John Lucker (Nick Van Suyt) is a notorious serial killer who awakens from his long coma. He escapes from the hospital, but not without taking a few victims with him. His notoriety comes from the fact that he not only kills his victims in various horrific ways, he likes to (surprise, surprise, given the film's title) shag their corpses. We find out through a few flashbacks that he is on the hunt for a woman who escaped his clutches. But after picking up a prostitute in a bar, he goes back to her apartment building, in which, coincidentally, is empty apart from one couple ("no-one can hear a thing"). We know this as she explains it in detail to Lucker, something that we all would do to a strange man we have just met and are taking back to our home.Well, where to start? I have my wonderful brother to thank for this monstrosity of 'film-making', as after he read a DVD review of it, claimed it sounded 'right up my street'. Perhaps I need to change people's outlook of me, as it is concerning that a family member would consider a film where a greasy Belgian leaves a corpse for a month to rot, smears his hands over her slimy body and then hungrily licks his hands, to be something I would like. I'd never actually vomited bile into my mouth before whilst watching a film, and although I welcome a film that can make me feel queasy and uneasy, I can only describe Lucker the Necrophagous as the cinematic equivalent of Two Girls One Cup.This is genuinely the worst film I have ever seen. And I've seen all three August Underground films. Every second, every frame, every soundbite of it's slender 70 minute running time drained a little bit more life out of me. This film life-raped me. And while I'm no prude when it comes to nudity, the sight of a middle-aged, doughy skinned, double-chinned man's flabby arse is not something I want to see repeatedly, especially when it is wobbling on top of a corpse. Shock horror, this would be the last feature both director Johan Vandewoestijne would direct, and 'star' Van Suyt would appear. Lucker is the finest example as to why when something is labelled as 'notorious', it doesn't mean I should watch it. It does for notorious films what Gary Glitter does for notorious musicians. Avoid at all costs, and my dear brother, next time you want to recommend something, please watch it yourself first. Damn you!www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

Though I have reviewed this before, a new edition with some improvements in color and some directorial changes has necessitated a fresh review. The new DVD is mastered from a surviving 1" tape; the original negs and positives no longer exist. The picture has more color and less crud than the dupe of a cruddy VHS I was familiar with. Unfortunately, the technical improvements, courtesy of Synapse, do not change my opinion of the film -- it is still a torturous bore. The writing is of the blatantly obvious kind. There is no subtlety at all. Characters state exactly what they are thinking. In this case, the killer/rapist/necrophile John Lucker expresses his hatred of women in the most direct, uninteresting way. Like everybody else in the cast, the actor portraying Lucker overacts. There is no style, no vision, and no suspense. The director made the movie out of a desire to shock a government film body, not a desire to tell a disturbing story. The infamous scene in which Lucker paws a decaying corpse and licks his fingers is a bit gross, but there's nothing clever or interesting about this scene or anything else in the film. Parts of the film have a "Maniac" feel; other parts resemble Shaun Costello's "Forced Entry". When all is said and undone, "Lucker" is inept rubbish with as much aesthetic value as a gonzo porn flick. Come to think of it, I'd prefer gonzo porn any day.

I know I'm certainly in a minority here but I have a soft spot for Lucker. I picked my copy up at a film fair years ago. I was wearing a Nekromantik t-shirt at the time and a trader suggested it might be of interest to me if I was that way inclined. Although I agree that the acting is a bit sketchy and the effects are not as well executed as some I do think that the film has one saving grace in that Lucker himself is one of the most repulsive characters in genre history...he's so ordinary to look at and that's what makes him so creepy. As for the infamous corpse-love scene? It sure gives a new meaning to 'finger licking good' but I wouldn't credit it with being as nauseating as others have suggested...all in all if you're a bit of a horror completist who enjoyed Nekromantik and you're in a forgiving mood it's well worth a look.

"Lucker the Necrophagus" is total garbage on any other level than the sicko/puke level on which it definitely succeeds.The film is loaded with gore and violence,but there is plenty of boring scenes too.The murders are quite explicit and misogynistic,but the sickest and most nauseating scene is the necrophilia scene that comes near the end.It is ten times sicker and more off-putting than anything Buttgereit ever filmed.You know in Lucker's case,the rotting body is also filled with worms and maggots and some disgusting pus that this sicko rapist licks from his hands.Then he,of course,makes love to the body and this thing really made my stomach angry and if I had eaten something I would have probably been forced to turn my head off immediately because this scene is so sick and repellent."Lucker" is nothing but exploitation,and as sick as that can be.The gore effects are well-done and the music is occasionally pretty good.Worth watching only for fans of seedy exploitation flicks.