C.H.U.D. (1984) User Reviews (137)

Good movie, GREAT commentary track.

[RetroRoger · 6/10 · 10 September 2004]

Best exchange of the movie, between Daniel Stern's 'Reverend' character, and John Heard's 'Cooper', after Stern has just rescued Heard from a homeless couple who were transforming into cannibals:

Stern: "You Cooper?"

Heard: "Yeah ... who are you?"

Stern: "I run the soup kitchen ..."

Heard: "On Kenman?"

Stern: "Right ..."

Heard: "THANK GOD THEY DELIVER!"

You have to see it to appreciate it. The fact that this dialogue was ad-libbed says a lot about the gonzo film-making that produced C.H.U.D.

Story writer Shep Abbott came up with the word, "CHUD" during a party with actors Stern and Heard. The trio then brainstormed a movie idea around the word, Abbott wrote up an extreeemely rough draft (he'd never written a screenplay before), and it ended up on the slush pile of producer Andrew Bonime.

Bonime tried to get Abbott to polish the script, but was never satisfied with the rewrites (partially due to Abbott's inexperience), and took the screenplay away from Abbott, giving it to writer Parnell Hall.

Bonime had picked up the project partially because Abbott could get Daniel Stern and John Heard to star. (Heard and Stern have worked together in a number of movies over the years, including 'Home Alone I & II' and 'The Milagro Beanfield War'.)

The two actors agreed to work for scale plus a percentage of the profits, but insisted that Christoper Curry be hired to play the part of Police Detective Bosch, and that Douglas Cheek be hired as director. This didn't sit well with Bonime, but he agreed and the movie was produced.

Stern and Heard were not happy with what had been done to their friend's original script, and did their own page re-writes and ad-libs, which director Cheek left in the final cut. Bonime insisted that a shower scene with actress Kim Griest be written in, which Stern, Heard, and Cheek still complain about, 17 years later, on the DVD's audio commentary.

However, the unedited version of the shower scene (with Griest's body double) appears as an easter egg on the DVD. (From the main menu, click on Extras. At the top of the Extras menu is 'Trailer'. Click the Up button on your remote, and the eyes of the C.H.U.D. in the background will be highlighted. Click Enter, and the 'Unabridged Scene' will play.)

Despite, or perhaps because of, the civil war on the set, C.H.U.D. is a pretty decent horror relic from the 80's. Watch the movie first, then listen to Stern, Heard, Curry, Cheek, and Abbott do a hilarious commentary track. Stern boos and hisses when Parnell Hall's name comes on the screen. You'll find out that most of the cast are wives, sisters, or good friends with Stern and Heard. You'll learn how they wanted the monsters to look, and much more. And they really have fond, funny memories of the film, despite all the turmoil.

As a counterpoint to their comments, producer Andrew Bonime set up a website, telling his own side of the story.

Don't miss sitcom stars John Goodman and Jay Thomas in bit parts as extremely unlucky cops, during the movie's last half hour. This scene was placed at the end of the movie during its theatrical release, but has been moved to its correct sequence for the DVD.

I rate the movie, 'C.H.U.D.' a 6; with the commentary track running, it's easily an 8 or 9. Best cut-ups since the MST3K 'bots.

More than just a 'monster movie'

[bowmanblue · 7/10 · 11 July 2020]

If you look at the crop of 'video nasties' and general 'monster movies' that came out in the eighties then it's pretty easy to lump 'C.H.U.D.' in with those. Most promotional material shows the ugly old monster with its glowing eyes and you'll probably think it's just another man in a rubber suit chomping his way through some semi-clad teens. But you might be wrong.

'C.H.U.D.' is an example of making the most of what you have. Monster effects clearly don't come cheap (even in the eighties!), so what you get is quite sparse when it comes to 'creature effects.' However, not only does this build up the tension quite nicely when you only really see parts of the monster (think the way 'Alien' did it), but it also gives plenty of time to the human characters - who are definitely NOT semi-clad blonde teens!

I felt the story had shades of 'Jaws,' i.e. someone with knowledge of what's really happening, trying to get a public area closed, but only to face opposition from the powers in charge who feel that any form of closure would hurt businesses/the economy. What follows is a mix of characters trying to get parts of New York closed because there are some pretty nasties creatures living in the sewers who have suddenly developed quite a liking for human flesh.

The cast, mainly led by John Heard, are all adults and all get their fair share of screen time. Plus those you may think may end up getting eaten/captured actually do their bit in terms of 'character development' and also break a few horror movie cliches here and there.

