Shrieker (1998) User Reviews

"I've slept with seventeen different women... and not one of them was a man." Reasonable creature feature.

[poolandrews · 5/10 · 3 December 2007]

Shrieker is set in the small American town of Westbrook where university student Clark (Tanya Dempsey) is looking for some really cheap digs, fellow university student Zak (Jamie Gannon) tells Clark of Greenhaven Hospital which has been abandoned & empty for 50 odd years & that he & four other students are squatting there. Zak invites Clark to join them which since the rent is free is too good an offer to turn down, also living there is David (Parry Shen), Mike (Chris Boyd), Tanya (Alison Cuffe) & Elaine (Jenya Lano). Things get spooky straight away, the first night Clark hears a chilling shrieking noise & also finds ancient symbols written on the floor which happen to summon an ancient demon known as a shrieker which needs five sacrificial offerings for the one who summoned it to be able to control it & the squatting students are as good a sacrifices as anyone else...

Directed by David DeCoteau under the pseudonym of Victoria Sloan (now we know why there's so many gay jokes here) this is yet another cheap Full Moon Pictures production from Charles Band, to be fair to it Shrieker isn't as bad as one might expect but it's definitely not something one would call good. While watching Shrieker it's hard to not notice the glaring similarities between it & Jacques Tourneur's classic Night of the Demon (1957) with it's plot about someone raising a demon from hell & having to pass people slips of paper with ancient incantations on them so the demon will kill them & the only way to stop it is to give the piece of paper to another willing person, co-incidence? I doubt it. The script by Benjamin Carr takes itself very seriously & is far too slow, apart from a brief opening sequence when the Shrieker is seen it doesn't make an appearance again until the 40 odd minute mark. So basically in that 40 odd minutes we learn that this assorted bunch of students are squatting in a disused hospital & one of them is messing about summoning up demons from hell & sacrificing their buddies, this really needed more pace & purpose because the story is weak & pretty predictable. The one thing that saves Shrieker from being totally worthless in my opinion is the mystery surrounding just who the traitor is & why they are summoning up a demon, there's a reasonable double twist ending which is OK but the Shrieker creature is far too easily defeated.

Director DeCoteau, sorry Sloan does OK, it's reasonably well lit & there's an alright spooky old house type atmosphere. The Shrieker itself is only ever seen in quick cuts, in fact you'll get a better look at the creature on the video cover on the IMDb's main page for Shrieker than in the actual film itself. The special make-up effects on it look pretty good so I don't really know why the makers were so afraid to show it. Forget about any decent gore as there isn't any, there's a few dead bodies covered in blood but nothing else. One thing I wondered while watching Shrieker was that if the hospital had been abandoned for over 50 years why was the electricity still turned on?

Technically the film is good, surprisingly shot in full 2:35:1 widescreen it looks nice enough & has reasonable production values considering it's a Full Moon production. The acting is OK but nothing particularly memorable.

Shrieker was better than I expected because of one or two decent plot twists but please don't take that as any sort of resounding recommendation because it isn't. Average at best really, it could have been a lot worse but at the same time it could have been a lot better.

Competent but boring

[ric-29 · 4/10 · 27 December 1998]

The best thing about Shrieker is the dialogue. Like Scream and I Know What You Did Last Summer, this movie is cognizant of the conventions of this type of horror movie and manages to come up with a few good lines and scenes that play on those conventions. Unfortunately, Shrieker is just boring. The plot is your basic Ten Little Indians whodunnit with a monster controlled by one of the suspects/victims. You know from the beginning that each of the characters will get bumped off until only the hero(ine) is left to defeat the evil. And this is exactly what happens. Absolutely no surprises and no tension. Production values and acting were ok, but I had no motivation to watch to the end (although I did) because I already knew how the end scene would play out. The ending did surprise me a bit, because it managed to fizzle out, literally, instead of throwing out a bucket of special effects. Maybe the special effects budget had been spent up by the end.

Watching this movie will suck your brain dry!

[Maciste_Brother · 3/10 · 30 March 2004]

SHRIEKER is a Full Moon production. I knew what to expect (very little quality) but I didn't expect this to be as painful as SHRIEKER was to watch.

It's just awful. Bad acting, confusing script and direction. Annoying characters I wanted to kill. The whole thing was probably made in one week. I've seen episodes of CHARMED that were more complex and convincing than this cheapie.

It has the look and feel of an orphaned episode of a badly conceived TV series no one has ever seen. It was a chore to watch and I could feel my mind getting dimmer and dimmer by the minute. Watching a movie shouldn't be this much hard work.

"From hell it came! Born of darkness..."

