Featured Audience Ratings

• Cory T

  
  For a film with a cheesy, self-explanatory title, the characters are shockingly well-developed and multilayered. A seemingly random attack in the opening actually interlocks with Bosch's rabid motivation in determining the source of the disappearances. George is a cynical… More
  For a film with a cheesy, self-explanatory title, the characters are shockingly well-developed and multilayered. A seemingly random attack in the opening actually interlocks with Bosch's rabid motivation in determining the source of the disappearances. George is a cynical photographer whose girlfriend is expecting their first child. Reverend is an ex-convict who is mystified why his homeless customers are not frequently returning. Everyone in the cast (which is like a 'Home Alone' reunion) grounds the mutant shenanigans around them. A scene with a geiger count and a hazmat team skulking through the sewer is eerily reminiscent of 'Aliens' which proves its influence on other filmmakers. Truthfully, the monsters are only glimpsed occasionally and should've had more screen time. In summation, this is a pungently written, suspenseful and loquacious B-movie that is the epitome of why 80's horror movies were superior to current horror movies: we mold an inextricable bond with the characters and feel squeamish when they are in danger.

• AJ V

  
  I really couldn't get into this movie, most of it was really dull. There were some exciting and bloody scenes, but they're towards the end. The ending is really confusing and stupid, too. Overall, this isn't a good movie, but it could be a lot worse.

• Jeff "

  
  Interesting idea for a Horror film, CH.U.D or Cannibalistic Humanoid Dweller is a film about a clan of mutants living in the sewers of New York City. The film is very original, fun, disgusting and makes for interesting and must see viewing for every horror fan. But this B movie… More
  Interesting idea for a Horror film, CH.U.D or Cannibalistic Humanoid Dweller is a film about a clan of mutants living in the sewers of New York City. The film is very original, fun, disgusting and makes for interesting and must see viewing for every horror fan. But this B movie classic does suffer from being a tad too slow. Despite this speed bump, Chud is always entertaining and the antics of actor Daniel Stern make this film quite entertaining. The story focuses a lot on New York City Cop, Capt Bosch and the disappearance of his wife. Soup Kitchen owner which is played by Daniel Stern, knows what is really going on, and of course no one listens till it's too late. Chaos ensues and the city is under siege by these humanoid cannibalistic creatures. Chud is an accomplished horror film that is fairly eccentric in it's execution. Everything about the film is gritty and nasty as it should be. The film itself looks great with such details and it adds much more atmosphere to this type of picture. If you love a good monster film, then give C.H.U.D a look, it';s quite different from most films out there dealing with monsters. Chud is a fun film, and one film that remains one of the weirdest of it's kind.

• Ken S

  
  Fun, but not nearly as awesome as the movie website

• Luke B

  
  C.H.U.D. hits a lot of the right notes, just not very hard. The story, in B-Movie terms, is fresh enough to warrant a watch. A new breed of monster other than vampires, werewolves etc. The acting is fine and it's nice to see some future Home Alone buddies Heard and Stern get to… More
  C.H.U.D. hits a lot of the right notes, just not very hard. The story, in B-Movie terms, is fresh enough to warrant a watch. A new breed of monster other than vampires, werewolves etc. The acting is fine and it's nice to see some future Home Alone buddies Heard and Stern get to play off one another. The monster is also kind of cool. None of these manage to reach the heights or sink to the depths in order to make them truly enjoyable. It just sort of hovers around mediocrity and in a B-Movie, that can be a fatal boredom blow.

• Bruce B

  
  C.H.U.D. I am sure that people the world over have used this abbreviation for something other then what the movie uses it for. All in all a great movie considering it was made in 1984. Mine is part of the Cult Movie Collection. The actors in this all good, like the homeless people,… More
  C.H.U.D. I am sure that people the world over have used this abbreviation for something other then what the movie uses it for. All in all a great movie considering it was made in 1984. Mine is part of the Cult Movie Collection. The actors in this all good, like the homeless people, how we stereo type. The Monsters when seen were pretty wild good special effects. Its worth watching and worth adding to the collection. 4 Stars for Cult Horror.

