MovieChat Forums > Humongous (1982) Discussion > Underrated little horror

Underrated little horror


I saw this,movie many years ago and it stuck in my mind,I was never sure why. I recently obtained a DVD-R and again really enjoyed it. There was a great deal of suspense,an effective monster who is made all the more effective by being briefly glimpsed,a pretty exciting climax and a moving element of sadness in the back story. I agree with those who say it's too dark but I thought some of the photography was very good,which made me think that the whole dark aspect was an intentional experiment which didn't quite come off.

I think I have a cut version as it cuts away from the killings just as you think you're going to see something,although the opening rape was still pretty horrible. It's no classic,but quite underrated,and demands an uncut DVD release. Far worse movies of a smilar nature have been released.......

reply

Hollywood horror is one of those long-standing genres that goes through periodic swings in popularity, leading to 'mini-golden ages'. Right now there's a resurgence in the vampire theme.

The late 1970s to the very early 1980s, were another mini golden age of low to medium budget horror flicks on the big screen. Today, many of those would be direct-to-dvd.

HUMONGOUS (1982) came in at the tail end of this short popularity in horror flicks. In my opinion HUMONGOUS ranked up there along with the better, low-to-medium budget teen horror movies. It wasn't a true, brainless, teenager sex and slasher horror flick. There was something of a plot that involved terrible happenings decades ago and horrible secrets kept that survived the years. It's worth seeing.

SPOILERS*****SPOILERS*****SPOILERS

The movie starts in 1946 at some rich old man's island estate mansion on a Labor Day nighttime party. His daughter, Ida, gets raped by a rebuffed, drunken suitor in what must be a ten-second sexual intercourse. The family doberman dogs promptly rip the guy's throat out. Ida is played by Canadian actress Shay Garner but the rape scene obviously uses a stunt double to show the nudity as Ida's clothes are ripped open. You don't see the face of the stunt double and the body doesn't match that of Shay Garner. Still, it was probabl a good idea to use a stunt double. It was a real wrenching scene that takes a strong stomach to watch. I still recommend this movie, especially for a great scene towards the end when the surviving main actress, trembling with fright and panic, tries to imitate the monster's dead mother and tell it to leave the room.

reply

I concur. This film is quite creepy and effective, with a considerable amount of tension and a strong mood of pervasive dread and gloom.

I'm a totally bitchin' bio writer from Mars!

reply

Found the last 20mins quite effective, but the rest of the film was way too plodding and un-involving, with some weak and self-conscious direction. Almost gave up on it after 50mins. To many POV shots and too much time spent snooping around the house with predictable scare scenes. The kills needed to be more brutal and graphic as well and not cut away so jarringly. Found the island house was too generic looking and not creepy enough from the exterior. The interior scenes were OK and the murky and shadowy photography did enhance some of the atmosphere somewhat. A nice try at best, but could have been so much better.

reply

It is a horror masterpiece.

reply

The rape scene in the beginning was absolutely brutal the way it was shown from the victims viewpoint. That, and the audio for me, made it mega disturbing. I was so happy to see the dogs show up.

It’s a strange movie. I half expected it to have some type of comic relief but it is grim and does not let up. It’s hard for me to put my finger on it, but the cast is just really odd too. It’s a one of a kind for sure.

reply