When you do finally see the monsters in their 'full glory' - yes, they look about as convincing as most creatures of the era, but if you can forgive that, you can also 'enjoy' the amount of realistic gore that's been included in terms of dead, mutilated bodies strewn around New York.

If you're a fan of 'monster-munching' movies, or like your old cheesy eighties horror flicks, this one definitely deserves a watch as there are plenty of gory and gruesome moments and even a few plot points you may not see coming.

B-listers battle homeless monsters for food stamps...

[Jonny_Numb · 5/10 · 27 February 2006]

"C.H.U.D." is one of those semi-name oddities that always stood out on video store shelves when I was a youth (lamenting the 'parental lock' on all horror movies I so badly wanted to rent), what with the darkened figures congregating around a manhole, eyes glowing white. Years later, I have finally gotten a chance to see the film, and my response is pretty mixed: it lies somewhere between the Land of Campy and the Dominion of Creepy, with some elements of the Retro Rest Area thrown in for good measure. "C.H.U.D." takes a formula familiar to anybody who's seen a '50s 'Big Bug' flick: Evil Guys In Suits are dumping toxic waste where it doesn't belong (in this case, the sewers below Manhattan), thus inspiring some unexpected and unpleasant side effects in the homeless people living under the city--they transform into C.H.U.D.s (Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dwellers), reptilian-looking monsters with a taste for human flesh. While the premise is extremely cheesy, director Douglas Cheek teeters the line between camp and horror rather well--not all-out serious nor a straight romp, it strikes a fair balance (the creepily minimalist, synth-driven score helps, too). The cast of semi-name actors (John Heard, Kim Greist, and a wonderfully wiggy Daniel Stern) treat the material at face value, but never wink at the camera, thus engendering a bizarre charm to the events that transpire. Unfortunately, even for a film that plays as fast and loose as "C.H.U.D." does, it leaves a few too many unresolved plot points for my liking. But if you want something a fair distance from the mainstream radar, greased with the grimy spirit of the 1980s, look no further than "C.H.U.D."

Enjoyable b-grade trash.

[Infofreak · 29 April 2003]

I can't make a case for 'C.H.U.D.' being one of THE great lost horror movies of the 1980s, but it's surprising just how watchable it is almost twenty years later! The acronym in the title stands for Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dwellers (as well as something else, revealed in the movie), and that just about tells you everything you need to know. John Heard, a talented actor who never became the star he was tipped to be (just rent 'Cutter's Way' for proof of his potential), plays a photographer who had taken some photos of homeless people who now seem to have disappeared off the face of the Earth. Kin Griest ('Brazil') plays Heard's supportive girlfriend, Daniel Stern ('Diner') an oddball who runs a soup kitchen who has noticed the absence of many of his regulars, and Christopher Curry ('Starship Troopers') a cop investigating a series of mysterious murders. Their investigations all lead in the same direction.... the sewer. The supporting cast also includes small roles from John Goodman ('The Big Lebowski') and quite a few other comic actors, though 'C.H.U.D.' unlike its sequel is not SUPPOSED to be a comedy. No doubt you will get a few unintentional laughs out of it, as it is pretty cheesy, but it's still entertaining enough in a b-grade way. I haven't seen the DVD of this one yet, which I believe has some amusing commentaries by the cast, but as a stand alone movie it's enjoyable trash and worth a rental.

Not the Cult classic others make it out to be

[loomis78-815-989034 · 5/10 · 24 April 2013]

Captain Bosch (Curry) starts an investigation when his wife doesn't come back from a walk one night. People have been disappearing near this city block for awhile and Bosch meets A.J. Sheppard (Stern) who runs a soup kitchen. He notes that a lot of his regulars who live underground have also come up missing. The city has dumped toxic waste below the streets and the Homeless people are turning into mutant monsters. A photographer (Heard) gets mixed up in the mess while trying to do a story on the homeless people. This low budget horror film has a very good cast for a B movie monster flick. The monsters have a cool look to them but we don't see much of them. There's a lot of rubbery clawed hands pushing doors in and pulling people out of frame, instead of them showing full on monster attacks. There is a decent amount of gore all though it is pretty fake looking. The cover-up by the city is an interesting storyline and Stern as the dirty revolutionary is a lot of fun. Unfortunately the movie never gets scary at all and seeing the mutant monsters more would have helped this. The movie has developed a cult following through the years, but as a monster flick it is pretty tame.

"C.H.U.D."'s No Dud, But It Sure Piles On The Crud!

