back as a spiritual being referred to as a lurker. And once Bob has a new woman, can Cathy save her?
Man, Roberta Findlay movies have really been a theme this week, but that's just because every one I've seen has totally entertained me. This one seems to pull from her bad childhood, which she also referenced in Tenement. This is a dark film in the most entertaining of ways.
This is one more to add the the list.
When Cathy (Christine Moore, Prime Evil) was young, her mother murdered her father right in front of her. Now, her life is dominated by the nightmares of that memory, which leads her back to her childhood home.
Cathy has no idea, but her boyfriend Bob got into her life just to lure her back to the apartment building that she grew up in so that he and his friends can shove her off the building to die. That's because Vathy's old home really is Hell and everyone born there must be destroyed and come back as a spiritual being referred to as a lurker. And once Bob has a new woman, can Cathy save her?
Man, Roberta Findlay movies have really been a theme this week, but that's just because every one I've seen has totally entertained me. This one seems to pull from her bad childhood, which she also referenced in Tenement. This is a dark film in the most entertaining of ways.
Par-for-the-couse Roberta Findlay horror effort
Red-Barracuda8 March 2018
The lurkers of the title are malevolent ghosts who terrorise a woman by appearing regularly and sinisterly in her orbit. They seem to be in some way associated with a house she lived in as a child.
This cheap horror film was directed by Roberta Findlay who also delivered the comparably low-budget Prime Evil (1988) the same year. Findlay will probably be best remembered for her association in one of the most notorious movies of all time, Snuff (1976). She and her husband made an ultra-low-budget killer hippies movie in Argentina that riffed off the then very recent Manson murders, namely The Slaughter (1971). This movie was considered so bad it barely was ever released and winded up being bought by an 'enterprising' distributer and having the infamous snuff footage added on to the end...and the rest, as they say, is history. I am actually in the minority and genuinely enjoyed The Slaughter material from Snuff and so do have to give some respect to Findlay for being involved in that. Lurkers, on the other hand, is less memorable and is basically a passable-at-best ghost movie set in New York City. Nothing in it is especially good but it does entertain up to a point at least. Most memorable scene? Probably the bit where a couple of nude models chat expertly about the stock market.
This cheap horror film was directed by Roberta Findlay who also delivered the comparably low-budget Prime Evil (1988) the same year. Findlay will probably be best remembered for her association in one of the most notorious movies of all time, Snuff (1976). She and her husband made an ultra-low-budget killer hippies movie in Argentina that riffed off the then very recent Manson murders, namely The Slaughter (1971). This movie was considered so bad it barely was ever released and winded up being bought by an 'enterprising' distributer and having the infamous snuff footage added on to the end...and the rest, as they say, is history. I am actually in the minority and genuinely enjoyed The Slaughter material from Snuff and so do have to give some respect to Findlay for being involved in that. Lurkers, on the other hand, is less memorable and is basically a passable-at-best ghost movie set in New York City. Nothing in it is especially good but it does entertain up to a point at least. Most memorable scene? Probably the bit where a couple of nude models chat expertly about the stock market.
Piling It On
dougdoepke27 February 2016
New Yorker Cathy is haunted by visions of her murderous mother and a mysterious little girl. Good thing she has photographer Bob as an anchor. But for how long, given her horrific delusions.
The logic of this horror flick appears to be that if a spoonful is good, then a truck full has to be better. But it's not. The piling on of scenes, themes, and effects soon gets tedious. That is, how many kissy-faces do we need to show that Cathy loves Bob, or that Cathy is full of delusions if that they be, or that darkness can be dangerous. Too bad, because the basic idea of a hell-house has potential.
With a tighter script and more strategic use of effects, there's a good movie core lurking within. As it is, the producers appear unable to deal effectively with structure, and that includes color photography for its own sake. Now, I'm not up on post-70's horror films. But if you want to check out how similar material can be effectively done, check out Val Lewton's 1943 classic The Seventh Victim. That tight little B-film also shows why audience imagination is horror's most powerful source. And that's especially important given today's overpowering appeal of special effects.
