Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Aneesa Wardle The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Lidia Draper Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

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.

flamingyouth76 Since "Lucker" has now been released by Synapse Video here in the U.S., I felt like a new review for the DVD release would be appropriate."Lucker" has been an (in)famous flick for over 20 years. Never released in the U.S., it could only be found as a multi-generational bootleg copy, the original negative long since destroyed. It made a huge splash in the late 80's because of the graphic content (remember, this is before "Nekromantik"), and I think it helped that the only copies available were blurry bootlegs. Viewed now with a little extra clarity, the effects are very poor.The plot is so simple, I don't think I'm spoiling anything with this synopsis: a maniac escapes the hospital in search of the one surviving victim from his previous killing spree. Along the way, he encounters new victims as he searches for "the one that got away." There are a couple of decent gore scenes, and admittedly the corpse rape is pretty disgusting as long as you don't look too closely at the poor effects. Compared to "Nekromantik", this film just doesn't hold up. "Nekromantik" is much better filmed, of higher quality, and generally has better special effects.One can even argue that Buttgereit backed off a little with his corpse sex as it is filmed with a blurred camera effect, as if to say, "You don't need every detail, just the idea of what is happening is sick enough." In contrast, John Lucker just hops on the corpse and grinds away--a much more depressing vision than "Nekromantik." This is probably the most disgusting as well as the most effective scene in the entire film.But take away a couple of murders and the rape scene, and "Lucker" has absolutely nothing of interest to note. Mostly Lucker just wanders the streets in search of victims, but his ramblings are way too long and ultimately boring. The music is atrocious, the acting is non-existent, and as already mentioned, the plot is threadbare. In short, this film reminds me of a film I might make: I would want it to be gory and shocking, even over-the-top; however, it would be doomed to be bad because I have no knowledge of film-making and neither would the friends I might assemble to help me out. That's "Lucker" in a nutshell--very amateurish and poorly done.The new DVD release comes with two versions of the film. One version is the original uncut version, taken from a Dutch VHS dupe. It's dubbed in English with Dutch subtitles, but for horror completists, it is a great gem to have as it represents the only original English-language version of what is essentially a "lost" film since the negative has been confirmed to have been destroyed. The second version is a "director's cut" but is essentially the same film, same plot, but with some new snippets filmed and added in while a couple of meaningless scenes have been removed.The director's cut is certainly an oddity as it jumps from brand-new digital video footage to grainy, blurry, VHS footage. The new footage is meaningless as well--for example, extra shots of Lucker walking along the highway and shots of the elevator door with an "Out of Order" note on it. If I'm given money to re-shoot, you can bet I'm going out to re-shoot the important parts of the film, not the extraneous shots! The only good thing I can say is that the director's cut tightens the already-short film (74 mins.) to an even shorter 68 minutes.The best DVD feature is an interview with the director who explains the background of the film and tells some stories about filming. I thought it was entertaining as well as enlightening.All in all, this DVD is for hardcore horror completists only. Don't buy it just because you've never seen it--borrow a copy or rent from Netflix or something, because chances are you won't want to own it after you have viewed it.

fudgepax261 John Lucker awakes in a hospital bed,from a failed suicide attempt a few years ago and he proceeds to escape only trying to dodge numerous hospital employees until he kills a man that discovers him.Somehow he puts on pants,sneakers, sunglasses and(haha well look at you!) a leather jacket and he kills the dead man's girlfriend. Johan Vandewoestijne's Lucker works as a portrait of a quiet serial killing necrophiliac who stalks women and kills them,made in 1986 just the year before Jorge Buttgereit's excellent Nekromantik.Nick Van Suyt's performance as the creepy,menacing John Lucker makes the film have a gritty feeling and the music builds the tense atmosphere.Lucker learns one of his last victims is still alive,he becomes angry and starts killing his way towards her,he kills a prostitute and leaves her body for a few days until the sex starts,the sex scene with the corpse is gritty,doesn't look the same from Jorge Buttgereit's Nekromantik,a film that I dearly loved and admired for its work in the life of necrophiliacs.Since Jorge Buttgereit made necrophilia look like a good thing, Johan Vandewoestijne makes it look too good from that finger icky scene,there is plenty of misogyny around.Lucker is a well crafted horror thriller with Nick Van Suyt's menacing,somewhat quiet performance as John Lucker,the ominous night stalking atmosphere that Johan Vandewoestijne had made.The film and music has a feeling of stark isolation of John Lucker being the only person dead to the world.Although I cant recommend it from not really getting to know John Lucker much,he seems like a guy you become friends with in a bar but doesn't say you're friends since he's too quiet to tell you why he's hanging with you.I would've liked to know why John Lucker became this way or why he's mentally sick and I don't wanna bring up Jorge Buttgereit' film again as an example.oh and one more thing:what's with those series of psychotic attacks?

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