[ferbs54 · 6/10 · 9 December 2009]

A movie more well known today for its infamous acronym of a title than anything else, "C.H.U.D." (short for Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dwellers...as well as something else) is a shoddily made, dingy affair from 1984 that still manages to somehow entertain. In it, the city of New York has come under attack by these monstrous denizens of the sewer lines and subway system (or is that a redundancy?), the result of the ill-considered dumping of radioactive waste by those bastids at the NRC, and a beleaguered cop (Christopher Curry), a hippy-type soup kitchen owner (Daniel Stern) and a hunky fashion photographer (John Heard) try to get to the, uh, bottom of the escalating nastiness. Befitting its grimy underground milieu and many seedy characters, the film has a dark, dirty feel but is still fun to watch; "C.H.U.D."'s no dud, but it sure piles on the crud! The film would surely have benefited from a larger budget--its glowing-orbed monsters look pretty ridiculous when seen clearly--but still features decent-enough acting, an effectively somber synth score by Cooper Hughes, an explosive shower scene, John Goodman and Jay Thomas (of all people!) as a pair of goofy cops, and some mildly effective gross-outs. As far as monster movies go, it is nothing special, but still fun enough, and deserving of much more than the "Bomb" rating that the drips at Maltinville have given it. And really, how can you dislike any film that manages to quote from both the Grateful Dead's "Uncle John's Band" AND Talking Heads' "Life During Wartime"? The picture is well presented on this Anchor Bay DVD, and includes some interesting extras as well. As revealed in the book "DVD Delirium," not to be missed is the hidden "Easter egg" extra, located by clicking on the C.H.U.D.'s eyes in the main menu. Fans of the film's female star, Kim Greist, should certainly appreciate this one! And oh...I love the appropriate name of the actor who plays the film's coroner: Henry Yuk!

Crud

[slokes · 1/10 · 26 May 2005]

One of the opening images in "C.H.U.D" is a full-on shot of a truck banner reading "Slow Moving Vehicle." That's the most valid image in the whole movie.

Under Manhattan, mysterious creatures terrorize the homeless who live in the sewers, and begin striking those who walk the streets as well. When one disappearance involves a precinct captain's wife, the captain starts investigating the situation by asking around a neighborhood soup kitchen.

The captain, Bosch, is played by Christopher Curry, a here-and-gone Martin Mull lookalike whose casual handling of his wife's disappearance would come off as absurd if we hadn't previously gotten a load of what she looks like. While Curry is the main actor, two better-known names have key supporting roles, Daniel Stern as the grimy soup kitchen director (only the destitute would accept a meal from him) and John Heard as a photographer.

Heard's character has little to do with the story, and the way he's brought in is lazy and forced. He has some photos of streetpeople, and one homeless woman calls him for bail. He takes a photo of a gored leg that shows something sinister is going on, though all I saw was bad make-up. Through most of the film, we see him blow off deadlines and interact unaffectionately with his live-in girlfriend, played by Kim Griest. Heard here is smug and charmless, yet we are supposed to be impressed by him because he's played by the great John Heard.

The torpor and aimlessness of "C.H.U.D." amaze me. Sewer creatures rising up in the big city is not a bad concept, but not only does the film fail to do anything with it, we get a lot of inert moments where people trade cliché-ridden dialogue like: "Keep a lid on it." "Nothing, huh? Sounds interesting." "Watch your step, Bosch, remember you don't belong here." "I don't believe you! What are you trying to hide?"

There's a stonewalling government official played by George Martin who bulges his eyes and sneers at every question and gives us an obvious central villain since the budget is too cheap to show us much of the monsters. The creatures are meant to horrify but merely look like inept Halloween window displays, while the unbearable synthesized score sounds like a seven-year-old toying with a department-store display organ. Then you get goofy sequences like the one where Griest is in a shower, gets drenched in blood, and is next seen dry and unfazed. Must have set the showers controls on "Bobby Ewing."

The whole movie is like that, jumping from effect to effect, hitting us with little shock moments here and there, not tying anything in. This is not scary, just annoying.

It's true I didn't see the director's cut, which is a bit longer and shows one C.H.U.D. attack in the middle rather than at the end of the film, where it makes less sense. But whatever the editing, the product on screen is deadly dull, and surprisingly unfunny given its enduring cult reputation. "C.H.U.D" gets mentioned as an askew satire, but just isn't in the same class as "Tremors" or "Return of the Living Dead," let alone an Evil Dead film. To recite another cliché: You have been warned.

Poorly made but fun 80's trash!