The logic of this horror flick appears to be that if a spoonful is good, then a truck full has to be better. But it's not. The piling on of scenes, themes, and effects soon gets tedious. That is, how many kissy-faces do we need to show that Cathy loves Bob, or that Cathy is full of delusions if that they be, or that darkness can be dangerous. Too bad, because the basic idea of a hell-house has potential.
With a tighter script and more strategic use of effects, there's a good movie core lurking within. As it is, the producers appear unable to deal effectively with structure, and that includes color photography for its own sake. Now, I'm not up on post-70's horror films. But if you want to check out how similar material can be effectively done, check out Val Lewton's 1943 classic The Seventh Victim. That tight little B-film also shows why audience imagination is horror's most powerful source. And that's especially important given today's overpowering appeal of special effects.
The Devil Made Me Do It!
bsmith555218 July 2020
Warning: Spoilers
"Lurkers" is an unusual movie similar in theme to "Rosemary's Baby" (1968). It has a no name cast and the acting is Amateurish at best.
The story centers around Cathy (Christine Moore) and her gradual descent into hell if you will. We start out with Cathy as a 10 year old (Dana Nardelli) living in a dingy apartment with her abusive mother (C.C. Banks - I think) The kids playing in the street appear to try to strangle her with a skipping rope but she is saved by a weird looking woman (Eva Baumann). Cathy begins to have nightmares in which she see ghostly apparitions haunting her. Fast forward 15 years and Cathy is again rescued by the woman or Guardian angel just as she is about to be hit by a car.
Cathy has taken up with Bob (Gary Warner) who has promised to marry her. But Bob is not what he seems. We see him in a bar calling out Steve (Peter Oliver- Norman) for not keeping his part of an unexplained bargain. Bob promises Steve severe punishment from an unknown source for his discretion.
Cathy goes to her brother Phil (Gill Newsom) a priest to beg him to come to her wedding but he refuses. Cathy starts to have nightmares again. She flashes back to when her mother murders her father (Wayne Burcher) but we don't see her younger brother. She also begins to see visions of a ghostly child (Lauren Buane). In a later flashback we see mother being carried out on a stretcher with a knife in her chest. Now WHO murdered her?
Bob invites Cathy to a "work related" party hosted by his partner Monica (Marina Taylor) Now this is where it really gets weird. Refusing to go in to the party which is being held in her old apartment building, She witness a murder by a crazed sledge hammer wielding madman (Tom Billet). Cathy panics and wants to call the police so she reluctantly enters the party but Bob mysteriously refuses to make the call for her. She goes to find him and discovers him "punishing" poor Steve and discovers the secret of the hell hole in which she finds herself and...............................................................................
Of the unknown actors (at least to me), I though little Dana Nardelli as the young Cathy stood out..
The story centers around Cathy (Christine Moore) and her gradual descent into hell if you will. We start out with Cathy as a 10 year old (Dana Nardelli) living in a dingy apartment with her abusive mother (C.C. Banks - I think) The kids playing in the street appear to try to strangle her with a skipping rope but she is saved by a weird looking woman (Eva Baumann). Cathy begins to have nightmares in which she see ghostly apparitions haunting her. Fast forward 15 years and Cathy is again rescued by the woman or Guardian angel just as she is about to be hit by a car.
Cathy has taken up with Bob (Gary Warner) who has promised to marry her. But Bob is not what he seems. We see him in a bar calling out Steve (Peter Oliver- Norman) for not keeping his part of an unexplained bargain. Bob promises Steve severe punishment from an unknown source for his discretion.
Cathy goes to her brother Phil (Gill Newsom) a priest to beg him to come to her wedding but he refuses. Cathy starts to have nightmares again. She flashes back to when her mother murders her father (Wayne Burcher) but we don't see her younger brother. She also begins to see visions of a ghostly child (Lauren Buane). In a later flashback we see mother being carried out on a stretcher with a knife in her chest. Now WHO murdered her?
