This is a scary movie!!


Truely a good scary horror movie. Considering it is 20 some years old. Any thoughts?

reply

[deleted]

I saw this movie when I was a senior in high school and to this day it is the only movie that has really scared me. I have seen many horror movies since that never came anywhere close to this one. I have never seen it again. I wonder if it would still hold up today.

reply

I saw this movie when I was younger, middle school, age and it is also the only movie that scared me enough to keep me up at night. Scary when I was young, now I don't know, need to watch it again, if I dare!!

reply

This is a great movie! I saw it w/my dad when I was about 6 or 7 on Cinemax and it made me hide in the corner of the basement and wonder what the hell all of the noises were within the house late at night. That same year I was introduced to Poltergeist and the clown under the bed scene, not to mention the tree that comes alive and the guy that eats the left over chicken! Oh yeah, the motion picture "The Thing" also was that year. I need not go further! Anyway, back to the "Beast". What a great set up for a remake! With all the remakes going on why not this one? Hell, no one but us would remember it and therefore it wouldn't really be a remake? The last scene with the final metemorphosis has stood the test of time. The plot could use a small twist though. Perfect. Check it out at the video store. It can be purchased with a package of two other movies in a "Midnight Movie Madness" collection for ten bucks. Well worth it! I explored this movie remake, as well as others, in the Amityville Horror section of this site under the title, "what should they remake next?" Check it out and please respond to this!!!

Over and out Coop!

reply

[deleted]

I check this post every now and again for a reply, this is the reply I hoped for! How's about a remake?!?

reply

[deleted]

I tend to agree w/u on this point to some extent. The original movie has stood the test of time as far as the gore and effects go, however, the plot leaves many unanswered ?s. What the hell is the secada man anyway? Where did it come from other than a legend. Kind of like Pumpkinhead (1987). Anyway, the TCM remake didn't compare to the original by any means, however, I didn't think it was a complete embarassment to the original. In fact it had some originality of it's own. I can't wait for the prequel with Gunnar Hansen!
I felt the same about the Dawn of the Dead remake. In fact, I thought it was very entertaining. As far a as TV remake. I can't help to think of "The Shining" or "Salem's Lot", horrible! I think that this one can be a genuine remake and no one would know? Look at this board, it's slim pickens.

"Go deep into them woods Ed Harley, you'll know it when u find it"

reply

A remake could bring this film back into the spotlight but there's only a few remakes that are good (dawn of the dead, the thing)

"There are aspects, of my personality that I can't control"

reply

crh 2010,

Read my previous post about the possibility of a remake. I'm not sure if a 2009 remake could do one better on the 1981 original. THE BEAST WITHIN was pretty graphic and gruesome for its time. It's almost on a par with the horror films of 2008.

I mean, what else could a 2009 remake do differently? The clothes and cars would be updated to 1991. The year would have to be 1991 because Paul Clemen's (the beast) mother gets raped and impregnated by the first beast (Billy Connors) and 17 years later it would be 2008. The 1981 film depicted nudity but coyly, employing effective use of shadow and nighttime darkness to cover the actresses' body double over strategic parts of her body. The remake could make everything explicit. For example, in 1991, the first beast, mutated Billy, would be depicted completely stripping the future mother down, although doing this in a remake would leave it open to critics complaining it was becoming pornographic. I think any attempt to spin some moralistic tale or whatever would ruin the shock value of the original. If producers are interested primarily in profit, they would be best to dupicate the original movie as close as possible, update everything to 1991 and write in more graphic and explicit adult material. The movie would be a hard-R. But any attempt to create a PG-13 remake would be a total failure and financial loss.

reply

I am sure you can find it used on eBay or places like that - I think it was funny and a little scary too when I was younger (it came to video after 1982, I recall) - that kid (the Beast) is so corny! He's the best part! And Ronny Cox! A trip! ** stars!


"The Film which you are about to see is an account
of a tragedy that befell a group of 5 youths"

reply

I am sure you can find it used on eBay or places like that - I think it was funny and a little scary too when I was younger (it came to video after 1982, I recall) - that kid (the Beast) is so corny! He's the best part! And Ronny Cox! A trip! ** stars!


"The Film which you are about to see is an account
of a tragedy that befell a group of 5 youths"

reply

I never got the part of the Cicadas either.

reply

They probably explain it in the novel, but since this was an 80's exploitation horror flick they didn't even bother to go into any detail about it.

Still, that tranformation sequence is one nasty scene!

reply

I saw a werewolf movie when I was about 8...but I can't remember the title...and most of the plot...