[Coventry · 6/10 · 24 November 2005]

The coolest abbreviation in horror cinema stands for Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dwellers (as well as something else) and refers to hideous monsters with fluorescent eyes that live in the sewers of Soho. Their existence is the result of years of dumping radioactive toxic waste down there and now these monsters are responsible for an incredible amount of missing-persons cases. Everyone in Soho is affected by the city council's cover-up. Soup kitchen owner A.J reports a lot of his homeless friends missing, independent photographer Cooper is begged for help by people who live underground and police captain Bosh has even lost his wife. For some incomprehensible reason, I always loved this trashy 80's film and can't possibly bring myself to spread negative comments on it, no matter how stupid the plot is or no matter how cheesy the make-up effects actually are. For what it's worth, "C.H.U.D" is a hugely entertaining monster film with a couple of atmospheric set pieces and several comical dialogues. Elements that increase the fun-level are a pointless, yet bloody shower sequence and a C.H.U.D who stretches his neck muscles seemly without a specific goal. This poverty row horror production is surprisingly blessed with a great cast! Daniel Stern, John Heard and Christopher Curry all prove they're gifted actors who never got the breakthrough they deserved. Good fun, highly recommended but – whatever you do – keep away from the retarded sequel.

Clichéd, predictable, poorly-made monster movie with some redeeming humor.

[capkronos · 3/10 · 30 August 2014]

George Cooper (John Heard) is a burnt out photographer who's trying to take his career in another direction. After spending years shooting fashion and commercial campaigns, he's finally received some acclaim for a piece he's done about the homeless. Now he's being pigeonholed all over again and has been roped into doing a second story on the homeless; this time one about "subterranean bums" living in the tunnels and caves beneath New York City. George doesn't really seem sure what he wants, but his model girlfriend Lauren (Kim Greist) is pregnant and he's happy about it, so I guess he has that much going for him. Elsewhere in the Soho district of Manhattan, people have been disappearing at an alarming rate. Soup kitchen worker A.J. aka The Reverend (Daniel Stern) has noticed a lot of his regulars haven't been showing up for dinner, but the police - headed by Captain Bosch (Christopher Curry) - don't bother starting an investigation until Bosch's own wife and other more esteemed members of the community start turning up missing.

C.H.U.D. stands for two things in this film. Seeing how one of those is "Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dwellers," you can probably guess just what has been responsible for the sudden rash of disappearances. The creatures, which are clawed, fanged and have glowing eyes, had once been bums living in the sewers beneath the city until being mutated by exposure to radioactivity and picking up a taste for human flesh in the process. They stay out of sight until they're hungry and then pop out of manholes long enough to drag dinner down there with them. Our trio of heroes eventually learn that Wilson (George Martin) and his cohorts at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission have been dumping toxic waste into the NYC sewers for years, and the city's police chief (Eddie Jones) has been helping them cover it all up.

I have no clue what some others see in this dreary and completely routine film aside from the fun title. Hardly anything surprising ever happens. Nearly every frame has been shot before, every character has been seen before, any chance at fun is consistently undermined by the depressing, grimy setting and the whole cover-up subplot is THE laziest possible way to structure one of these things. Other moments, like Greist's character (who contemplates getting an abortion earlier on) getting sprayed down with blood after trying to unclog a bath tub with a clothes hanger, seem like botched attempts at social statement. The creature design isn't exactly awful, but you can certainly see much better-looking creatures elsewhere. C.H.U.D. is also excessively talky. There's a surprisingly low amount of horror scenes, nearly all of the carnage takes place off screen and the creature action is slim, which are the only things that could have possibly made the useless plot worth sitting through.

The only real pluses here are a few good lead actors (whose talents are wasted in service of a film beneath them) and some amusing lines of dialogue (apparently much of it improvised on the spot). There are also brief appearances from some up-and-coming (and now fairly well-known) actors like John Goodman, Sam McMurray and Patricia Richardson. None of them are given much of anything to do here. In fact, the scene with Goodman and comedian Jay Thomas was completed removed from some prints of the film and was also moved around in the narrative to several different places in other cuts. The fact you can put an entire scene in the middle of a movie, at the very end of a movie or remove it altogether and it doesn't make any difference whatsoever pretty much says all that needs to be said about the movie in general.

The film received terrible reviews upon release and wasn't a big hit or anything, but a sequel nobody asked for was made anyway. It turned out to be a follow-up in-name-only and was a zombie comedy that has nothing at all to do with this original film.