Bob invites Cathy to a "work related" party hosted by his partner Monica (Marina Taylor) Now this is where it really gets weird. Refusing to go in to the party which is being held in her old apartment building, She witness a murder by a crazed sledge hammer wielding madman (Tom Billet). Cathy panics and wants to call the police so she reluctantly enters the party but Bob mysteriously refuses to make the call for her. She goes to find him and discovers him "punishing" poor Steve and discovers the secret of the hell hole in which she finds herself and...............................................................................
Of the unknown actors (at least to me), I though little Dana Nardelli as the young Cathy stood out..
Them will take you away
nogodnomasters12 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
PLOT SPOILER REVIEW As a child Cathy (Christine Moore) suffered from a jump rope accident. As an adult cello player she has constant flashbacks and has conflicting supernatural entities telling her to "Go home Cathy" and "Don't go home." Her fiancée is the cheating Bob (Gary Warner) model photographer. She is ready to give up her career and dedicate her life to him.
Okay, the plot spoiler part is that the film is an early version of "Final Destination." One horror scene had me in stitches, when mom is on a stretcher with a blade in her chest plus horror blood. She turns her head and says, "Go home Cathy." I lost it at that point. I liked the old cars and did you catch they used the words "type set" before "font" became popular. Mom irons and cooks in the kitchen, what we called multi-tasking.
Debbie Rochon in an uncredited cameo.
Brief sex and nudity (Christine Moore, Annie Grindlay, Ruth Collins)
Okay, the plot spoiler part is that the film is an early version of "Final Destination." One horror scene had me in stitches, when mom is on a stretcher with a blade in her chest plus horror blood. She turns her head and says, "Go home Cathy." I lost it at that point. I liked the old cars and did you catch they used the words "type set" before "font" became popular. Mom irons and cooks in the kitchen, what we called multi-tasking.
Debbie Rochon in an uncredited cameo.
Brief sex and nudity (Christine Moore, Annie Grindlay, Ruth Collins)
The premise kept me going, but this film lurked at a slow pace
Aaron137514 May 2013
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.
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.
Not Scary and Not Good
arfdawg-17 January 2017
The Plot.
Cathys mother killed her father and tried to kill her when she was ten. Her younger brother, a priest, holds her responsible. Fifteen years later Bob manipulates a clingy, drippy Cathy into falling in love with him.
He lures her back to the apartment building of her youth for a so- called work party.
There, he and his business partner Monica and a few of their oddly pathetic friends hold Cathy hostage for a few hours before forcing her off the side of the building roof.
She becomes one of them, a 'lurker'. The building is supposed to be 'hell' and everyone born there is evil and is brought back there to die.
Cathy becomes one of the lurkers who floats around town warning other people who the baddies try to get back to the building - Bobs new girlfriend and Cathy's priest brother including.
This was supposedly filmed in Washington Heights, NY. A bunch of scenes are from Lincoln Center, however and many of the interior apartment shots don't resemble anything from Washington Heights.
It's really poorly directed lending support to my theory that women cannot direct. The story is fragmented and boring. This is supposed to be a cult movie but it has none of the kewl quirky exposition that real cult movies contain.
Given the director's past foray into porn, i suspect this movie had some mob money in it.
There's really nothing redeeming about this film. The acting is abysmal and the plot is not remotely interesting. Plus it's hard to follow.
Cathys mother killed her father and tried to kill her when she was ten. Her younger brother, a priest, holds her responsible. Fifteen years later Bob manipulates a clingy, drippy Cathy into falling in love with him.
He lures her back to the apartment building of her youth for a so- called work party.
There, he and his business partner Monica and a few of their oddly pathetic friends hold Cathy hostage for a few hours before forcing her off the side of the building roof.
She becomes one of them, a 'lurker'. The building is supposed to be 'hell' and everyone born there is evil and is brought back there to die.
Cathy becomes one of the lurkers who floats around town warning other people who the baddies try to get back to the building - Bobs new girlfriend and Cathy's priest brother including.