[capkronos · 1/10 · 12 February 2003]

The creature? Yeah, it and the movie it stars in. Hell would seem infinitely more frightening if the damned were forced to watch this for all eternity. Six college students shack up in a condemned hospital to save money and end up victims of an ancient monster who must claim five victims before it returns to "the shadowy world from which it came!" Other than having major logic and coherence problems (plus the fact it appears to be unfinished), this disaster is terribly acted, written, edited (by J.R. Bookwalter) and directed, and the make-up FX are almost nonexistent. It's also significantly shorter than it claims (at only 80 minutes), but I'm not complaining. It's the worst movie I've seen from executive producer Charles Band's Full Moon productions and boy is that BAD!

To note, I almost didn't bother with a review, but this has gotten inexplicably good reviews on here and I figured a varying opinion was in order. Proceed with caution!

There are worse films around, but not many

[Leofwine_draca · 2/10 · 20 December 2016]

A contemporary horror movie from Charles Band's Full Moon Entertainment, this is an extremely low-key and boring affair. The sorry excuse for a plot is stretched out to ninety-minute length and just doesn't hold up, in fact hardly anything happens in this film. The only merciful thing is that it feels like a lot less than ninety minutes. To make matters worse, the scriptwriter decided to steal a clever idea from NIGHT OF THE DEMON, where victims find a piece of parchment with runes on their person and are effectively marked for death.

The acting is awful; yet again we have a bunch of pretty faces with not one single spark of acting talent between them. One pretty girl strips down to her bra in the final scenes as a desperate marketing ploy (this image made it on to the front cover of the video box, unsurprisingly!), another well-toned guy walks around half-naked for most of the time stressing the fact that he isn't homosexual (?!). There is no real drama, no comic relief, just the inevitable (off-screen) murders to take our minds off the banality of the story. A couple of bloody scratches across somebody's face is about as good as the gore gets.

Let's face it, a film which begins with a voice over about demonology, which is laughable, is sure to be bad. The monster itself is quite nicely designed (looking like a mutant with two heads merged into one), but the execution is poor, with the creature obviously being a man in a rubber monster suit. The best bits of the film are shots of the creature creeping about in the shadows, but we've seen this all before - and better, too. Being a post-SCREAM film, there's the opportunity to throw in some self-referential jokes, which makes things all the more irritating.

Not to mention the total anti-climax of the ending, where the baddies are killed in the easiest way possible, there's a short build up of suspense, and then...NOTHING HAPPENS! Sure, sometimes low budgets mean that there is a greater creativity to a film, but not in this case. It's just poor, generic trash. There are worse films around (but not many, it has to be said), but this had the potential to be something interesting which makes the final product look even worse.

Ad: Hospital Hideaway! Comes With Demon!...

[azathothpwiggins · 29 October 2021]

Three couples take up residence in an abandoned hospital, only to find themselves stalked by the hideous demon of the title.

SHRIEKER is another goofy, yet fun movie from the golden age of Full Moon Productions. The monster isn't bad, though it's certainly not frightening either. Thankfully, it's screen time is scant.

The characters are generic, but passable monster fodder. As Full Moon movies go, this one is more "serious" than others of its era, and at only 72 minutes it flies right by!

If you enjoy movies about demons, black magic, or bickering squatters, then this should make your night...

This movie has no redeeming elements to make it worth your time

[kevin_robbins · 2/10 · 10 February 2022]

Shrieker (1998) is a movie I recently watched on Tubi. The storyline follows a group of college kids who are looking to save some money by living in an abandoned hospital. Unfortunately for them a noisy serial killer resides in the basement...and he doesn't want neighbors.

This movie is directed by David DeCoteau (Puppet Master III) and stars Tanya Dempsey (Driller), Paul Shen (Hatchet), Jamie Gannon (Feeding Grounds), Thomas R. Martin (Stoker Hills) and Jenya Lano (Blade).

The storyline and cast had potential for this to be a worthwhile movie. It was fun seeing Shen from Hatchet in this. The acting and script were a bit stale. The introduction of the characters were entertaining but also awkward. Unfortunately the horror elements relied on a cool mask and little else. The special effects were limited at best and the ending was just okay.

Overall this movie has no redeeming elements to make it worth your time. I would score this a 2/10 and recommend skipping it.

The easiest monster to kill ever.