Worth Watching

[matthewstanton123-857-954811 · 6/10 · 19 January 2020]

Forgot the bad title this is wonderful horror film , great cast, the creatures look cool and the story is good Worth a watch if you like 80s horror it makes a nice change from slashers film from that era

I would have preferred more monsters less bureaucrat type stuff

[Aaron1375 · 4/10 · 12 May 2009]

I have seen this film a couple of times. The first time, I was a kid and my parents rented it and I remember being disappointed. The next time was tonight and I was again, disappointed by it. What is wrong with it, you ask? Well, imagine watching an Alien film, they show you an exciting scene, but then they show you like a Waylon Corporation meeting where they discuss different agendas and things they wish to accomplish. From time to time, they show you something that makes you think the film is about to take off, then you get to watch Ripley discussing things with her boyfriend who doesn't understand that there may be some sort of conspiracy. That is what this film does, it starts out with a bang, there are good scenes throughout the picture and the monsters look great! Unfortunately, they are too busy trying to show us all this fluff rather than the monsters attacking. So it ends up being a slow moving horror film with a few good scenes here and there to make you think about how much potential the film had and how good the premise was. Premise, so many horror movies have a good to even great premise, but it ends up failing in how it plays out and with this one, we get another one that had potential that ended up being wasted.

The story, a woman is walking her dog and is pulled into the sewers by some monstrous looking arm. Flash to a photographer, who does not seem to like taking photos of any kind. I mean, the man doesn't really want to take journalistic photos nor does he apparently want to take fashion pictures. Well, he has taken pictures of people who are homeless and live underground in New York City. A police captain seems to be forced to withhold information regarding missing persons; however, his wife is one of the missing so he goes to a guy who runs a soup kitchen who has noticed that many of the homeless that he feeds have been turning up missing and many of those missing are among those who lives underground. Through all this we have some conspiracy stuff going on and occasionally we see a monster attack and just as it looks like the film is about to have an all out attack as the creatures attack a grill, we get more conspiracy stuff.

This film was a bit of success as people still talk about the C.H.U.D's today. I even remember it being featured on an episode of the Simpsons as one of the reasons Homer dislikes New York is the C.H.U.D's. It probably made its mark more due to the fact they did a really good advertising campaign than the film itself. The film itself as I have stated is kind of a bore for the most part, but I still remember the trailers showing the woman walking her dog being pulled into the sewer. Kind of like the Ghoulies, not a very good film, but it made money thanks to an ad campaign where they featured the creature popping out of the toilet. Another film that was a bit of a disappointment was Blood Beach, that once again had a really good ad campaign behind it. There is another film that is very similar to this one in terms of plot commonly known as Mutant. It was a bit better than this one, but it had the problem of being a very poorly lit film.

So, this one to me was a disappointment. I just think that if you make a fairly decent looking monster, you show it in action. These monsters are very above average in how they look so I am not sure why they decided to not show them much at all. The last scene of the film, they are not even featured at all, instead they focus on the conspiracy side of things. The film should of had more monsters and more monsters eating people, instead we get just a few scenes like this and a lot of stuff that seems like filler, and there is just way too much filler going on! I mean, the main character, the photographer almost seems pointless at times. Though, despite the fact I do not really consider this a good film, still better than the sequel!

C.H.U.D. DVD is a Director's Cut!

[theCHUD · 10/10 · 6 February 2001]

I have been a big fan of this movie for many years (I love the 80's genre films). Just this weekend I bought the DVD and watched it. To my surprise, I found this version of the film to be about 7 minutes longer than my VHS copy (an original former rental). There are 4 noticable new scenes, the original ending is placed in the middle of the film and the ending is now different (no hint of a sequel). The extra scenes explain Captain Bosch's erratic behavior in the final 15 minutes of the film and gives the overall movie an better flow. If you are a fan of this film, I strongly suggest you pick up the DVD, as this new version is even more enjoyable. Also, it has commentary by the director, screenwriter and the three top billed actors.

Highly recommended for DVD collectors out there!

Homeless People Beware!

[hyperfixx · 7/10 · 12 May 2019]

C.H.U.D. (1984)

Something weird is going on down in the sewers and the homeless people who live inside them are disappearing. A cop, a reporter, and a man who runs a soup kitchen want answers, but the city officials ain't talking. A classic 80's movie with practical creature effects and the underground dwellers still look cool with their yellow glowing eyes. It's also nice to see actors I had forgotten about (John Heard, Daniel Stern, Christopher Curry) in their heyday. Many 80's horror movies and plot lines seem innocent and unrealistic by today's standards and seeing the twin towers in some of the scenes brings that point home. It's a throwback to a time when movies were fun and a little goofy and not to be taken so seriously. I miss the 80's, but gems like this bring it all back. 7 out of 10 stars.

Great cast smothered by marginal material.

[TOMASBBloodhound · 3/10 · 18 July 2008]

Obviously, one does not put this into the DVD player and expect a masterpiece of horror. But one would hope that it would be a little more gory or a little more fun. The cast is full of actors who have proved themselves over the years. Heck, even John Goodman pops up as a cop in a diner scene who soon becomes CHUD food.