This was supposedly filmed in Washington Heights, NY. A bunch of scenes are from Lincoln Center, however and many of the interior apartment shots don't resemble anything from Washington Heights.
It's really poorly directed lending support to my theory that women cannot direct. The story is fragmented and boring. This is supposed to be a cult movie but it has none of the kewl quirky exposition that real cult movies contain.
Given the director's past foray into porn, i suspect this movie had some mob money in it.
There's really nothing redeeming about this film. The acting is abysmal and the plot is not remotely interesting. Plus it's hard to follow.
Hell on earth.. is watching this movie
Chase_Witherspoon29 April 2012
Plodding horror movie about a woman (Moore) whose traumatic childhood living in an apartment block in the outer limits of NYC continues to haunt her as an adult. Her seemingly supportive fiancé (Warner) convinces her to attend an industry party being thrown by his elusive business partner (Taylor) - that just happens to also be in the same apartment block leading to a bizarre encounter with the occult.
Amateurish and undernourished, the acting is weak and the production values limited, resulting in a lethargic thriller that's heavy on symbolism but light on actual shocks. Moore is erratic and Warner sleep walks through his sleaze-bag role; I would've liked to have seen more of Taylor as the sophisticated femme fatale, but she's deprived of the spotlight despite the attention paid to her character in the plot development.
The film has a nightclub feel to it, hard on the eyes for lack of light, big hair and typical 80's gaudy costumes, and deafening to the ears for incessant synthesiser riffs. Even more disappointing is the distinct lack of special effects, just a few freak masks and some little blonde kids dressed in white garbs that suddenly appear in doorways and windows, singing those twisted lullabies over and over and over - you know the ones. I think director Findlay should have stuck to filming loops.
Amateurish and undernourished, the acting is weak and the production values limited, resulting in a lethargic thriller that's heavy on symbolism but light on actual shocks. Moore is erratic and Warner sleep walks through his sleaze-bag role; I would've liked to have seen more of Taylor as the sophisticated femme fatale, but she's deprived of the spotlight despite the attention paid to her character in the plot development.
The film has a nightclub feel to it, hard on the eyes for lack of light, big hair and typical 80's gaudy costumes, and deafening to the ears for incessant synthesiser riffs. Even more disappointing is the distinct lack of special effects, just a few freak masks and some little blonde kids dressed in white garbs that suddenly appear in doorways and windows, singing those twisted lullabies over and over and over - you know the ones. I think director Findlay should have stuck to filming loops.
Interesting If Flawed 80s Horror
ladymidath8 April 2024
I remember this movie from years ago. I saw it and then kind of forget about it. Now re-watching again, I remembered all the craziness. The weird scenes and creepy characters.
I have to be honest here, I enjoyed it more for all its 80s craziness, but The Sentinel did it better.
There were some very creepy scenes, the one with the little girl was very effective, What did get in the movie's way, was lack of a coherent story. There were scenes that seemed to almost belong in a different film. Okay to be fair, it did all come together at the end, but it was still distracting.
This is definitely an 80s gem, but more for its weirdness that anything else. Still it is worth watching just to day you have experienced it.
I have to be honest here, I enjoyed it more for all its 80s craziness, but The Sentinel did it better.
There were some very creepy scenes, the one with the little girl was very effective, What did get in the movie's way, was lack of a coherent story. There were scenes that seemed to almost belong in a different film. Okay to be fair, it did all come together at the end, but it was still distracting.
This is definitely an 80s gem, but more for its weirdness that anything else. Still it is worth watching just to day you have experienced it.
Just Yuck
saint_brett7 December 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Lurkers?
It sounds like grime bacteria that dangles off a toilet bowl rim. Or am I thinking of that other movie, 'Ghoulies?' What's with the 8-bit Nintendo title graphics? Scotland Yard Jack the Ripper music?
With a cast of relatively unknowns, I'm going to have a hard time explaining our players.
If this were Beverly Marsh from King's 'IT" living with her mother, then she's no different from Alvin Marsh. Possibly worse.
