C.H.U.D. (1984)

Obviously, one does not put this into the DVD player and expect a masterpiece of horror. But one would hope that it would be a little more gory or a little more fun. The cast is full of actors who have proved themselves over the years. Heck, even John Goodman pops up as a cop in a diner scene who soon becomes CHUD food.

The problems are very numerous with this venture. The writing is incredibly inept. The direction is lacking. The pacing is really off, as well. One of the biggest flaws is with the basic story construction. There are simply too many characters. Kim Greist is nice to look at, and gives maybe the best performance, but her character is really tacked on. She just gives us a pretty face to put in danger. She and John Heard have no chemistry what so ever, and I did not buy them for an instant as a couple. But these kinds of problems are found in some of even the most watchable of horror films. Why are they so noticeable here? The true flaw of CHUD is that it just isn't either scary or exciting. The CHUD monsters, who are homeless people exposed to radiation, look kind of cool. They look kind of like the mutated salmon in Humanoids From the Deep. Only they have glowing yellow eyes! But they don't seem to move fast enough to be a threat to anyone under age 80. Their sharp claws and teeth aren't enough to make them seem formidable. We don't see enough of them in action, either. Only body parts and wounds from their victims. This is a sign of a very low budget. And of course the government, working with big industry types is the culprit. Once the head of the chemical company is killed at the end, the film concludes abruptly and on a high note. As if killing this suit is all that really needed to be done. What about all of the monsters still left in the sewers??? Other than the one beheaded by Ms. Greist, I don't recall seeing any of the others killed! What the heck? This really could have been more exciting. There are not enough funny lines either in the script, but there are a few chuckles. The whole thing is topped off by a putrid synthesizer score. Really it isn't worth more than 3 of 10 stars.

The Hound.

Fmovies: "C.H.U.D." was the very first horror movie I ever saw and I dare say it is the reason why I am into horror movies the day today. I remember seeing "C.H.U.D." back in the mid-80's, when I was about 10 years old or so, on VHS at my friend's place. And I remember, still to the day today, the creepy fingers and the glowing eyes of the C.H.U.D.s. Yeah, this movie really stuck with me.

I had the fortunate luck to revisit "C.H.U.D." again, now 25 years later give or take, and it was a sweet trip down memory lane. First of all, because I was able to remember things from the movie from way back then, and to see how much impact this movie actually had in my future choice of movie genre and preferences.

The story told in "C.H.U.D." is easy to follow and have some good elements to it. There are strange disappearances and murders happening in New York and the police is without a clue. Then some locals take an interest in the events and venture underneath the city, where they stumble upon government secrets and mutation beings.

Now, looking back to when the movie was made, I would say that the creature effects were actually quite good. Of course, with todays standard they are primitive and out of date. But I remember them being seriously scary back in the mid-80's. Actually, my friend and me were somewhat scared of getting too close to manhole covers a couple of days after seeing the movie. Haha...

The music score in the movie bears typical tones of 80's horror music. It is symphonic in a way and always leading up to the scares. And it does work well. Without such music, movies would be less interesting.

I was actually surprised to see the faces of some of the cast in the movie, now that I am older and more wise in the history of cinema and movies. John Goodman and Jay Thomas were actually in this movie, as cops visiting a diner. Patricia Richardson (from "Home Improvement") was actually in the movie as well. Plus, the lead roles were played by John Heard and Daniel Stern, all names that sit well with me today. So the cast list was actually quite good.

I liked "C.H.U.D." back then and I still like it. Of course it is not all that scary by today's standards, but still it is a good horror movie in itself. Plus, it has a special place in my memory, as it lead me down the path of horror and scary movies. If you haven't seen "C.H.U.D." yet, do yourself the favor and get your hands (or claws) on the DVD and see this wonderful 80's horror gem.

This movie is a perfect blend of bad writing and a cheesy plot. Somehow, the acting was decent and they managed to scrounge up Daniel Stern and John Heard (both of which who were in respectable movies before this). There was also a cameo role from John Goodman. It was a great movie. It is like a bad dream come true, and you can't really admit to liking this, but admit it, you do! You cannot go wrong with people living in the subway and monsters eating people left and right because of a toxic sewage problem under New York.