The problems are very numerous with this venture. The writing is incredibly inept. The direction is lacking. The pacing is really off, as well. One of the biggest flaws is with the basic story construction. There are simply too many characters. Kim Greist is nice to look at, and gives maybe the best performance, but her character is really tacked on. She just gives us a pretty face to put in danger. She and John Heard have no chemistry what so ever, and I did not buy them for an instant as a couple. But these kinds of problems are found in some of even the most watchable of horror films. Why are they so noticeable here? The true flaw of CHUD is that it just isn't either scary or exciting. The CHUD monsters, who are homeless people exposed to radiation, look kind of cool. They look kind of like the mutated salmon in Humanoids From the Deep. Only they have glowing yellow eyes! But they don't seem to move fast enough to be a threat to anyone under age 80. Their sharp claws and teeth aren't enough to make them seem formidable. We don't see enough of them in action, either. Only body parts and wounds from their victims. This is a sign of a very low budget. And of course the government, working with big industry types is the culprit. Once the head of the chemical company is killed at the end, the film concludes abruptly and on a high note. As if killing this suit is all that really needed to be done. What about all of the monsters still left in the sewers??? Other than the one beheaded by Ms. Greist, I don't recall seeing any of the others killed! What the heck? This really could have been more exciting. There are not enough funny lines either in the script, but there are a few chuckles. The whole thing is topped off by a putrid synthesizer score. Really it isn't worth more than 3 of 10 stars.

The Hound.

Brother Can You Spare a Dime

[BaronBl00d · 17 April 2001]

C.H.U.D. is one of those movies that should be bad because its about subterrainian ground-dwellers that are cannibalistic living in a poor area of New York City. There are no big stars in the film, yet John Heard and Daniel Stern are not nobodies either. The budget for the film was obviously limited, yet, despite these possible criticisms, I was pleasantly surprised after seeing this film. This is a wonderful film filled with tension, good acting, a thoughtful script, witty dialogue, and some creatures that certainly looked pretty scary to me. The basic premise of the film is that homeless folks that live underground have come in contact with radioactive materials which transform them into horrible-looking mutants that go on a rampage and kill men and women for dinner. The creatures look quite impressive. This film also throws some social commentary into the mix as well concerning the ever burgeoning homeless problem as well as the storage of harmful wastes. The acting all around was pretty good with Christopher Curry standing out as a policeman and George Martin as a city official seemingly in charge. Good Stuff Here!

Better than expected, but still a B-movie.

[paulclaassen · 5/10 · 16 July 2020]

I don't know why I always believed this to be a comedy with bad acting. On the contrary, this is a serious movie with good actors and a pretty good script.

So, C.H.U.D. stands for Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dweller, or Contamination Hazard Urban Disposal, as it is later revealed. Either way, that's a mouthful! Considering this is a monster movie, we didn't really get to see enough monsters, did we? Instead, the film played like a dramatic thriller, with monsters now and then. Despite this fact, I rather enjoyed the movie as it is. It was an interesting mystery thriller (to a certain extent), and I actually never found it boring. I enjoyed the characters, who were nicely fleshed out so I cared about all of them.

I must admit, the creature designs are bad. At times it was obvious they were only hand props, or a guy in a suit - with glowing eyes... yup...! Let's blame the budget, shall we? In general this was rather entertaining.

Crafty. Hokey. Utterly Demented

[CuriosityKilledShawn · 7/10 · 31 October 2004]

Honestly, I wasn't expecting to like CHUD. I only got it out of curiosity as it was one of those horror movies I used to see in the video store as a kid. While it may be low-budget schlock it's still rather good.

John Heard plays a photojournalist who is suspicious of multiple disappearings in his New York neighborhood. The local Fuzz are suspicious too. As is a half-man soup-kitchen Reverend (Daniel Stern). Together they uncover a ruthless plot by some government scumbags (are there any other kind).

The monsters may be cheap looking but they still make formidable bad guys and set pieces still excite. For all it's low-budgetness, CHUD still has a decent plot, good characters and, would you believe, a surprising twist near the end.

Just try to ignore the reeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaalllllly tacky synthesizer score and enjoy the OTT silliness. And keep a lookout for John Goodman and Jon Polito.

The DVD is in not bad-looking 1.78:1 anamorphic widescreen with Mono sound. Extras are a trailer and a hilarious commentary track with Heard, Douglas Cheek and Christopher Curry but dominated by Daniel Stern.

