Although the plot and rating of "Schizoid" didn't look too promising, I nevertheless really wanted to see it for three (very good) reasons… Number one: I generally like slasher movies from the year 1980 or 1981, because back then this sub-genre wasn't yet impacted by the overload of "Halloween" and "Friday the 13th" clones. Number two: I was really interested to see a horror/thriller that starred both Klaus Kinski (one of my all-time favorite actors) and Christopher Lloyd in the earliest phase of his career (or at least, prior to the successful "Back to the Future" movies). And perhaps the biggest reason for me to track down "Schizoid" is the fact that it features so many typical trademarks of an Italian giallo! The killer, as he/she is briefly introduced during the opening sequences of the film, wears a long black raincoat and black leather gloves while his/her murder weapon is a sharp pair of scissors. These are preferred accessories of giallo-killers and, on top of that, he/she exclusively targets female victims and the murders bathe in a sexist atmosphere. My conclusion is that "Schizoid" is a moderately absorbing thriller with a handful of tense scenes and original touches, but regrettably also a large number of implausible twists. Beautiful Julie works as a columnist for a Californian newspaper, but she's caught in a difficult divorce and participates in the group therapy sessions of the acclaimed psychiatrist Dr. Pieter Fales. Julie starts receiving eerie letters that exist of newspaper clippings and talk of gruesome murders. The female members of her group therapy sessions are being killed off one by one as well. Who is the culprit? Is it the perverted Dr. Fales, who has sexual relations with all his patients? Or is it Dr. Fales' pre-ripe 16-year-old daughter, who hates her father and all the women he has sex with? Is it the mysteriously roaming and voyeuristic janitor Gilbert or Julie's ex-husband Doug who never wanted the divorce? Or perhaps Julie herself is the killer because, after all, the murder cases help increasing her popularity as a columnist! Like other reviewers already righteously pointed out, the biggest default of this film is the credibility of Klaus Kinski's character. As much as I worship this eccentric actor, he simply cannot pass for a psychiatrist; let alone a psychiatrist who manages to seduce and sleep with all his female patients. The search for the killer's identity, on the other hand, results in a couple of exciting sequences and a tense climax. The body count is sadly low for an early 80s slasher (only 3 victims) but the murder sequences are grim and atmospheric. The performances from the ensemble cast are just mediocre, with the exception of Donna Wilkes… She's downright fantastic and amazingly makes her young character Alison simultaneously sensual, creepy and forbidden. Solely based on her performance in this film, I've added the film "Angel" to my must-see list.

I don't know what is worse about this movie. 1) It is very predictable. 2) It is very stupid. Is it 1 or 2? I was bothered because I spent 89 minutes with this movie and I considered it was a waste of time. The premise of a murderer with scissors looked good but there is not a pinch of idea in it. Dr Fales (Kinski) is a psychiatrist who leads a group of therapy. His daughter Allison (Wilkes) is a rebel teenager who is against the doctor's new company Julie (Hill). Allison's mother died and Julie would take her place. So, she is sick 'n tired of the group and of Julie. What about her? She is a reporter who is in the way of getting the divorce from her husband Doug (Wasson). There is more: she helps people under the name of Dr. Love. She starts receiving threats by letter. The ladies from the group are being found stabbed one by one. "Don't let me kill again" blah, blah, blah. So, who are we dealing with? who is the killer? Could it be Dr. Fales who has sex with the ladies from the therapy group? Maybe his daughter? What about Julie's husband? I think that renting this movie would be a waste of movie. It is worse If you see it. A waste of time. At least performances were acceptable. 3 out of 10. Andrés.

I rented this one beacuse the cast looked interesting. I figured anything which features Klaus Kinski as a shrink must be worth a look. I was wrong. This film is hard to stay awake through. It has no suspense and the murders can be seen coming a mile away. What's worse, the film is tacky and cheap looking. Wonder what Christopher Lloyd thinks of it?

Okay... "Schizoid". What can you say about a movie where the scariest thing in it is the title?Seems that people are dying in this California community and all of them seem to be patients of psychiatrist Kinski. Everyone in this film seem to be some level of nut (it IS California, after all) so there are more herrings here than in a barrel at the fish market. So, who's doing the killing?All too obvious, I'm afraid. If you watch this and have a rudimentary knowledge of how these slasher flicks work, you'll pick out the perp right after you see them. If not, you deserve every lame moment that you get thrown at you.No stars, not even in pity. The only "Schizoid"s here are the ones behind the camera that thought this was a good idea.