[Aaron1375 · 5/10 · 10 February 2004]

This comes from the great studio of Full Moon. Makers of such films as "Dollman", "Demonic Toys", and "Hideous". Here they at least try to make a horror movie and not a comedy/horror movie so they get points for that. What we get here is these people living in an abandoned hospital or something that one of them finds. It seems like a nice place except for the grizzly murders that took place there years ago. Well the monster is back and he is out to kill the kids who have taken residence here. The interesting thing is though that this monster is targeting certain people and it seems it is being manipulated. Well that is about the gist of it and it was not to bad, believe me Full Moon has made a lot worse. Still though this movie does have a rather anticlimactic ending cause the beast is killed really easily. In fact, anyone could have killed it. I won't give it away or how the monster targets its prey except I will say post-it notes of doom!

The lousiest movie from Full Moon ever!

[sexy_slayer · 3/10 · 22 October 2007]

I like the most of the Full Moon Pictures so I ordered this movie from the USA, because in Germany you can't get it anywhere. I thought it would be so nice and amusing like the Subspecies or Puppetmaster Series, because they were full of atmosphere.

I was glad when the movie finally arrived.

But after watching this cheesy movie, I was very disappointed. The actors ( I think you can't even say actors) are boring and untalented. The story was a poor performance and even the set and the monster were very cheap and lousy.

I hope no one ever make a sequel or remake of this terrible movie. :-)

A good horror film from Full Moon

[kipper-2 · 6/10 · 25 December 1998]

Full Moon finally did it. Yes, they quit making those horror-comedies("Curse of the Puppet Master", "Hideous", and "Creeps") and finally attempted a serious horror picture. The film basically is set around a bunch of cheap college students who don't want to pay rent like the rest of us. They get this idea of residing in an old hospital that contains the evil spirit of the Shrieker. Victoria Sloan is once again taking the reins of director for Full Moon Studios and actually makes a worthy picture for once. She seems to understand the restrictions of her actor's talents and the lackluster special effects and works around them. However, I shouldn't be so rough, the acting is actually pretty good in terms of recent Full Moon actors. Tanya Dempsey, who plays the lead, is pretty convincing as the brave new tenant who solves the riddle of who is behind the Shrieker. A highlight of the film is one guy who is so self conscious of his sexuality that he spends the whole film stating he is not a homosexual(pretty interesting). I recommend giving this movie a try, especially if you are a fan of Full Moon films. I really feel it is one of their best movies in recent years.

This movie isn't good

[morgan831 · 2/10 · 21 February 2003]

Sometimes Full Moon makes entertaining movies. This isn't one of them. Full Moon is like a low-key Troma. Their movies aren't as violent or off the wall, but they're usually just as devoid of talent. The acting in this movie isn't terrible but the script is pretty bad, and overall it's pretty boring and it doesn't even contain any nudity (like many Full Moon movies) to somewhat redeem it. Skip this one, and go rent "Head of the Family".

One Of My Favorite Full Moon Movies

[Werewolf-6 · 10/10 · 27 February 2000]

A little side note first, I have seen every full moon and almost every Charles Band pre-Full Moon movie, I enjoy most of them to a good extent, and I understand if my opinion is "mine alone." Onto the comments. The movie is about college "squatters" - people who don't want to pay to have living space - they take over a hospital, but it has other tenants... one is human.... the other is not... There is the "Shrieker" a creature with 2 heads from another dimension that loves to feed on whoever has it's symbol. The symbol cannot be thrown away, it has to be given, and if you get it, you die! This movie really has a lot of elements that I love in horror movies... Characters suspecting each other of doing the killings, and monsters who walk thru walls! Muahaha Also I found Clark (Tanya Dempsey) to be very convincing in her role of the newest squatter (also really cute!) too bad she hasn't done anything else...

Shrieker

[Scarecrow-88 · 2/10 · 19 February 2007]

Hunk of trash only the Full Moon Studios could make has a group of college kids, staying for free in an old hospital with no one knowing, as a demonic creature with two faces(barely visible the entire film because of incomprehensible lighting)passes through walls killing each member who has a certain sheet of paper with ancient markings. Someone amongst them(it won't be too hard to prove, but a slight twist is so uninspiringly revealed and limply executed you'll just scoff)is the mastermind behind who the beast kills and must be revealed before it kills everyone.

Cheap, badly acted mess has a "That's it?!" kind of weak ending that'll have you exasperated at why you just wasted your time. Tanya Dempsey, who couldn't act her way through a wet paper sack, has the heroine duties as the newest member of the college rooming bunch named Clark. Oh, and the title refers to the sound the beast makes before it attacks it's next victim.