Premise better than execution.

[Cobbler · 4/10 · 17 December 2001]

I agree with the previous reviewers who noted that the premise of C.H.U.D. is much better than the execution. The idea of radiation in the subways turning homeless folks into cannibalistic monsters is awesome. And I liked the cop searching for his wife, the photographer doing a story on vagrants, the crazy soup kitchen dude, etc. Unfortunately, the script is seriously underwritten and the characters are not sufficiently fleshed out, neither are the situations. To me, the film deserved a more gritty, less cheesey (i.e., fake gore and goofy looking monsters) approach, with a more visually gifted director (David Fincher perhaps?) and better actors than John Heard and Daniel Stern (who aren't bad, by the way.) See Alligator (1980) as an example of a movie like this that is done well. I give C.H.U.D. 4/10. (One extra star for the title.)

CHUD doesn't take it self too seriously and neither should you.

[cleaneatingchefkatiejacoby · 6/10 · 20 May 2023]

Super fun camp thriller. A subterranean monster is attacking drunks and the homeless underground. The cops want to look the other way until the Sheriff's wife goes missing and he reaches out to an old associate. "The Reverend" (Daniel Stern) runs a soup kitchen for the underground inhabitants. He knows something is a miss as 12 of his patrons have gone missing recently. Somehow photographer (John Heard) is invested...we don't really know why other than he saw something once. I like that Merv (Stern) and Kevin's dad (Heard) costar in this, and that's basically it for their careers. That's so 80/90s as is this movie. Could have used major edits.

Not really worth watching imo

[reddiemurf81 · 3/10 · 6 May 2020]

Meh,, other than a few familiar faces in the lead (John Heard and Daniel Stern from Home Alone) and a brief appearance by another (John Goodman), this early 80s creature feature left me unengaged,,, just pass on this one,,,

Decent (mostly boring) Horror with a great RAW finalé

[VisionExile · 6/10 · 2 August 2019]

If only the first hour had been more like the last 30 minutes.....OR BETTER YET--like the final 10 minutes. Dragging and slow, and that doesn't even describe the actions of the underground dwellers or the overground characters. And, the CHUDs are great, but not seen enough. Well done creature effects.....more screen time would have allowed them to be household names along with Vorhees and Krueger. Really nice looking, and almost worth seeing the whole movie to see these creatures on screen. More screentime for these savage characters could have drastically improved this movie- they aren't really seen until about the 60 minute mark. Lots of other graphic gore as well: post-attack bodies that look almost too realistic. Disturbing, but impressive. Cool for those who appreciate rubber-suit monsters/fx of the past.

The plot seemed slow, and the characters bland. A.J. The Reverend was maybe the best character. The homeless population didn't really become too differentiated- more of a faceless crowd. Bygone New York also makes for a nice environment, with the urban grit and dark, shabby corners. The police and political corruption help the story along, but not really in any colorful way. Blah. THE FINAL 10 MINUTES ARE TERRIFIC! They don't fully redeem the movie, but help the viewer forget how much this story dragged during the first hour. Sort of like Escape From NY- insane disregard for whatever SHOULD happen at the end.

Maybe this could be remade, especially using the refurbished/rebuilt NYC as a backdrop for a new wave of attacks by the remaining CHUDs. Possibly as a reminder of the city's dangerous, corrupt, and dirty past. And as a reminder of the danger and oblivion lurking so, so close by in everyone's daily normalized life. Random fate can be cruel. Especially considering the current environmental contempt shown by so many toward the planet, this super monster might scare some into taking better care of their home.

Chudless

[SpaceMonkey907 · 1/10 · 13 April 2019]

Lots of talk about people missing. Pointless side characters and story. Barely a Chud in sight throughout the entire movie. The movie is bad which is a shame because the concept, idea is great. Missed opportunity.

One of the best monster movies of the 80's...

[Lone Wolf · 10/10 · 29 May 2001]

I'm not one who goes for slasher flicks... I never understood the popularity of Friday the 13th or Nightmare on Elm Street. But then, this isn't the typical 80's slasher flick... it's a fun and scary monster movie that actually draws emotion from its viewers that make you root for the heroes, despise the villains, and cheer when the CHUDs get the ***t kicked out of them.

Sure, it's got a low budget... but the story is good (probably with a grain of truth, too!) and the sewer sets look good. Daniel Stern is great as the cook/manager of a soup kitchen who is wondering where his assorted homeless buddies have dissapeared to. Christopher Curry is also very good as a police officer searching for his missing wife. The scenes with Curry and Stern are funny and it's neat to watch a friendship develop between them as they deal with the rampaging CHUDs.