• Curtis L

  
  Pretty lame. I rented it to have a crappy horror movie to laugh at, but nothing in it was funny or good at all. I like how the end doesn't even mention that any or all the monsters die, it just ends.

• David L

  
  This is a film I remember checking out in theaters when I was a kid. I bought the dvd for 5 dollars a while back and thought I would take a look at it again. In the film, Homeless people who live underground are disappearing, but also people above ground strolling around at night are… More
  This is a film I remember checking out in theaters when I was a kid. I bought the dvd for 5 dollars a while back and thought I would take a look at it again. In the film, Homeless people who live underground are disappearing, but also people above ground strolling around at night are ending up on the 'missing persons' list. Police Captain Bosch starts to dig a little deep into the case, due to his wife being one of those missing persons. He comes across soup kitchen hand AJ and the two discover that the government is dumping toxic waste in the city's sewers and this accidentally creates species known as C.H.U.D. "Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dwellers." Also finding their way into the mess is photograph George Cooper and his model girlfriend Lauren Daniels. The spirit of 80s runs freely in this fun, effective little b-grade charmer. This was done on low budget and for that reason plenty of the action occurred off-screen due to limitations. The make-up effects aren't too bad and do create something incredibly hideous in their few glimpses. Gore is limited, with mainly the aftermath of the attacks making their way on the screen. Shepard Abbott's original story resembles something out the 50s-monster films, where it was more concerned about characters, mystery and development progression. The structure actually shifts about, before every sub-plot comes together. The lively script is occasionally witty and involving (it even throws in some social plight on the treatment of homeless), but in certain scenes it's probably a bit too long in the tooth and ragged. The ludicrous premise lingers somewhere between subtle dark camp and straight-laced horror, but director Douglas Cheek's minimal touch keeps the film lively with an upbeat tempo and flashes of atmospheric suspense and jolts. While being corny, it never really goes overboard and Cheek competently handles the material. Cooper Hughes' hovering and spotty electronic music score stays fairly creepy and moody. Helping out was that of authentic New York locations, which breathed an eerie atmospheric tenor and grungy look. Above par acting made sure that there was amusing characters. John Heard, Daniel Stern, Christopher Curry and Kim Greist are pleasantly likable in their solid offbeat performances. They play it pretty straight. Throughout the feature they're are short, but enjoyable comic cameos by the likes of John Goodman, Jon Polito and John Bedford Lloyd to name a few. To sum up here, this is a cool film, not great but alot of fun and worth a rental( or purchase, at 5 to 6 dollars for the dvd I would say its worth buying) The dvd also has a great commentary track. The good and the bad of the movie are explored in depth

• Daniel H

  
  Varied, haphazard, and memorable. Its a set-piece grindhouse creature-feature, and worth the watch, either just to watch once and say you know what the genre is about, or as part of a long-lasting fascination with atrociously-made horror films.

• Dr Blood  

  
  I didn't like C.H.U.D. when I first saw it and I like it even less now. Like many people, I just rented it because it had an amusing title and it had the potential to be a little bit different from all the slasher films which had flooded the market in the mid 80s. Unfortunately… More
  I didn't like C.H.U.D. when I first saw it and I like it even less now. Like many people, I just rented it because it had an amusing title and it had the potential to be a little bit different from all the slasher films which had flooded the market in the mid 80s. Unfortunately none of that potential was realised. It just didn't have enough action or scary monsters and I still don't know if it was trying to be serious or funny. The joke was on me in any case as I was the one who wasted my time watching it. I've seen quite a few low-budget B movies since but at the time I was absolutely appalled that something this bad and cheap looking could make it onto the shelves in my local video shop. I think I may have even complained... bitterly. I probably got my money back too. I don't even consider this to be a horror movie. It really should be renamed C.R.A.P.

• A.D. V

  
  Probably the most underrated monster movie of the 80's. It's funny (both intentionally and a few times not), gory with decent acting and great-looking monsters--plus it has such a cool score!

