That was an excellent one.

Please don't spend money on this.

Admirable film.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

I got this movie as I love watching horror films and I normally enjoy the horror of the past a lot more than the horror of today. This one though was just not what I was expecting. I had high hopes at the beginning when the film opened up and we are greeted with a point of view shot of the monster peeking in on a girl totally nude. However, this would not be the norm in this film, and the cynical part of me thinks this scene was added in to spice things up as the quality of this movie screams television. As did the guest starring portion of the credits. Other than this scene and one where the lead character and his new lady friend hook up, there is nothing all that risqué in this film in terms of nudity or even gore.The story has a creature lurking the city streets of L.A. killing its victims. Wait a minute, that sounds awfully familiar doesn't it? Oh yes, it is a lot like the film "The Dark", in fact this film could be "The Dark II: This Time it Actually looks like an Alien". Seriously, it is almost the same movie other than the fact the monster looks different. We get a kill, we get lead guy Tim doing scenes establishing him, another kill, and then more boring scenes that go nowhere and are pointless. Then a final showdown with said creature in a factory setting that is so slow and plodding. At least that portion of "The Dark" was fairly well done, here it just takes to long as there are to many monster walking toward our intrepid heroes. The only curve ball this movie throws is when they take out the lead guy's girlfriend and substitute her for this nerdy, but very cute girl. A nice upgrade, as the lead guy's girl wore way to much eye makeup and reminded me of that hooker from "Mitchell".So there really is not much going for this movie other than a nice nude scene at the beginning and a scene with a cute couple of skater girls later. The monster gets a lot of show too, what I mean is they are not hiding it as they must be proud of it. They should be, if this were a science fiction show like Star Trek, but this thing looks to much like an alien from a science fiction show more so than a bioengineered monster. It seems to be beating people to death at first, and I also thought it may be raping its victims because the first two victims are female. However, this is not a Roger Corman film, so no...it is not raping anyone. Even when it is sticking its tongue in its victim's mouth it is not doing anything sexual. It just has an idiotic thirst for spinal fluid. I know you are trying to be creative, but really...why not simply do blood and that way the film is at least a bit more gory.So what we have here is a film that is trying to capitalize on the success of "Alien", but rather than following that film's format, it instead thought it should be more like "The Dark" in that it is very slow, not tense and has a television movie feel to it. The lead guy is annoying, the lead female to hooker looking and the monster would look right at home in a science fiction show, but not a monster movie. You do get to see a bit of nudity, but nothing good after the first initial scene (trust me, you do not want to see the one involving the lead guy). To much awkward flirting, not enough gore! To much monster coming down hall, not enough action! To much nerdy but cute girl screaming, and not scenes of her naked! This film just does not have enough going for it to be an entertaining film and it just has a been there, done that feel for me. It not only borrows from "Alien", "The Dark", but it does the same things countless films from this era did and it brings nothing new to the table. Unless you count watching a girl skate down an entire parking garage and then slowly dressing in more clothes while feeling threatened as something new.

While Star Wars Episode V and The Howling were winning awards from the Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy & Horror Films, this film was also a winner as Best Low-Budget Film. Low-Budget filmmakers could do worse in watching how William Malone (House on Haunted Hill ) managed to make an interesting film with award winning special effects for $74,000.It was Malone's first film and it starred Diana Davidson, whom I am sure no one remembers as they girl who was shot in the swimming pool in Dirty Harry. It also stars John Stinson, Jonathan David Moses, and Toni Jannotta, in her only film. Malone made sure that he had a good selection of beautiful victims to keep your interest.The staging was good in the respect that terror was built up gradually with a lot of suspense, and the creature was only partially shown until it got towards the end. You never really knew what you were dealing with.And, of course, when it is all over, you don't really know if you solved the problem.

Cheesy & low-budgeted 80's monster movies form a truly peculiar cinema breed. A small selection of them is so bad they become good again (or at least very amusing), but most of them are so bad they're just plain awful, period. "Scared to Death" represents a category on its own, namely the absolute worst of the worst. Besides being badly written, poorly acted, weakly directed and cheesy, this film is also unimaginably boring! Horror fans, myself included - are generally quite tolerant when it comes to 80's junk, but one thing nobody can stand is a mixture of cheese and boredom. The building up towards the killings takes far too long (up to seven minutes even) and when the creature finally strikes, we see absolutely nothing and the action promptly swifts to another scene. What's that all about? The story is also pretty non-existent and incoherent as hell. It's some kind of earthbound "Alien" rip-off, with a murderous monster dwelling around the sewers and occasionally perpetrating a lonely woman's house or car in order to kill her. One incompetent cop and one pathetic ex-cop slowly (better make that VERY slowly) discover the creature is a genetic experiment that went a little awry and got dumped in the sewers by its creators. They call it a Syngenor, which stand for Synthetic Genetic Organism, and apparently it has a large appetite and a preference for young chicks on roller blades. The sub plot about the ex-cop's beautiful romance with a lady whose car he accidentally hit is totally irrelevant and dreadful. There isn't the slightest bit of suspense or any attempt to create an atmosphere; all the potentially interesting sequences are dimly lit and when we finally catch a decent glimpse of the monster it looks like a poor imitation of "Alien". The cast members are a bunch of untalented nobodies and William Malone's direction is weak and uninspired. William Malone? Wasn't he also responsible for the more recent but equally stinking pile of garbage "Feardotcom"? Twenty years later and still a lousy director, practice doesn't always makes perfect. However, his other cheesy & low-budgeted 80's monster movie "Creature" (starring Klaus Kinski!) does qualify as so bad it's good!

(Warning: I'm not fully bilingual, so please forgive me for my poor English vocabulary) This one was awful from start to finish! There was no notable action: the main characters were in a big investigation, full of dull dialogues, and the creature was just wandering around in the sewers doing some cheap kills once in a while, nothing too original, entertaining or gory.Not absolutely painful, just plain boring.If you want to see something a little better with the same creature, try Syngenor instead. I'm a big fan of the genre, especially the "so bad it's good" sub-genre, but this one is definitely not in that league. Avoid.