Watch for John Goodman as a cop who gets slaughtered in a diner... this was one of his earliest screen roles. Stay away from CHUD 2 unless you REALLY like bad, campy horror. CHUD is freaking Shakespeare compared to CHUD 2.

In short: CHUD is a fun monster movie. Watch it by yourself or with friends... either way it's a good way to spend an hour and a half. Not overly gory like a bad slasher flick, not packed to the gills with nude women. Just a good cast and some funny, scary, and exciting cinema.

It's interesting to note that the original cut of the film that I saw on HBO differs from the regular TV version. The original mentions a slaughter in a diner where there's blood on all the walls but no bodies. At the end, a couple of bums see the CHUDs approaching "another" diner (the John Goodman cameo) and quickly scamper off. The last thing you see is a few CHUDs breaking into the diner to wreck havoc. The TV version has the diner slaughter in the proper timeline... you see it before, during, and after (when the cops find the bloody diner with no bodies). Strange that it would be edited that way, but so be it. 7 out of 10 - but not recommended for the uptight or "serious" moviegoer. If you can't appreciate Tremors, Lake Placid, or even Godzilla, then don't see this movie.

Looking for scrapes, above-ground.

[lost-in-limbo · 6/10 · 30 July 2007]

In the SoHo area homeless people who live underground are disappearing, but also people above ground strolling around at night are ending up on the 'missing persons' list. Police Captain Bosch starts to dig a little deep into the case, due to his wife being one of those missing persons. He comes across soup kitchen hand AJ and the two discover that the government is dumping toxic waste in the city's sewers and this accidentally creates species known as C.H.U.D. "Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dwellers." Also finding their way into the mess is photograph George Cooper and his model girlfriend Lauren Daniels.

The spirit of 80s runs freely in this fun, effective little b-grade charmer. This junk was low cost and for that reason plenty of the action occurred off-screen due to limitations. The goofy make-up effects aren't too bad and do create something incredibly hideous in their few glimpses. Gore is limited, with mainly the aftermath of the attacks making their way on the screen. Shepard Abbott's original story resembles something out the 50s-monster films, where it was more concerned about characters, mystery and development progression. The structure actually shifts about, before every sub-plot comes together. The lively script is occasionally witty and involving (it even throws in some social plight on the treatment of homeless), but in certain scenes it's probably a bit too long in the tooth and ragged. The ludicrous premise lingers somewhere between subtle dark camp and straight-laced horror, but director Douglas Cheek's minimal touch keeps the film lively with an upbeat tempo and flashes of atmospheric suspense and jolts. While being corny, it never really goes overboard and Cheek competently handles the material. Cooper Hughes' hovering and spotty electronic music score stays fairly creepy and moody. Helping out was that of authentic New York locations, which breathed an eerie atmospheric tenor and grungy look. Above par acting made sure that there was amusing characters. John Heard, Daniel Stern, Christopher Curry and Kim Greist are pleasantly likable in their solid offbeat performances. They play it pretty straight. Throughout the feature are short, but enjoyable comic cameos in the likes of John Goodman, Jon Polito and John Bedford Lloyd to name a few. Now that title for the film is extremely wicked.

P.s The DVD group commentary track is a complete hoot. Just like the film it's silly, but still informative.

The Director's Cut doesn't improve matters much.

[BA_Harrison · 5/10 · 16 January 2016]

I first heard about '80s creature feature C.H.U.D. in the pages of Fangoria, where I was particularly impressed by a selection of gruesome stills featuring mangled corpses, victims of the film's Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dwellers, homeless people who have mutated into hideous monsters after exposure to toxic waste dumped in the sewers. Unfortunately, when I finally caught up with the film on UK home video, I was extremely disappointed: not only was most of the juicy gore absent—which, at the time, I put down to the scissor-happy attitude of the British censors—but the film's pacing was weak and the narrative disjointed.

I later learnt that the version I saw on video was actually a heavily butchered TV edit which screwed around with the order of the scenes. The Director's Cut, now available on DVD, not only includes the missing gore, but also puts events back in their correct order; however, even though things are now as they were originally intended by director Douglas Cheek, C.H.U.D. still feels like it could do with more work, the film devoting far too much screen-time to dull chit-chat when it should be delivering monster mayhem. When the creatures do appear, the film is a lot of fun, the creepy critters boasting rubbery claws, snaggle teeth and glowing eyes; there just isn't enough of the good stuff to offset all of the scenes where very little of interest occurs.

4.5/10, rounded up to 5 for the decapitated heads, one of which belongs to a C.H.U.D. that meets the business end of a samurai sword.