CheerupSilver Very Cool!!!

Ariella Broughton It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

Payno I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Abegail Noëlle While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

gavin6942 Paul Dean has created a deadly parasite that is now attached to his stomach. He and his female companion, Patricia Welles, must find a way to destroy it while also trying to avoid Ricus, his rednecks, and an evil government agent named Merchant.Probably the only reason this movie still has any relevance at all is because it was a very early pre-fame role for Demi Moore. Not a great role, but for her fans it must be a film worth tracking down. But that is all, because even for a Charles Band film it is not that good.I would possibly change my opinion if I saw a better copy. The one I saw was very fuzzy. A bad film is a bad film, but maybe being able to see the actual parasite would make a difference.

Brian T. Whitlock (GOWBTW) The future, only time will tell what could happen then. Well, the USA has become a total wasteland, and the government is making the biggest cover up in its whole life. Of course, the government is not running the show, it is run by an organization called the Merchants. One doctor(Robert Glaudini), creates an organism that is capable of doing exactly harm to the degeneration populace. He infects himself on purpose so he could study further, and then destroy it. He runs afoul of hooligans and a pursuer name Wolf(James Davidson), who works for the Merchants. After the hooligans steal the canister, thinking it's vital, they were in for the shock of their lives. Now it's up to the doctor, a lemon farmer(Demi Moore, in her debut) and a shop owner to take charge of the menace that is threatening the town. "Parasite" was a 3D put on. And it was most likely to be a teaser of a film. Plenty of action, and plenty of cheese. Most likely make you want to take better care of your health and life. It's not for germaphobes. 2 out of 5 stars.

Vomitron_G Calling PARASITE a good movie is as arguable as whether or not Paris Hilton has had a breast enlargement. It's no secret that I've always had a soft spot for Charles Band's pre-Full Moon stuff. And even though I've liked PARASITE ever since I saw it in my mid-teens, I think I'm not being biased if I say that watching this movie is a worthwhile effort and it's worthy of an honourable mention as an entry in B-movie horror history set in a post-apocalyptic future. Well, "future", is somewhat of a debatable topic here, since the movie is set in the year 1992 (while having been produced in 1982).PARASITE is noticeable for quite some aspects. One of them being that it was originally shot and released in theaters as a 3-D feature. While 3-Dimensional Photography was a popular phenomena in cinematic history during the 50's (CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON, anyone?), its popularity soon fizzled out by the decade's end. Fast forward to the early 80's and we encounter director/producer Charles Band as one of the people (in collaboration with 3-D specialist Randall Larsen) who revived 3-D for a short-lived period and brought it back to theaters. PARASITE was his contribution to the sudden but short wave of 3-D features to emerge around that time (FRIDAY THE 13th PART 3, AMITYVILLE 3-D and JAWS 3-D being the most famous ones). One year later Charles would make another 3-D feature, the sci-fi/adventure flick METALSTORM: THE DESTRUCTION OF JARED-SYN (another worthwhile watch, if you ask me). The use of the 3-D gimmick is integrated nicely with the rest of the movie (e.g. during a fist-fight you can see a snake lashing out at the camera; the titular parasite creature falling from the ceiling towards the camera positioned on the ground). The two most memorable scenes involving 3-D cinematography involve one killing (a guy gets impaled by an iron pipe; when the camera slowly closes in on the hollow pipe, blood starts dripping out of it) and the parasite-creature bursting out of the head of actress Viviane Blaine (well, not her real head, of course).The story itself is rather simplistic and sometimes moves at a slow pace, but there are a lot of enjoyable scenes to make up for that. A scientist, played by tormented-looking Robert Glaudini, flees from an oppressive paramilitary government, for which he created the flesh-eating parasite. He takes with him two specimens. One he keeps in a canister; the other creature… is growing inside his stomach. We don't get to see much of the futuristic paramilitary government, though. The only information we learn about it, is coming from the various characters our scientist meets when he's stranded in an isolated desert town (amongst them being a group of post-apocalyptic punks and a scarred-by-radiation black bartender). But... there is one black-suited (and laser-armed) villainous Government Agent (called "Wolf The Merchant" and sadistically played by James Davidson) on the hunt for him (it all leads to an enjoyable but short showdown near the end, of course). Children of the 80's will sure love the Lamborghini Countach Car he drives (complete with vertically opening doors). The acting even is fair enough for this type of movie, and another reason to watch this flick is that it stars no-one less than Demi Moore in her second motion picture role ever (although, indeed, one can clearly tell that Miss Moore was only just getting started with her acting career). She plays an all-American post-apocalyptic cutie (that even makes and sells lemonade), eventually teaming op with Robert Glaudini. A small role is also granted to Cherie Currie (Former lead singer of the Runaways).Another aspect of PARASITE worthwhile mentioning is the work of cinematographer Mac Ahlberg. For one thing, while around the same time (early 80's) his Italian colleagues were still obsessed with getting a spontaneous erection by touching the zoom-button on their camera's, Ahlberg prefers to use slow tracking shots every now and then while equipping his camera with wide-angled lenses. His images bring a dusty and desolate feeling to PARASITE. And then there's the contribution of Stan Winston, who designed the creature and did the make-up effects. While far from being his best work (hey, the man was just getting started too), most of the effects are quite grotesque, slimy and deliciously cheesy. I wouldn't want it any other way in a movie from the early 80's.I can understand that, to some, PARASITE might be considered a post-apocalyptic snooze-fest (with bad acting, bad special effects and whatever else they might find to nag about). But my love for it and the joy I got out of (re-)watching this slightly offbeat and rather obscure 80's gem, encourages me to be generous in my final rating. I can say one other thing too even: Once you've seen one of Charles Band's older movies and liked it, there's a big chance you'll like all his other stuff up until the early 90's too (whether he produced or directed it doesn't even matter). Reportedly, there were plans to produce an inevitable sequel back in the early 80's, simply titled PARASITE II. I think it's safe to say that, sadly, we can abandon all hope of that ever happening, in this year of writing, 2007.

haildevilman Most people are only interested in this for the then unknown Demi Moore's appearance. Seeing her in her tight shorts made this worth a check.The lack of cast was obvious. It's as if the producers were cutting costs in the middle of scenes. Keep changing the camera direction and maybe no one will notice the two cheap sets they kept using.Robert Glaudini did an OK job with his role. Sometimes it seemed as if he was sleepwalking though. Some rumors flew around at one point that it was really David Carradine slumming, but nope.Demi's acting hasn't changed much. She was a wide-eyed emotional type back then too. But she looked good because she looked NORMAL. Not so much enhancement if you get my drift. But what was her character doing there anyway? Lots of fire and threatening gestures. But the creature itself looked pretty good. And it mostly took place during a sunny day, which was kind of different.But I agree with Chas. Balun. "Worth a look only if you see it in 3-D, FORGET the videocassette."