Was there a man fishing in the sewers and getting attacked by a werewolf in this one?
That's about the only thing I remembered - and that the werewolf was a young man...



"We are the keepers of the sacred words: Ni, Peng and Neee-wom!"

reply

In the novel there was no mention of Cicadas. That was a mornoic move by Mora.
Connors, was held prisoner, chained to a wall, in a root celler when a man found him having sex with his wife. He was down there for 20 years, living off whatever he could find in the celler (rats, etc), and the corpse of the man's wife. Thus turning him into "the beast we all have inside of us".

If you can find the novel, buy it and read it. It still holds up to this day

reply

I noticed that too, grj, I just finished the book a couple days ago. I found it to be more disturbing and macabre than the movie, which is really just a campy creature feature. But it was still scary.

reply

[deleted]

* SPOILER ALERT *

Thanks for setting the back story straight. I thought I had missed something cause I couldn't understand why just eating your lover would cause you to transform into a Cicada, even if you were chained in a basement and forgotten. You'd think they would have blamed it on a curse, witchcraft, voodoo, radiation, Celebrex or something else. I watched it yesterday and that exposition scene with Don Gordon didn't really enlighten me any. I wonder if there is a deleted scene where Ronny Cox asks Don Gordon, "So why the hell would eating your lover turn you into a giant raping insect? That's it, I'm throwing you outside!" They probably should have just left it unexplained since their explanation doesn't really do the trick.

reply

Well, there actually are two scenes in the film which explain the supernatural/cicada part of the story -- both of them involving the Native American character Tom Laws. But the way the scenes were handled, people never really listened to what was being said there. But it IS mentioned that Billy Connors had knowledge of Indian magic involving transformation and is tied in to the transformational life-cycle of the cicada, which is reborn every 17 years, after hibernating in "suspeneded animation". So, that's why Michael is afflicted by his father's hereditary curse specifically when he is 17 YEARS OLD. Anyway, if you listen real close in those two scenes, and catch a few brief verbal clues in other scenes, the puzzle does come together as to the supernatural aspects of the story. But I'll be the first to admit that it should have been made clearer and had a stronger emphasis put on it. And, heck, I should know -- I'm Paul Clemens and I WAS the Beast! :-)

reply

Ill have to watch my old VHS copy again and go look for those two scenes.

reply

[deleted]

Paul,

If you read this, maybe you can answer a question. I read an issue of Fangoria
at the time of this film's release which showed the monster suit but it looked
different in the photos than in the movie, at least in the face. In the movie, it has more human-looking eyes and in the photos, it has big black eyes which look more insect-like. Did they change the suit during the shooting or cut out some shots of it? I thought it looked better in the magazine than in the movie but you never really get a very good look at it during the movie but it doesn't look like the beast photos in that issue of Fangoria, which if I am not mistaken were published accompanying an interview with none other than Paul Clemens. Anyway, after seeing some of the photos from the movie published in magazines, it makes me
think the MGM DVD I watched is incomplete and that there have been edits to it since it was released. However, I didn't see it in it's 1982 release so I don't know for certain. Can you shed some light on the making of THE BEAST WITHIN?

reply

My aunt's house was used in the movie, (in Bolton,Mississippi), I believe the judge's house. They destroyed the garage. Anyway I think about you from time to time and wonder where you are in life. Can you let us know, p-l-e-a-s-e? Such a wonderful talent!!

reply

Paul Clemens,

What happened to your co-star, Kitty Moffat? She disappeared off the acting radar after 1998. Where did she go? Did she get married and drop out of Hollywood? What was she like working with? I ask all these questions because she was a pretty Southern belle at the time of this 1981 film.

I read that a body-double was used for her attack scene at the end of the movie. Is this true? Who was it?

reply

Yea I thought it was a good movie but yea the plots about the monster was a bit confusing...they should of told us how he how he became supernatural...a remake...I doubt it they would *beep* it up with WAY too much CGI, the Texas Chainsaw remake was actually good I thought but yeah the transformation scene is in the top 3 as the best transformation scenes ever....

(Top 3 are american werewolf in london's werewolf transformation scene, the breast from within's transformation scene,and the thing norris alien scene)

reply

I have never watched the movie, but read the book years ago. I will have to see it to see the cicada thing. Doesn't sound like anything I remember from the book. From what I remember, just the fact of being locked in the basement for so long and being subjected to inhumane treatment led to an actual inhuman regression and transformation. I think in the book it was more like he was really hairy and becaused of the shallow basement was reduced to a animal like stature. I think the actual Beast Within is suppossed to be a physical representation of a humans core instinctual being that gets brought out in Billy due to the extreme conditions that he was exposed to. This final state he ends up in is also carried to his son, and like with Billy comes out over time, although genetically vs. being forced out phsically. Although there was a transformation in the book, from the descriptions I have read it seems that Hollywood took some liberties to sensationalize it. Seems it worked, as this is the most remembered part of the movie.

