555 (1988 Video) User Reviews

555: The Lost VHS Rental

[vacantskies00 · 4/10 · 23 November 2017]

555. The VHS I never tried to rent. I still blame the perfectly framed pink and blood splattered cover. This is a dangerous film. My mother would never let this flick fly.

Flash forward twenty years. Making my own ends meet, I finally had enough scratch to get a DVD copy of 555. I feel both dirty and naive. With a dash of admiration.

555 is ambitious, but limited. While my childhood recalled a dark, slaughterhouse of decapitations and vomit inducing hallucinating gore set pieces, the real 555 film was a cheaply made detective thriller.

While delivering some bloodthirsty set pieces, the movie is mostly known for its VHS cover. And while I respect the filmmakers addition to the VHS splatter film videography, some experiences are better left on the rental store wall display.

Extremely rare slasher that's slightly different than other films of its kind...

[bfan83 · 5/10 · 28 February 2009]

555 is an extremely rare, SOV (shot on video) slasher flick from the 80s that brings something a little different to the table. The plot concerns a cross-dresser serial killer who kills his victims on the 5th day, of the 5th movie, of the 5 year. Hence the title 555. Back in the 80s and even today, rarely are there slasher films that boast a cross-dresser killer. Hide and Go Shriek and Unhinged immediately come to mind. Despite it's low budget, 555 manages to deliver. It has decent plot and a nice body count to boot. The gore and violence is brutal and very well-done for the budget they had. The ending was predictable but nonetheless entertaining. The only thing that really hampers the film is the poor video camera it was filmed on. The color balance seems off and a bit hazy. Nevertheless, it's a fun low budget horror flick that is underrated and almost impossible to get ahold of. If you manage to come across a copy on ebay (good luck) pick it up. It makes a nice addition to any horror completionist's collection.

Hard to Sit Through...

[CMRKeyboadist · 4/10 · 14 October 2006]

Well, I didn't know what to expect from 555. Matter of fact, I had never even heard of it until a few months ago. But, being a collector of just about all types of horror I figured I would go ahead and grab this obscure 80's slasher.

Basically the storyline has to do with a killer that kills every 5 years for 5 nights in a row. What the third 5 in the title means... nobody knows. Anyway, the killings start as the killer searches for young teenagers fooling around in obscure places. He decapitates the men and brutally knifes the woman to death. After this, he proceeds to rape the dead corpse. The police think they have a lead on the killings but really have no idea what is going on. How will they find the killer? Does anybody care?

This movie is filled with some of the worst actors I have ever seen. No wonder none of these actors went on to do anything else, literally. The three lead actors consist of two detectives and a "sexy" female reporter. I am being sarcastic when I say sexy, she is about as un-sexy as it gets. The two detectives are like watching tweedle dee and tweedle dum. One of them underacts his part and the other one may have gone to the Shatner School of Acting. The acting is so bad that it almost forces you to lose your interest in the movie, thus almost putting you to sleep.

The only thing holding this terrible movie together is a few decent gore scenes. For a movie on this budget the makers must have put all of there money into the special effects, which still aren't that great.

Unless you are like me and have to own every single horror movie out there, I would suggest steering clear of this movie. 4/10

splatterfest?

[trashgang · 3/10 · 16 March 2010]

Well well, I had seen a lot of reviews on this one, and a lot of promo always showing the decapitation scene. But this flick is a tough one. And I mean it by all ways. It's hard to find a copy, because it was a low budget independent release and because MPAA was on the hunt for every copy on VHS, it came out unrated but it had to be rated for the MPAA. So copies disappeared into the underground scene. All people involved in this flick never did anything else in the biz. So it made this flick unique. VHS copies almost never pop up on ebay or other sites and if they do you will pay over a 100$ to get one. But due US connections I was able to catch a release on DVD sold worldwide. Limited but it was to be a sort of official one. Now and then there are still some screenings of this splatterfest. But is it worth all the hype surrounding it? As said earlier, it is a tough one to catch but also to sit through. There are gory killings, there is necrophilia, there is nudity but there is also a lot of talking between the coppers. And to be honest, if you would like to see the movie in 5 minutes watch the ending, it's a flashback in the killer's mind. The blood flows and indeed it's a splatterfest but not the full 80 minutes, splatter galore for 10 minutes. The quality of the movie is okay, sound okay, no hiss, colors okay, black is black and not blue as in many low budgets. It's okay to watch it but you never will be frightened but it's one to watch with your friends having a beer and a pizza I guess. 555, naaaaaaaaaaaaaaah 333.

