What makes it different from others?

i know i wasted 90 mins of my life.

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

"Headless" is one of those grubby little horror movies that looks like it was made with a few effects, gallons of blood, and a few people who owed the filmmaker a favour.It's sickening and tedious in equal measure.The 'plot' is something to do about a depraved maniac who was kept in a cage by his sadistic mother and now wears a mask and kills people.The movie is actually less concerned with the 'kills' than what he does to the bodies afterwards. Repeatedly, he decapitates the corpses (hence the title, I guess) and then appears to have sex with the neck hole. He also often removes the bodies' right eye and eats it, the camera showing white fluid from the eyeball running down his mask.Something else about the movie, which is easily forgotten because it adds nothing to the experience, is that it is presented as a lost film from 1978. The only possible use for this contrivance is that it justifies the movie's dingy production value and the fact that the entire movie seems to have been filmed through mud - as today's filmgoers may believe movies made in the seventies actually were.Hell, the original "Halloween" and "Last House on the Left" were actually filmed in the seventies and on a shoe-string budget, and they didn't look this bad.

So sometimes you watch a movie and you wonder what might have possibly been involved in the creative process leading up to the development of a motion picture and this one certainly seems to be simple to me. I'd imagine it was a group of guys sitting around a table and the conversation went a little something like this:"So... how do we make a slasher movie stand out of the crowd?" "I know! We make it really EXTREME! The media always talks about extreme movies!" "So how do we do that? It sounds like a lot of effort." "Nah, we'll just put a bunch of stuff in that everybody hates." "So what does everybody hate?" "Oooh, everybody hates cannibals!" "And rapists! Even more if they're necrophiliacs!" "And torturers!" "Great! Make our bad guy all of those things and make it as gross as possible! We're done!" "Better throw in some incestuous undertones, too, that'll make it seem deeper and more complex." "Great idea! Now let's draw straws and see who has to go home and write the script tonight."That's pretty much the vibe I got from this movie. I forced myself to sit through it to the end because I can't take a review seriously when somebody says "I turned it off half way" and that's that, but I really would have loved to.I adore horror movies, but when the writers and directors just play the "gross" card it is the least creative, insulting, lazy, slipshod cash grab that a horror movie can be. It's also essentially a middle finger in the face of the genre's audience, and it's one we've come to expect more than any other genre audience out there, unfortunate as that is.If you're going to watch this, I genuinely can say watch the first ten minutes and you've essentially seen the whole movie. It is entirely just a serial killer, cannibal, necrophiliac psychopath torturing women, decapitating them, eating their eyeballs and having sex with the severed heads and that is the entire movie. If that sounds like something you'd enjoy, have fun. I'd suggest not watching it around family or friends, though. It won't leave them with a healthy impression of you as a stable human being.

If you have seen the flick Found (2012) then you know that one of the brothers is addicted to horror movies. When he do go watch one or pick one up at the local store all titles you see are real existing flicks except for one, Headless. That particular flick took a main part in Found and it was a so-called lost flick. The fun part is that Headless can be found nowadays. It's supposed to be shot in 1978 but we all do know better.Were Found went deeply into the characterisation this one here is pure horror, and I must say a good one.If you can't stand brutal horrors then don't go watching this little stinker. The story has a weird part with the child and his skull for example and it do explains a lot towards the end but what they made was an ode to those gory flicks from the seventies. This isn't a slasher this is a gorefest. It did remind me somehow towards the cult classic The Last House On Dead End Street (1977). What you get is pure horror with extreme parts like using the severed head for having sex, a lot of decapitations, gratuitous nudity, dismembering females and sickening parts. I liked it a lot storywise because it do make sense, the effects are for a low budget so well done, congratulations to that section, and it never got a weak part. A must see for those geeks out there who do like a lot of gore and can take sexual depravity. My cup of tea.Gore 4/5 Nudity 2,5/5 Effects 4/5 Story 3/5 Comedy 0/5

I didn't know what to expect at first. I thought because it was such an old movie that it wouldn't be all that good. But it was! It was so different. Not your usual slasher movie. It wasn't boring, & even though there wasn't anything remarkable about the storyline, it was the brutality, the sickness & the retro grittyness of the movie that makes it so good. I would've given it one more star if the acting was a tad more convincing & the special fx were a little more realistic. But all in all, I don't think you will be disappointed if you enjoyed movies like: House Of 1000 Corpses, Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Dani Filth's Cradle Of Fear...