Now to find the movie to see if I got it right.

reply

You're dead on dug67. Couldn't have described the book any better. Now, don't bother wasting your time finding and watching the movie. It's total crap. The transformation is way too over the top and quite frankly, stupid. And it doesn't resemble the book at all. Like I've said before, stick with the book.

reply

I was a senior in high school when this movie filmed in my home town in Mississippi. I remember going up and hanging out with a friend of mine as his Dad's law office was used as the Sheriff's office. We hung out in a back room that wasn't being filmed and watched as the film crew shot a sequence with Sheriff (and the Father?) leaving the office and getting into a vehicle and driving off - over and over and over again. I think this scene made it into the movie, but I'm not completely sure (it's been awhile).

I saw the movie and was kind of disappointed with the lighting, and the realization that the time of year had all of the leaves off the trees - not the time of year you would have a cicadia come out. I always wanted the Mystery Science Theatre guys to pick this movie for an episode - in vain.

I never read the book, but one thought/answer about "Why a Cicadia?", is that the book "The Metamorphisis" was really hot at this time in all of the English Classrooms on the "Must Read" list. It was all about a guy changing into a cockroach, and his Mom stepping on him. It wouldn't be too much of a Freudian stretch to change the insect-mother relationship here in this movie.


reply

I always found this film to be pretty laughable, yet still hugely enjoyable over-the-top pseudo-Southern Gothic horror schlock. The plot is hopelessly muddled and convoluted, the atmosphere sweaty and sordid, the gore really excessive, most of the acting extremely hammy (Don Gordon chews up the scenery and spits it out in every direction as the hick town's oily no-acount mayor), and the much-hyped transformation sequence at the end is incredibly hokey and unconvincing. Don't get me wrong, though. I'm a big fan of this flick. It's just that I honestly never thought this was one of the scariest horror movies made back in the early 80's.

"Warren Oates died for our sins"

reply

It scared the hell out of me when I watched it the first time back during my teen years. It was so disturbing to me at the time, I seem to recall, that I had to turn away from the screen a time or two. I only saw it that one time up until recently when I bought a copy of the DVD off eBay and got to relive this childhood memory. Despite suffering from subpar acting, over-the-top special effects and questionable storyline, I still have an affection for it's shock value! And even though SFX have come a long way since the early eighties, I still get a kick out of that transformation scene! In fact, I think I'm gonna go pop that disc in and reminisce once more...

reply

I viewed this Horror Film at the age of 6 years old and I must say that even now that I am an adult, I will find this movie a fascinating Horror Tale always. The ending of the Film always got me. The Special Effects are gruesome, wild and did I mention..Scary??!!

reply

I have been looking for other people who saw this movie also for so many years its just not funny anymore. My dad was the horror movie buff and thru him my sisters and myself became enamoured with these films. Apparently my dad always had dead on taste from the many comments on IMDB about the movies that stuck in my memory.

I am 33 years old now so for that movie to not go away means it was profound, at least for me. The one scene that stayed with me is the rape oh and the jail scene. When the monster ripped the head off the guy in the cell from thru the walls. Great scary stuff and original at the time.

reply

[deleted]

I have to agree with you on the transformation on "The Beast Within".
I thought that it was overdone and not very well executed. It just looks like Tom Burman just
wanted to outdo all the other transformation movies that were new back then.
Just came off looking very un-professional.

reply

Oh my gosh. I remember being taken to see this movie when I was FOUR YEARS OLD!!!! WTF!!! I don't recall it exactly (though I saw a part of it in my older years and it looked a lot less scary than it did then, of course), but I know that this was the first scary movie that I had ever seen. I remember THAT much. The person who took me was a idiot anyway (because they took me to see stuff like the Evil Dead, From Beyond, House, and The Nightmare on Elm Street movies and I wasn't even 10 and whatnot.) Idiot!!!!
No, I take that back, ASS*OLE!!!!! I think my mother could have found a better babysitter...........

reply

[deleted]

not scary at all



When there's no more room in hell, The dead will walk the earth...

reply

The electrocution scene is really rather creepy and disturbing.

reply

Yeah.

reply