C.H.U.D. fmovies. The coolest abbreviation in horror cinema stands for Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dwellers (as well as something else) and refers to hideous monsters with fluorescent eyes that live in the sewers of Soho. Their existence is the result of years of dumping radioactive toxic waste down there and now these monsters are responsible for an incredible amount of missing-persons cases. Everyone in Soho is affected by the city council's cover-up. Soup kitchen owner A.J reports a lot of his homeless friends missing, independent photographer Cooper is begged for help by people who live underground and police captain Bosh has even lost his wife. For some incomprehensible reason, I always loved this trashy 80's film and can't possibly bring myself to spread negative comments on it, no matter how stupid the plot is or no matter how cheesy the make-up effects actually are. For what it's worth, "C.H.U.D" is a hugely entertaining monster film with a couple of atmospheric set pieces and several comical dialogues. Elements that increase the fun-level are a pointless, yet bloody shower sequence and a C.H.U.D who stretches his neck muscles seemly without a specific goal. This poverty row horror production is surprisingly blessed with a great cast! Daniel Stern, John Heard and Christopher Curry all prove they're gifted actors who never got the breakthrough they deserved. Good fun, highly recommended but – whatever you do – keep away from the retarded sequel.

I'm not one who goes for slasher flicks... I never understood the popularity of Friday the 13th or Nightmare on Elm Street. But then, this isn't the typical 80's slasher flick... it's a fun and scary monster movie that actually draws emotion from its viewers that make you root for the heroes, despise the villains, and cheer when the CHUDs get the ***t kicked out of them.

Sure, it's got a low budget... but the story is good (probably with a grain of truth, too!) and the sewer sets look good. Daniel Stern is great as the cook/manager of a soup kitchen who is wondering where his assorted homeless buddies have dissapeared to. Christopher Curry is also very good as a police officer searching for his missing wife. The scenes with Curry and Stern are funny and it's neat to watch a friendship develop between them as they deal with the rampaging CHUDs.

Watch for John Goodman as a cop who gets slaughtered in a diner... this was one of his earliest screen roles. Stay away from CHUD 2 unless you REALLY like bad, campy horror. CHUD is freaking Shakespeare compared to CHUD 2.

In short: CHUD is a fun monster movie. Watch it by yourself or with friends... either way it's a good way to spend an hour and a half. Not overly gory like a bad slasher flick, not packed to the gills with nude women. Just a good cast and some funny, scary, and exciting cinema.

It's interesting to note that the original cut of the film that I saw on HBO differs from the regular TV version. The original mentions a slaughter in a diner where there's blood on all the walls but no bodies. At the end, a couple of bums see the CHUDs approaching "another" diner (the John Goodman cameo) and quickly scamper off. The last thing you see is a few CHUDs breaking into the diner to wreck havoc. The TV version has the diner slaughter in the proper timeline... you see it before, during, and after (when the cops find the bloody diner with no bodies). Strange that it would be edited that way, but so be it. 7 out of 10 - but not recommended for the uptight or "serious" moviegoer. If you can't appreciate Tremors, Lake Placid, or even Godzilla, then don't see this movie.

C.H.U.D. is one of those movies that should be bad because its about subterrainian ground-dwellers that are cannibalistic living in a poor area of New York City. There are no big stars in the film, yet John Heard and Daniel Stern are not nobodies either. The budget for the film was obviously limited, yet, despite these possible criticisms, I was pleasantly surprised after seeing this film. This is a wonderful film filled with tension, good acting, a thoughtful script, witty dialogue, and some creatures that certainly looked pretty scary to me. The basic premise of the film is that homeless folks that live underground have come in contact with radioactive materials which transform them into horrible-looking mutants that go on a rampage and kill men and women for dinner. The creatures look quite impressive. This film also throws some social commentary into the mix as well concerning the ever burgeoning homeless problem as well as the storage of harmful wastes. The acting all around was pretty good with Christopher Curry standing out as a policeman and George Martin as a city official seemingly in charge. Good Stuff Here!