Looking for a good horror film? This one isn't it

[contradiction · 1/10 · 29 May 2000]

I don't believe I've seen a horror movie this bad since...hell, I don't believe I've ever seen a horror movie this bad. The acting alone was enough to make one cringe. The bad acting went way beyond horror film cheesy. It was just plain awful. And did you check out those god awful special effects? When the demon (which looked more like a cheaply constructed puppet) came out of the wall I couldn't tell if I was supposed to be frightened, or laughing my ass off. As a huge fan of the horror genre, this film was more than mildly disappointing. I couldn't help but notice the director is from Portland, OR, which just happens to be my own hometown. I must say I'm deeply ashamed. If I could, I'd give this film a negative 500.

No Horror - Horrible

[whpratt1 · 1/10 · 3 July 2006]

This film did entertain me with lots of laughs at the actors who kept the film moving along in all types of crazy directions. If you like suggestive language and sexy looking gals they were all in the picture and gals and guys all looking burned out before they even graduate from high school. There is one scene where the teenagers drive their car into a very fake deer and then proceed to throw it out into a lake or ocean, which is repeated over and over again. There is no horror to this film except the word Horrible for the entire picture and Arnold who plays a plastic cop is really one sick character. Please don't waste your time viewing this film.

Good story, good effects, too long...

[MM2000 · 5/10 · 26 April 1999]

Thirty minutes could have been snipped out of this film without anyone noticing the difference. What is wrong with the idea of a short film? Does every good idea have to be stretched and contorted to achieve that apparently all-essential 90-minute minimum film-makers believe is necessary or cinema-viewers have come to expect? In condensed form, stories like "Shrieker" could be assembled for a good cable television series. It took talent to create 50-minute macabre masterpieces like "Thriller" and "Outer Limits." If you can stay awake beyond the lengthy setup for this movie, prepare to rock. However, what is intended to pass for suspense is simple boredom. Interestingly enough, the real suspense comes along when the action finally asserts itself. Some good, scary effects, both visual and aural.

Shrieker my verdict.

[jeffreyc-32567 · 4/10 · 7 October 2019]

Well here it comes this is what I thought after watching this film 📼. I gave it four stars ✨ after reading the other reviewers words. Not much action going on too much talking and only at 72 minutes long very short film 📼. The producers should or could have put some more effort and horror to make the film, at least 90 minutes long. Well that's my point so over and out for jacey.

* * out of 4.

[brandonsites1981 · 3 June 2002]

One of Full Moon's better efforts is about a group of poor college students seeking refuge in an old abandoned asylum, but falling victim to a shrieking monster. Short, entertaining, directly to the point horror flick with an appealing cast, some scary scenes, and an interesting story, but suffers from routine direction and poor special effects.

Rated R; Graphic Violence and Profanity.

Jenya Jenya Jenya

[DavidDev · 4 October 2004]

This movie (for me) is about Jenya Lano starting out her career. The rest is crap, as one would expect from a movie with virtually no budget to speak of. The poor actors probably received meal vouchers as payment.

I regret to have watched the movie for any other reason than just seeing Jenya Lano. It's like "Stealing Candy" from a baby. Understand what I mean ? Catch my drift ?

I wish her every success in her career in the future. She's got what it takes. The other characters (actors) are all forgettable. As a whole they will not get very far, but who cares. That's the way life goes. Some make it, some don't. All in the name of survival of the fittest, and the movie industry is a prime example.

Great Job By Decoteau

[BHorrorWriter · 1 October 2001]

Typically, I am not a fan of Director David Decoteau. However, under one of his many alias names, he does a good job with this film. Editing by JR Bookwalter probably helped alot, too. All the movies that have come out of Full Moon since their departure from Paramount have been made on extremely low, low budgets..and the product is normally crap! This is especially true since 2000....However, this film is different...Okay, corny dialouge, bad acting, or overacting tend to be very evident in this film...But it still tells a story...

To much surprise, the guy that played the homophobic jock, was actually one of the best characters, and actors in the whole film. Though killed off, he was able to maintain a presence in the film, and delivered his lines well, and with professionalism. The Psycho-Lesbian militant woman was just suck! I hated her character!

The Special effect are very amateurish, but compared to most Full Moon pictures being cranked out now...this is a 10 in that department. Something to check out...Would have liked to seen a sequel to this one...

8 out of 10

Jamie Gannon is the best part of this film.

[Sexyteen · 20 February 2001]

I have to say, not the greatest horror film out there. However, well worth a viewing if only to see Jamie Gannon in his first horror film. That boy is gonna be a big star. Not only is he extremely talented (working with a completely implausible script and a monster that looks like it was made out of paper mache), but he has to be the hottest young actor out there - yum!!! His second horror film (Final Stab, also a Full Moon picture) is infinetly better and well worth renting. He is certainly an actor whose career I will be sure to follow.