An absolutely awful made-for-video horror splatter dud

[Woodyanders · 1/10 · 13 November 2006]

A majority of exclusively made-for-video low-budget fright flicks from the 80's invariably stink worse than raunchy old socks. This particularly dismal and amateurish no-budget Chicago-set bargain basement "nasty necrophiliac nutcase on the loose" bloodbath serves as a depressing affirmation of this borderline ineluctable fact. A bearded, disheveled, long-haired, bead and flower shirt-wearing wild-eyed psycho hippie fruitcake embarks on your standard random gruesome killing spree, graphically slaughtering libidinous young couples who are engaging in strenuous coitus whenever the deranged Mansonesque lunatic attacks. (Hmm, do I detect a fairly obvious and self-righteously puritanical "have sex and die" message here? Gee, could be, man.) Boy, is this mentally unbalanced sicko one real way gone pup: After knifing his female victims, our certifiably crackers killer enjoys making love to their freshly slain bodies. (WARNING: Possible *SPOILER* ahead. Towards the picture's end the corpse-copulating crazy gets rudely interrupted by the cops while he's in the middle of doing the unthinkable with a nubile cadaver, thereby provoking the foul pervert to cut loose with an understandably anguished and ear-splitting cry of "Nooo!") Now, ain't this gonzo guy a definite sweetheart and a half?

Too bad this flick is so poorly done; if it had only been made with a modicum of flair and proficiency it could have been a sleazy little gem of a horror exploitation item. Alas, Wally Koz's ham-fisted direction, Lamar "Larry" Bloodworth's stubbornly static and immobile cinematography, Frankie "Hollywood" Rodriguez's insipid, monotonously head-banging "hard rock" score, the pitifully cheap and unconvincing make-up f/x, flat, conspicuously uneasy plywood acting by a hideously all-thumbs and unappealing non-pro cast, lethargic pacing (too much screen time is tiresomely squandered on the police's drab efforts to catch the wacko), an especially lame would-be shocking "surprise" ending (the mystery killer's true identity is guaranteed to have you groaning in disgust), the uniformly boring, incessantly bickering and positively braindead characters, and a steady succession of dull soft-core sex scenes that are about as erotic as watching two slugs mate for 90 minutes straight all add up to one profoundly putrid and unrewarding limp, soggy noodle of a crummy clinker. However, to be fair, this film does possess one stellar virtue: The mad-dog slasher has unquestionably excellent taste in garishly tropical, louder-than-thunder day-glo Hawaiian shirts.

Just say no to this borefest.

[DarkReflection · 16 August 2003]

Absolutely horrid shot-on-video slasher effort which has absolutely nothing to make you want to not destroy it on sight. A true snoozer with a painful pace, weak "gore" which is pretty much girls getting blood splashed on them (from the *offscreen* kills of their boyfriends), ugly nude women, and acting so horrid it isn't even funny. Nothing can save this film from it's incredibly boring and awful status, even the decapitation pictured on the video box (even though it looks cool). There are no redeeming factors here. It's not even so bad it's good... It's that boring. Skip it or feel the pain.

I can probably give 555 reasons not to watch this.

[Ocean Blue · 4/10 · 24 April 2002]

Oh, the horror! I've seen A LOT of gore movies in my day, but this one just makes me gag with with laughter rather than repulsiveness. This is definitely a crazy movie and is very low-budget, I might add, but if you're able to look past the cheap audio, horrible dialogue, ugly girls, the obviously fake gore scenes, and overall cheeziness of the film, then you might find some of this film to be somewhat entertaining. The story is about a copy cat killer who goes on a killing spree every "5th day, of the 5th month, of the 5th year" (wow, how original), and it's up to two detectives (one of whom gave a valiant effort at trying to make the crapy dialogue good) to stop the killer's bloody rampage. The killing scenes (which are done with a plastic toy knife) are pretty brutal (which is a good thing), but very annoying due to the constant repetition of an obviously recorded scream (which is very ear piercing). As for the gore, there's plenty of it but it looks very fake; especially the blood - dude, c'mon, purple blood? But, if you're a fan of gore videos, like myself, then you'll find something in this video to cherish like I did (the crap-talking detective...he's the best thing going for this film). Other than that, all you're going to find is a bunch of senseless nudity (which is also a good thing, but too bad the girls are OOOGLY) and a very idiotic hippy necrophiliac serial killer. Sorry, but this one sucks.

so bad it's terrible!