Little Beverly is scolded for not eating her slops, then scalded with a hot iron for good measure.
At the tender age of only 5, she's given the "Get out of my house" line and is then strangled by the friendly neighborhood kids with a skipping rope because she's unpopular on Jenny from the block's block. Not to mention her mother's a loafer with no prospects.
Is that Natalie Portman?
The people from under the stairs, I mean the Lurkers, appear early in the movie, and again, it's the same ghost effects from Linda Blair's 'Hell Night.' They haunt Beverly like bedbugs, causing her to age overnight and step out the next morning as a grown woman.
Continuing the trend of choosing bad men in her life, it looks like Beverly has opted for either Sid Vicious or Ted Bundy in this one. He could be the photographer from 'Ms .45' for all I know.
No way this was filmed anywhere in the late 1980s! It looks late 1970s and early 1980s.
Beverly Marsh starts seeing the little girl in the TV from 'Poltergeist.' When you're ready to start making any sense, movie, let me know.
Beverly's fantasies involve her abusive mother murdering Alvin and running around dressed... in clown facial paint.
Um, I presume that's Sammy Davis Junior convulsing at the bar and collapsing after reneging on a deal with Richard Ramirez? Why that scene was included in the movie, I have no idea.
Beverly Marsh seeks the guidance of her brother, a priest, but he doesn't want anything to do with her and rebukes his sister's advances for help with her Elm Street dreams and unusual fantasies. So much for that forgiveness babble he preaches. Hypocrite.
Like in 'The Sixth Sense, Beverly Marsh sees dead people.
I have to be truthful with you if you're fortunate enough to be reading my award-nominated review; I don't know where this movie's going.
If it's a Roberta Findlay movie, then it might explain why.
What was that other one I watched of hers not long ago? 'Blood Sisters.'
Um, if the movie cares to explain the purpose of the Lurkers background, it may assist the viewer in understanding why they should give a hoot about what's going on.
Beverly Marsh is getting married to Tom, who's two-timing behind her back, as she's such an airhead who sees visions from the past and fences stolen property at a hock shop. How any of this builds suspense in a horror movie leaves you scratching your head.
Beverly's perverted fantasies continue, and this time she wants her dead mother to drown her in a bubble bath. Her dead mother looks like Dutch from 'The Karate Kid' wearing a wig. Or George Costanza's mother, maybe?
You better pull a rabbit out of a hat, movie, or you're destined for a 1/10 rating. Even then, I don't know what the one-point merit will be for.
Beverly Marsh starts fantasizing about ax men who stalk strangers, and because it's so dark, I have to assume that's Sammy Davis Junior returned from the dead only to collapse again.
Um, yeah, like wowsers.
She's lost in Manhattan and even encounters a wayward gang from 'The Warriors.' Who are they - the Tin Street Twinkletoes?
Was that dead chicken a Lurker?
An hour in, and still this movie ain't making any sense.
Did the director think it'd be a good idea to film at night with no lighting? What am I looking at exactly? Even Tom says to Beverly, "Look out on the street and tell me what you see." She can't answer him because it's poorly lit.
How is this a horror movie?
One hour and 14 minutes in, and how much more of this is left to go?
It's turned into some upstate New York soiree with a bunch of exclusive socialite snobs powdering their noses and being all New Yorky.
This lead actress is beyond weak in her performance. She reminds me of Christie in 'Seinfeld' wearing the same dress every day.
Was that Coach Schneider from Freddy's Revenge on the cross? What does any of this mean?
I checked out of this movie at the one-hour mark. How much more is left to go? And I own this DVD?
Can you please end already, movie?
I'll tell you what! If you end abruptly at the one-hour, 20-minute mark, I'll rate you 2/10 and give you a bonus point if you'll give me an early mark.
Sadly, the movie drags on, and what's her name sets a fine example for others to follow, and she commits suicide by jumping over the top floor of a five-story building, but somehow returns later at the end, looking like Freddie Mercury in that review mirror.
Thanks for wasting my time, movie.
Yuck.
