SparkMore n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

Aedonerre I gave this film a 9 out of 10, because it was exactly what I expected it to be.

Numerootno A story that's too fascinating to pass by...

Hayleigh Joseph This is ultimately a movie about the very bad things that can happen when we don't address our unease, when we just try to brush it off, whether that's to fit in or to preserve our self-image.

gunslinger861 First things first I as a horror fan am not a real fan of the small but small non the less prevalent sub-genre of horror and art films focusing on the subject of necrophilia. Personally it just does not do anything for me....just not my cup of tea and that may or may not make this review sound biased so i will try to be as objective as possible. I found out about this film around seven or eight years ago give or take and from what i had initially read this sounded like a seriously depraved piece of film. The review made the films come of as something comparable to nekromantik or aftermath but it floated in obscurity until 2009 when the good people at synapse films put out a very, very nice print of an otherwise worthless film.I sat through most of the films in this sub-genre, nekromantik 1 and 2,aftermath, parts of kissed, still yet have to see love me dealy. However unlike the first previous mentioned three films everything that made these films compelling , disturbing, or even remotely entertaining was just not there with this film. THe story line revolves around a depraved killer who wakes up from a coma only to continue his spree witch automatically made me question the idea that director had ripped off Halloween. THe character is like stone, he wanders for the majority of the film ( that is when he is not killing and humping...in that order) he is wandering like some mindless zombie, not even speaking till the end. Even then he starts ranting that he had some type of relationship with the protagonist again i cant help but think of Halloween.The dialog is atrocious even for a c grade exploitation film. The violence is moderate no more blood than any other slasher films. what got me was how many people said how disgusting the scene with the prostitute was. I was leary of this scene when i first slipped in the DVD because personally this type of thing really does get under my skin. However i have to say that the scene was so fake unrealistic that i got rather board with it and ended up fast forwarding through it entirely all in all this film is not worth it. If you are interested check it out just don't let someone rob you for this film it is not worth it in the slightest.

Woodyanders Vicious and depraved rapist, serial killer, and necrophiliac John Lucker (a creepy and convincing performance by the plain, pudgy, and balding Nick Van Suyt) escapes from a clinic and embarks on a savage murderous spree while searching for Cathy Jordan (well played by Helga Vandevelde), who was the lone survivor of Lucker's previous appalling rampage. Writer/director Johan Vandewoestijne ably crafts a suffocatingly dark, grim, and gloomy tone that becomes more increasingly bleak and oppressive as the tight narrative unfolds towards a harrowing climactic chase between Lucker and Jordan in an apartment complex basement. Moreover, Vandewoestijne manages to display a reasonable amount of flair, style, and polish despite the extremely low budget and doesn't pull any punches with his straightforward depiction of the vile and unpleasant subject matter: The ferocious murder set pieces are quite bloody and brutal, the revolting moments of unflinchingly explicit necrophilia which include the infamous finger-lickin' good scene (yuck!) are truly nauseating, and there's a raw'n'ugly energy and intensity evident throughout that's pretty tough to shake. John Kupferschmidt's rough and grainy cinematography further adds to the pervasive unnerving seediness. Mark Ickx's shuddery score likewise hits the pulsating spot. Foul and disgusting for sure, but still undeniably effective and disturbing all the same.

fripmusiceuropehits Hi ! I have been knowing the producer of this sensational bad movie; since his childhood, so I can tell you why he has been making this movie, and all of his movies. The guy, John VdWoestijne, has never had a woman,never had a girlfriend in his whole life, and he has never xxxxed !! He dreams to fxxx a lady so hard, but only when she is dead; it is so much easier, and she is not refusing or struggling back....Regretfully in Belgium, some guys like Marc Dutroux execute or experience their dreams in reality...& get sentenced for life.VdWoestijne knows better; he lives his fantasies thru' his actor(s) (Nick van Suyt)in his movie(s). VdWoestijne is Lucker and vice versa.Therefor this film deserves a 9 on 10 !! The sights of the small town of Kortrijk are fantastic, romantic and scary.....Only thing missing to build the suspense; the police. In the originalscript this was foreseen,but regretfully it was not filmed in the end, and that is why this film gets boring... Luckily there is a great musical score, but the wrong single was picked otherwise it would have hit the USABe cautious, in 10 or 20 yrs, after 1 or 2 remakes,this film will be a blockbuster,your present copy handled at Sotheby's.I agree the rest of VdWoestijne "oeuvres" are too poor,to be considered as good bad movies,if you understand what I mean. But I was not longer involved. Signed; the man with prostitute (might be autobiographic as well)

Coventry Some people have seriously sick and twisted world perspectives!! The beautiful country of Belgium (where yours truly lives) is terribly small and "Lucker" is the ONLY sicko-cult gem that was ever made here. Yet, I had to move heaven and earth in order to finally obtain a copy! Eventually, I had to contact writer/director John Vandewoestijne personally, so that he could send me a DVD of it (he's a really nice guy although the content of his film leads you to suspect otherwise!). Well, it was definitely worth going through all these efforts but only because I'm a die-hard fan of this type of extreme horror movies. This is one messed up piece of independent film-making, I assure you. We're introduced to quite possibly the sickest villain in horror cinema history, a thirty-something serial killer/necrophiliac named John Lucker. He awakes from a coma in a private clinic and immediately escapes the facility, killing and raping a couple of doctors and nurses on his way out. Once Lucker is back at large in his old city, he finds out that one the victims of his first killing spree, eight years ago, survived his deadly assault and he can't cope with that. He perpetrates into her apartment building and patiently plots to settle the old score. Meanwhile, he feasts his perverted lusts on the severely decomposing corpse of a prostitute he killed earlier. "Lucker" is a film experience unlike anything you ever had before in your life. It's mean, sadistic and the constantly disturbing atmosphere doesn't really allow you to breath. Other infamous video-nasties (like "Maniac" or "The Prowler") simply pale in comparison with "Lucker" and it actually made them look like soft, ordinary midweek TV-thrillers. The only movies that slightly live up to this are the ones made by German weirdo Andreas Schnaas, only "Lucker" doesn't feature that typically pretentious "oh look at me, I'm so nasty"-attitude Schnaas' movies suffer from. This is one of the most low-budgeted movies ever released but that's not what counts. You don't require money and fancy visuals in order to deliver a shocking picture and Johan Vandewoestijne terrifically proved that here. The extended necrophilia-sequence definitely is the grossest thing I ever saw. The finger-licking moment (you'll know when you see it) stands as the only sequence ever that managed to make my stomach turn upside down. You can either take that as a recommendation…or a warning.