[sunproof · 2/10 · 7 September 2000]

this is the worst movie in the world. the only reason i gave it a 2 was because the first 10 minutes were hysterically funny in a "is this for real??" sort of way. it was so cheesy and low budget...they should not have even bothered. there was nudity and violence for the pure sake of having nudity and violence, and the effects were just so so bad you would not believe it (think ketchup as blood, and cabbages for severed heads). do not rent this!!

Filmed on a budget of $5.55

[Zbigniew_Krycsiwiki · 1/10 · 4 August 2012]

The video box shows a character who has just had his head hacked off, above the title 555 in a generic font- and against a Pepto Bismol pink background carrying the disclaimer: "Caution: Viewing may cause severe damage to your brain cells". The titles in the film are even displayed against a matching pink background. Awww, isn't that cute? Did the crew members dress in matching pink also?

Killer on the loose, hacking and slashing his way through the nude teens in backyards and in vans, while police dimmer than those found in Drive In Massacre pretend to investigate the crimes, and plan their barbecue for that evening. I'm not making that up. Nor am I making up the scene where the killer bones a girl he has just hacked to pieces, before cast members have to rearrange furniture in the sparsely decorated set to argue about how to solve the crimes and catch the killer, who, incidentally, is described by a witness as a hippie. In 1988. Seriously.

Splattery little nothing, the violent kills are basically just someone off camera splashing a dark red liquid onto screaming topless girls, while inserts show a knife stabbing into styrofoam. Not really even unintentionally funny, even when the police are obviously reading from a copy of the screenplay, conveniently located on the desk in front of them, or when a second cameraman can clearly be glimpsed in many scenes, or even when... yeah, ... pink. The pink cover. Why pink? And what does the third '5' in the title 555 mean? Did the producers even know?

Intriguing title, bull**** movie. I actually first heard about this film when I saw Scott Hermes on Jeopardy! back in the 1990s, he mentioned it in his brief interview with Alex Trebek, saying something, jokingly, about how the film is available in all of the finest video stores. It piqued my curiosity then, as a fan of low budget sleaze, and when I finally managed to find a copy of it years later, was I ever disappointed. Not even as good as Goremet, Zombie Chef From Hell.

Decent plot driven graphic slasher that has become impossibly rare.

[LuisitoJoaquinGonzalez · 6/10 · 9 February 2005]

I bet that many of you have at times wondered what on earth motivates some of these B movie hacks to go ahead and produce the majority of the plop that has been transferred direct to video over the years. There are many slasher flicks that have had me stumped as to what was said throughout the long meetings of pre and post production concerning the release of such dismal excuses for home entertainment. I actually got the chance to ask Wally Koz - the director of 555 – that exact question, and he gave me a bold and credible answer. He stated that after watching countless shoddy horror movies and feeling disappointed with their bargain bucket quality, he had told his wife that he believed that he could make something much better with no previous notable experience. And so, with a little help from his family and friends, that's exactly what he did! 555 is in many respects the evidence to prove that all you need to make your own movie is a fair budget, a sprinkling of talent, a few eager relatives/friends and a huge pair of cojones!

It kicks off on a beach-front in the midst of a murky evening. An elderly man wanders the sandy shore as the sun fades over the crashing waves of the sea. On another corner of the beach, a maniac dressed as a sixties-era hippy disturbs a young couple's romantic evening by decapitating the male and then slaughtering his unsuspecting girlfriend with a large angled blade. Later we learn that the killer raped the hapless female AFTER she was dead! A psychopathic necrophiliac – now that's something that we haven't seen in the slasher genre before.