It sounds like grime bacteria that dangles off a toilet bowl rim. Or am I thinking of that other movie, 'Ghoulies?' What's with the 8-bit Nintendo title graphics? Scotland Yard Jack the Ripper music?
With a cast of relatively unknowns, I'm going to have a hard time explaining our players.
If this were Beverly Marsh from King's 'IT" living with her mother, then she's no different from Alvin Marsh. Possibly worse.
Little Beverly is scolded for not eating her slops, then scalded with a hot iron for good measure.
At the tender age of only 5, she's given the "Get out of my house" line and is then strangled by the friendly neighborhood kids with a skipping rope because she's unpopular on Jenny from the block's block. Not to mention her mother's a loafer with no prospects.
Is that Natalie Portman?
The people from under the stairs, I mean the Lurkers, appear early in the movie, and again, it's the same ghost effects from Linda Blair's 'Hell Night.' They haunt Beverly like bedbugs, causing her to age overnight and step out the next morning as a grown woman.
Continuing the trend of choosing bad men in her life, it looks like Beverly has opted for either Sid Vicious or Ted Bundy in this one. He could be the photographer from 'Ms .45' for all I know.
No way this was filmed anywhere in the late 1980s! It looks late 1970s and early 1980s.
Beverly Marsh starts seeing the little girl in the TV from 'Poltergeist.' When you're ready to start making any sense, movie, let me know.
Beverly's fantasies involve her abusive mother murdering Alvin and running around dressed... in clown facial paint.
Um, I presume that's Sammy Davis Junior convulsing at the bar and collapsing after reneging on a deal with Richard Ramirez? Why that scene was included in the movie, I have no idea.
Beverly Marsh seeks the guidance of her brother, a priest, but he doesn't want anything to do with her and rebukes his sister's advances for help with her Elm Street dreams and unusual fantasies. So much for that forgiveness babble he preaches. Hypocrite.
Like in 'The Sixth Sense, Beverly Marsh sees dead people.
I have to be truthful with you if you're fortunate enough to be reading my award-nominated review; I don't know where this movie's going.
If it's a Roberta Findlay movie, then it might explain why.
What was that other one I watched of hers not long ago? 'Blood Sisters.'
Um, if the movie cares to explain the purpose of the Lurkers background, it may assist the viewer in understanding why they should give a hoot about what's going on.
Beverly Marsh is getting married to Tom, who's two-timing behind her back, as she's such an airhead who sees visions from the past and fences stolen property at a hock shop. How any of this builds suspense in a horror movie leaves you scratching your head.
Beverly's perverted fantasies continue, and this time she wants her dead mother to drown her in a bubble bath. Her dead mother looks like Dutch from 'The Karate Kid' wearing a wig. Or George Costanza's mother, maybe?
You better pull a rabbit out of a hat, movie, or you're destined for a 1/10 rating. Even then, I don't know what the one-point merit will be for.
Beverly Marsh starts fantasizing about ax men who stalk strangers, and because it's so dark, I have to assume that's Sammy Davis Junior returned from the dead only to collapse again.
Um, yeah, like wowsers.
She's lost in Manhattan and even encounters a wayward gang from 'The Warriors.' Who are they - the Tin Street Twinkletoes?
Was that dead chicken a Lurker?
An hour in, and still this movie ain't making any sense.
Did the director think it'd be a good idea to film at night with no lighting? What am I looking at exactly? Even Tom says to Beverly, "Look out on the street and tell me what you see." She can't answer him because it's poorly lit.
How is this a horror movie?
One hour and 14 minutes in, and how much more of this is left to go?
It's turned into some upstate New York soiree with a bunch of exclusive socialite snobs powdering their noses and being all New Yorky.
This lead actress is beyond weak in her performance. She reminds me of Christie in 'Seinfeld' wearing the same dress every day.
Was that Coach Schneider from Freddy's Revenge on the cross? What does any of this mean?
I checked out of this movie at the one-hour mark. How much more is left to go? And I own this DVD?
Can you please end already, movie?