• Ryan M

  
  *1/2 out of **** With a title that literally serves as an acronym for Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dweller, "C.H.U.D." probably wants to be a whole lot crazier than it actually is. That is perhaps the film's biggest crime; it has a set-up that could be used to… More
  *1/2 out of **** With a title that literally serves as an acronym for Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dweller, "C.H.U.D." probably wants to be a whole lot crazier than it actually is. That is perhaps the film's biggest crime; it has a set-up that could be used to spread the word of thoughtful and intelligent horror movie-making but at the same time it could be a textbook example of shlock cinema of the 80's, but instead if fails to meet either of those standards, which are both higher and lower than they initially seem. I will say what I say every time a cult horror film doesn't work out for me: I fail to understand how for some people, one or two bizarre scenes amount to a good time. This film feels so restrained and so distant; as if it wants to break free and simply be wild as it should be. Nevertheless, it is what it is; and while I'm not exactly sure what "it" is, I do know it's not a good movie. Here's the premise (you're gonna love this, probably more than the movie itself): Manhattan's homeless population are retreating to the sewers and coming into contact with toxic waste which in turn transforms them into mutant beasts with sharp, demon-like claws and eyes with a bright yellow glow. These creatures are first noticed when the unaffected homeless start requesting guns and the like. The police get involved; particularly Captain Bosch (Christopher Curry), who goes underground to investigate the disappearances of homeless people with the man who runs the city's homeless shelter, known as "The Reverend" (Daniel Stern). A down-on-his-luck photographer (John Heard) is also involved in uncovering the dark secrets that lurk just below them. The film was obviously conceived as a response to New York's underground homeless population at the time (which was the upper end of the 80's). I've always felt that good horror movies serve as parables for real-life issues and concerns and events, but "C.H.U.D." is far from the best of horror films. It is a watchable attempt, but a failed one nevertheless. And by failed, I mean near-miserably failed. It's bland, it's stupid, and it's mostly unimaginative; but no disrespect to those who admire it. If you enjoy your trash simple and lame, this is bound to be your cup of tea. Me, I'm a little more tasteful when it comes to my tasteless entertainment. No matter how much of your brain you leave behind, "C.H.U.D." appears to either be demanding that you use more or it or less. It doesn't seem like a very big-budget production to me (the monsters are pretty goofy looking when you finally do get a good look at them, and they should have remained in the shadows the entire time, because the mere presence of the glowing, yellow eyes is kind of ominous on its own), but I know from experience with other films and other directors that if a filmmaker is truly inspired and creative, they can turn rags into riches. This film in particular really confuses me. It doesn't feel professional, yet I'm told the studio still interfered with the script and such, even forcing an extensive re-write, which a lot of the people on board were unhappy with. I don't know what to think about that. The original script probably would have produced a better movie overall, but at the same time it would take more than just that (like, you know, kicking Douglas Cheek out of the director's chair) to make the damned thing work. I conclude that "C.H.U.D." does kind of suck, thanks to low production values and an uninteresting plot that consistently juggles urban horror story with big-city cop drama with perplexingly disorganized results. I'm giving it a few points because as I mentioned earlier, it's not completely unwatchable; and it's got a few good scenes (like a bloody shower sequence and some nice shots that truly highlight the film's NY backdrop) that assist it when needed. The actors aren't necessarily God-awful and everyone seems at least somewhat dedicated to trying to make this one work out. But this is a bad, boring, and near-horrible movie; there's no mistaking that. I know that some people like it, probably for purely nostalgic reasons (which I can totally understand), but even from a movie with such a ridiculous premise going for it, I expected a lot more. But a lot more what? More insanity, more creativity, more passion, more entertainment value. The film isn't devoid of heart, but it is unfortunately completely devoid of any intrigue.

• Anthony V

  
  Even fans of the 80's horror genre are apt to be let down by this mess.

• Barry L

  
  O.M.G Just the title scared me as a boy. What an original horror....Watch it now.

• Chad R

  
  haha - I want to see this again. I went and watched it with my sister in the theater. Oh 30 years ago?

Read all 15 featured audience ratings