Next we transfer to the office of the fiery Sgt. Conner (Greg Kerovac) and his partner Detective Haller (B.K. Smith). They are interviewing the elderly walker from the beach who heard the female victim's final scream before discovering the bodies and also caught a brief glimpse of the killer. Colonel Wayne (Charles Fuller) is an ex-military officer who suffered severe psychological torture in Vietnam, which immediately arouses the suspicion of the arrogant sergeant. The following night another young couple of lovers are ruthlessly slaughtered, and the detectives uncover a link with a spate of killings that have occurred every 5th month for 5 consecutive nights every 5 years. The town is thrown into a panic as more teenagers are found dismembered and Conner's blood pressure levels are reaching boiling point! Will the cops solve the case before the maniac disappears again for 60 months? Or will the sadistic sergeant end up completely loosing his marbles and just violently arresting the entire population of the seaside town?

If you're drinking something at this moment in time I suggest that you put it down and take a seat. Surprisingly enough, 555 is not that bad at all. In fact it's actually quite good. Almost immediately the level is lifted by a flamboyant performance from Greg Kerovac, who successfully brings the script to life with a ballsy presentation that really sets the screen alight. Kudos also to his partner B.K. Smith, who helps to nail the 'good cop bad cop' theme perfectly. I'd even go as far as to say that for performers at this level, these two could have climbed the steps to bigger budgeted motion pictures if they were given half a chance. It seemed a big surprise that their debut would also signal their departure from the movies, especially when you consider the fact that people like Ashton Kutcher and Sylvester Stallone continue to get work in Hollywood. There's no doubting the fact that they were helped no end by a fantastic piece of screen writing from Roy M. Koz. His script was obviously based on the tough as nails cop-dramas of yesteryear such as Dirty Harry and Popeye Doyle. Some of the dialogue was deliberately hilarious and brilliantly gratuitous in equal measures, which gave the characters their own individual identities from the off.

555 ups the exploitation levels with a barn full of topless porn rejects and a cauldron of corn syrup that is splashed over victims in abundance throughout the shoot. There were also two extremely well created splatter scenes, which have found a place in the hearts of gore hounds across the globe. One guy gets his fingers lopped off ala The Burning and before he has a chance to scream he is decapitated in arguably one of the top three cinema beheadings ever filmed. Another victim gets a machete pushed through his throat, which is perhaps a tad too hokey, but great fun all the same. Dressing the killer as a sixties-era hippy may seem like a silly idea, but somehow it only helps to add originality to an offering that was certainly trying to be different from the start.

Unfortunately the rest of the cast couldn't live up to the talent that was glowing from both Kerovac and Smith. Mara Lynn Bastian didn't only disappoint with her unconvincing moaning, but she also had the most irritating hi-pitched voice since young Bob in The House by the Cemetery! It seemed that director Wally Koz re-used an identical pre-recorded scream for each of the female victim's murders. This was not only patently obvious, but also sounded more like the woman in question was having a multiple orgasm, not being sadistically slaughtered. I guess the bargain basement sets also warrant a mention; especially the Police 'headquarters', which looked more like a refurbished broom cupboard!

Still 555 is a great demonstration of what a talented family can put together in their backyard with a little bit of enthusiasm. Looking at the credits makes you realise that Wally looks to have used every member of his bloodline in various different roles in the production. Keep your fingers crossed for a DVD release as the VHS has become virtually impossible to find.Wholly recommended...

He was dressed like a hippy

[nogodnomasters · 2/10 · 9 August 2017]

A bunch of couples are being killed and a girl is raped. Police have only one suspect (Charles Fuller).

Bad acting, lousy script, terrible special effects. Good nudity.

Guide: F-word, sex, nudity (Mara Lynn Bastian, Temple Mead, Anita Reformado, Anne Walker, Doreen Semese)

My opinion of 555

[wallyn69-1 · 10/10 · 21 August 2001]

I of course think "555" is a superior very low budget video. As opposed to the review mentioning there is one scene where the blood may appear to be purple. "555" has a story line and a plot as compared to most of the low low budget film/videos made at that time. It was not shot using a hand held cam corder, but shot using 1" video editing was done at CinemaVideo in Chicago, also the Audio is superb you can hear all of it. Also it was reviewed in Variety and got a very favorable review for this type of video, in fact Variety hardly ever reviewed this type of genre, dang, wish I still had a copy of it to post here. Sincerely Wally Koz

Over the top gore + terrible acting = 555

[VideoMonkey · 6/10 · 5 April 2000]

Shot on video, this mystery serial killer would seem pretty typical of the '80s slasher genre, except for the cheap sets and the horrendous acting and bad writing. And I do mean seriously bad, but strangely enough that's what adds the charm to this little ditty. And, of course, its got sex and nudity and graphic bloody killings and even an attempt at a twist ending,(like anybody cares who the killer is)....