I'll tell you what! If you end abruptly at the one-hour, 20-minute mark, I'll rate you 2/10 and give you a bonus point if you'll give me an early mark.
Sadly, the movie drags on, and what's her name sets a fine example for others to follow, and she commits suicide by jumping over the top floor of a five-story building, but somehow returns later at the end, looking like Freddie Mercury in that review mirror.
Thanks for wasting my time, movie.
Yuck.
It's a horror movie
Edam '9913 March 1999
This film freaks me out. It's cheaply made and incoherent but the muddle created disturbed me. Stripping, granny sex, lesbianism are all given a nod to. The stunts seem too real, when a girl is strangled with a skipping rope I believed it. A film to watch with your mates and a drink. Surreal content.
Obscure and obnoxious
Fernando-Rodrigues20 June 2021
Awful
Michael_Elliott14 March 2008
Lurkers (1988)
BOMB (out of 4)
Poor old Cathy is being haunted by ghosts who seem to want revenge over the acts that happened in her childhood. Many years ago poor Cathy was the victim of her mothers abuse, which in turn lead to her mother killing her father and eventually killing herself. Cathy continues to be haunted by this and apparently the ghosts that also haunt the apartment building. Now Cathy is all ready to be married but her fiancé insists that she visit her brother who just happens to hate her due to the parents. By doing this Cathy gets closer to the building where all of this terror took form. Yawn.
Here's another contender for one of the worst horror films of the decade. While watching this film I couldn't help but regret loving this genre so much. Unlike other bad horror films, sadly this one isn't bad enough to fall into the "so bad it's good" category and once again, by the fifteen-minute mark I was starting to think about scratching my eyes out. The director certainly forgot to use a script but he was smart enough to try and keep my eyes in my head by throwing out some nudity but even that didn't help.
This movie is pure amateurism all the way through and it appears the director simply raised some cash and fired friends to do the roles not once considering if they could actually act or not. There are so many bad things in this film that they get so annoying one can't help but wish their fate is coming soon. Just check out the incredibly stupid scene where the two lovers feed one another pizza. Was this supposed to be romantic? If so, pizza lovers beware because you might not ever look at a slice of pepperoni the same way again. There's even a cute little scene where our female hero encounters some street gangs, which were apparently leftovers from Death Wish 3. It goes without saying the film offers no scares, no good gore effects and nothing else for that matter. Instead of watching this film I'd recommend you get some exercise by watching your grass grow.
BOMB (out of 4)
Poor old Cathy is being haunted by ghosts who seem to want revenge over the acts that happened in her childhood. Many years ago poor Cathy was the victim of her mothers abuse, which in turn lead to her mother killing her father and eventually killing herself. Cathy continues to be haunted by this and apparently the ghosts that also haunt the apartment building. Now Cathy is all ready to be married but her fiancé insists that she visit her brother who just happens to hate her due to the parents. By doing this Cathy gets closer to the building where all of this terror took form. Yawn.
Here's another contender for one of the worst horror films of the decade. While watching this film I couldn't help but regret loving this genre so much. Unlike other bad horror films, sadly this one isn't bad enough to fall into the "so bad it's good" category and once again, by the fifteen-minute mark I was starting to think about scratching my eyes out. The director certainly forgot to use a script but he was smart enough to try and keep my eyes in my head by throwing out some nudity but even that didn't help.
This movie is pure amateurism all the way through and it appears the director simply raised some cash and fired friends to do the roles not once considering if they could actually act or not. There are so many bad things in this film that they get so annoying one can't help but wish their fate is coming soon. Just check out the incredibly stupid scene where the two lovers feed one another pizza. Was this supposed to be romantic? If so, pizza lovers beware because you might not ever look at a slice of pepperoni the same way again. There's even a cute little scene where our female hero encounters some street gangs, which were apparently leftovers from Death Wish 3. It goes without saying the film offers no scares, no good gore effects and nothing else for that matter. Instead of watching this film I'd recommend you get some exercise by watching your grass grow.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