HG Lewis Did Films Like This Better

[therealcmr · 3/10 · 15 February 2024]

555 is one of many films made in the 80's solely created for the home video market. Meaning that it was released straight to VHS to many Mom and Pop shops around America. Some of these movies showcased early and young talent. Some of which would go onto bigger and better things. The majority of these sorts of films, however, were terribly made movies that showcased more of a passion to make slasher and gore films, than to create something cohesive and polished. 555 clearly is trying to be better than its brethren with it merging the detective/cop genre with the slasher and gore genres. Something that HG Lewis basically established with Blood Feast. But that turns out to be 555's biggest weakness. It tries to be better than it really is, and as a result, it falls flat just about in every area where it should entertain.

The plot has to do with a Hippie serial killer murdering young couples making love. The police are stumped and the only witness is an old war veteran. With the killer seemingly smarter than the cops, will the killings ever stop?

555 does a lot wrong when it could have easily done so much right, given its small budget. The acting is quite frankly all over the place. It ranges from non existent to completely over the top. A lot of times in the same scene, when there is no reason for it. The dialog doesn't help the actors any. Again, you have seen it all before if you saw Blood Feast. The difference is that the writer seems to be happy having every character swear like a sailor. Sometimes for no reason. I also feel bad for all the actresses in the film. It must have been in their contracts that if you appear in this movie, you must take your shirt off because every actress does just that at some point in the movie. Minus one lady who keeps a white blanket over her as a set up for a cheap gore effect.

The camera placements and cinematography in general are about as basic as it gets. If you have seen Blood Feast, you already know what I am talking about. Basically the idea is to set up the camera on the tripod, move it as little as possible, and capture every actor in the same frame as many times as possible.

All of those other issues can be totally excused if the film delivers in the one area that is most important, in these sorts of films. The gore. 555's gore is... well... pretty mild compared to what that VHS cover art might have one believe. Yes, the film features that decapitation. But that is about the best you can expect from the films SFX department. Most of the killings end up off camera, or blood is just thrown on a nude lady. There just isn't much going on here. And with a movie that features that hilarious cover art, one would think they were renting a true gonzo gore extravaganza. Sadly, one would be disappointed.

About the best I can say about 555 is that the title makes no sense, aside from some graffiti art in the background in one scene. And that the film is easy to laugh at since the acting and dialog is just hilariously atrocious. But I wish there was more for me to recommend here. I usually love these sorts of crap films, but 555 just never really did it for me. Check out any HG Lewis film instead. Or, if you are looking for films from the 80's in this genre, look for Blood Cult, Video Violence, Truth or Dare, Campfire Tales, or The Abomination. All those are way better films than 555, and way more entertaining.

If anything, when things are this rough, all one can do is get a good laugh out of it. And that is all I got.

BadBadBad

[KingDaddy45 · 4 July 2001]

This one perpetuates itself to be a movie with a future cult following. The only following I see this one recieving is for one of those "ten worst movies shot on video" lists but it's probably too obscure for that. Anyway somebody somewhere might derive something out of this, I can't. The video box proudly exclaims "Uncut Unedited Director's Cut". Pretty funny when you realize that's the only version that was ever released anywhere.

555

[BandSAboutMovies · 3/10 · 30 June 2022]

Box cover.

It's a film that dares name its reporter heroine Susan Rather and has her talk about how no man can turn down her vagina, which that hard boiled cop certainly can't, and they lie in bed talking dirty and seem like they support each other which is nice because I'm old now and I like to see older couples that still like to be around each other and have a healthy sex life. I've seen some reviews where they're like, "She's too old to get nude" and I have to say you'll be fifty someday, my dude.

How romantic is it that when you see the first kill, there's graffiti that says WK + LK and that's for the director and his wife.

Shot in Blood-Vivid Video for Your Viewing Pleasure! With a tagline like that and the knowledge that the blood is neon colored, well - this is assuredly going to either upset you or make you all meat sweaty.

Also, Wally Koz was a gold prospector when he wasn't making this movie.

Slimy SOV slasher fun

[Bloodwank · 6/10 · 11 October 2011]

Ah, SOV slashers, so wrong, yet so delicious. 555 goes a good way towards upping the wrongness actually, there's a sexual aspect to most of the killings and the killer likes to bone chicks after he kills them so there's some good filth going on. The kills are definitely the hook here, cool sleazy stuff with blood spattered breasts (the best kind of breasts), chest carving and even a couple of real nifty gore shots that wouldn't disgrace a mainstream production. But aside from the killing, this is actually good fun stuff throughout, in fact I watched practically the whole thing sober and was rarely bored and I virtually never watch this kind of thing without regular booze intake. The key is the characters, particularly the lead, Sgt. Connor. Sgt. Connor is filth, to put it lightly, a, insanely aggressive and clueless individual who spends the entire film in a state of fulminating verbal violence so intense one expects him at times to blast steam from his ears, and is wonderfully, hilariously captured by one shotter Greg Kerouac (who in a sane world would have gone on to a lengthy and fruitful Hollywood career). Amusingly almost no one else is sympathetic, from his spineless partner, grubby journalist squeeze Susan Rather and a sleazy DA. Everyone is on the make or perpetually angry, no one is especially competent, its a heady broth of cliché fermented with fire and brimstone for the tastiest melodramatic effect. In short, great fun. Technical aspects of this one are all perfunctory but doable, director Wally Koz apparently made the film because he thought he could do better than the average no budget trash of the era and recruited various of his family to the effort (yay them!), the results are perfectly reasonable for non professionals and the general ballsiness of the film make their work all the more commendable. There are longueurs and the ending is a bit weak, but on the whole I found this one impossible not to like. As far as late 80's slasher trash goes it has a better pace than most, as well as better kills and more guts, and it's a lot crazier. I won't for a minute recommend thus to fans of legitimately "good" cinema, but I will say this is close to essential for 80's trash hounds.

The greatest movie ever made

[GeneSnitsky · 10/10 · 2 March 2005]

One day when future generations look back at American cinema, we can only pray that "555" will be the benchmark against which all other films are judged. This movie has it all: cutting edge visual effects, nudity, career-defining performances, blood, and a killer who yells "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO". Wally Koz is a genius, too bad this gem didn't have a longer run in the theaters. 555 refers to....who cares what it refers to, this is a masterpiece, twice as entertaining as "Million Dollar Baby" with five times the laughs. If you're looking for a good date film or something for the whole family to enjoy, be sure to check out "555" - the luckiest number in the whole wide world.

Endearing, Fun, and Humorous-As-Hell dialogue

[darkjosh · 7/10 · 25 August 2000]

Of all the crappy, low-budget, gore-filled, cliche'd and unscary slasher flicks I have seen, there is something that is endearing and fun that makes 555 stand out amidst the other claptrap horror films.

The film's title is laughable: 555, and its meaning is even more so: every 5th year, within 5 days, couples "fooling around" are murdered. And whats the third five mean? I still don't know, even though I've watched the film a few times now.

One of the qualities that makes 555 so fun to watch is that you can TELL its been shot on a shoe-string: the cops on the case seem to all work out of one office: its bare, small, and easily a set. There are no police cruisers to be seen; everyone drives a regular sedan with an attatchable little siren that goes on top to identify them as police. The gore effects ( of which there are many) are gratuitous, at most times very much fake, and the screams from the victims are annoying as sin: you want them to die just so they'll shut the hell up!

The actors, all amateur and some looking as if they were borrowed from the local porn studio across the way, all seem to enjoy the material.

The lead detective, however, Greg Kerouac, shines above them with his hilarious outbursts and especially his confrontations with a reporter: she calls him an a**hole, and he shoots back with "And you're a c***!" Hysterical. He truly makes the film a campy enjoyment. You can also tell the film itself was shot on a camcorder of sorts.

Don't expect to be scared while watching 555. Some of the effects may not be for the squeamish, but you certainly won't be afraid to go to bed that night. It's campy, it's low-budget, yet it's also charming, managing to make the viewer care about a few of its characters, a feat which many multi-million dollar Hollywood production can achieve at all.

7 out of 10.

Pretty Good.

[cool192 · 12 March 2000]

555 is one of the best SOV movies I have ever seen. It's very gory and violent and there are a couple of scenes that are almost unbearable to watch (like when the killer is rapeing a dead girl and when it gets a close up of the knife going into a young girl). The movie trys to be violent and gory and it really is. The acting isn't exactly the greatest, either. This isn't a movie for the little ones nor for the people who are weak in the stomach to unsettling things.

2 out of 4 stars.

Contains adult language, adult content, extreme violence, and sexual situations.

Its an OK movie. I would recommend it if your bored

[KraziKid69 · 6/10 · 5 October 2007]

This movie has the worst rep around. I have never heard of such a looked down upon movie like this one, in fact i have barley heard of this movie. I heard of this movie about 5 months ago and i wanted to see it mostly because of the campy title. Its such a weird name to a movie. When i went into some old video stores and asked if they had the movie, they looked at me as if i was kidding. I finally got a hold of a copy (and it was very hard) i was expecting a lot more than what it gave me. I was expecting a very bloody nasty movie with horrible acting. Well, it gave me the horrible acting but not all the gore i was thinking off. On the cover it says " Caution: viewing may cause severe damage to brain cells" so i was hoping to see something really nasty, but it wasn't. To sum it all up, buy the movie if you can find a copy AND GOOD LUCK WITH THAT SINCE THERE IS BAIRLY ANY. Its an OK movie but its cool to own because know one, and i meen know one knows about this movie. Its cheap, its fun, and its stupid. SEE IT!

555 stars

[kidkobra · 10/10 · 10 July 1999]

Pure moviemaking genius...this is the kind of film more people need to support. A movie the whole family can enjoy.

This film isn't the brightest lightbulb in the box, but it has potential...

[UnratedX · 6/10 · 28 March 1999]

Unknown director Wally Koz makes an attempt for a horror flick, and for the most part, it kinda works. The movie was supposed to be bloody and gory, which it is, but I couldn't help but laugh at the cheesy acting and low-budget make-up effects. First of all, the movie is shot very poorly and the audio is very cheap, just like what you would see in a porno. Secondly, the blood is purple. That speaks for itself. And when the victims scream when they're being attacked by the killer, it's the same scream recorded on a tape and played over and over again, which gets very annoying. The movie is basically about a "the killer" who catches couples in the act of fooling around, so "the killer" does away with them in sickening ways. But it's after the murders that "the killer" begins to have the real fun, because "the killer" is a necrophiliac. Anyway, to sum things up, the movie cover is awesome, the acting sucks, the make-up effects (besides the blood) are pretty cool, and the storyline has some potential. The movie is pretty rare (a good reason alone to rent it), but if you could find it, give it a try. Who knows, you might like it. UnratedX

Wicked Awesome

[shutterspeedfilmsdotcom · 27 August 2005]

OK. We've all been titillated to the brink by a movie's video box. This has one of the all-time greats in terms of sheer, animalistic exploitation appeal (decapitation by machete). I must have passed this movie 200 times during trips to the local mom and pop video store in the 80s before finally deciding I just HAD to check this thing out.

The film (woops.. can't really say that, can we?), or video, rather, is surprisingly much worse than one might expect.

The plot is extraordinarily complicated (no, I don't mean in an intelligent way) for a production this amateurish. The effects are on par with Blood Feast (except, worse). And the sight of an actor (looking amazingly like John Astin of Victor Kiriakis/Days of Our Lives fame) succo'ing another actress, as well as our villain's knife getting stuck in an actress's prop chest during a kill scene are instant scene classics. To top things off, the video feel of the movie lends a strangely arousing aesthetic quality (thanks 80s porn!).

This is surely one of the great party films (see also: Back from Hell). So much film transfers!

555 ways to die.

[HumanoidOfFlesh · 6/10 · 12 September 2010]

"555" by Wally Koz tells the story of a sadistic maniac who butchers young couples having sex.After killing the woman our psycho usually rapes her post-mortem.It's up to Sgt.Connor and his partner to find the killer before he strikes again.So every 5 years on the 5th month for 5 days the killer kills one couple a night."555" offers plenty of cheap gore and nudity.The special make-up effects are also well done for the budget that this movie had as they include bloody decapitation,a knife through the throat and various topless girls stabbed in their torsos.The acting is amateurish and the cinematography is routine,but if you are into 80's SOV horror you can't miss "555".6 out of 10.