The Mangler (1995) User Reviews (97)

A bizarre film that I quite liked for some reason.

[poolandrews · 5/10 · 7 May 2012]

The Mangler is set in the small town of Riker's Valley in Maine where Wiliam Gartley (Robert Englund) owns & runs the Blue Ribbon Laudrey plant where a worker named Adelle Frawley (Vera Blacker) is killed when she is pulled into the huge sheet pressing mangler, detective John Hutton (Ted Levine) is sent to investigate but it seems at first like a unfortunate accident but becomes suspicious when he feels that Gartley is using his power & influence to cover it up. Then a young boy is found dead in an icebox that had come from the laundry plant, together with his neighbour & friend Mark Jackson (Danial Matmor) who is also an anthropology student Hutton digs deeper & comes to believe that the giant mangler is possessed by a demon who Gartley & the other rich & powerful people in town had sacrificed their own daughters to on their sixteenth birthdays. Together the pair decide to perform an exorcism...

This American, Australian & South African co-production was directed by Tobe Hooper this was based on a short story written by Stephen King & originally published in his Night Shift collection published in 1977 which I have not read but by all accounts is enjoyable enough, the films runs for over an hour & forty minutes so the script obviously has to add to the original short & it does so by introducing a sacrificial subplot in which some of the townspeople sacrifice their own children to the demon possessed mangler for wealth & prosperity but that contradicts King's original story & the film itself as elements of King's story still remain. The Mangler starts with the dropping of the pills containing the Hand of Glory into the mangler & the young virgin cutting her hand spilling her blood on the mangler which is how it's supposed to come to life in the first place but the back-story about the sacrificial offerings indicates that the mangler was possessed already so how do you work that one out? Despite the confusion I did actually quite lie The Mangler, it's something different if nothing else & the sheer silliness & absurdity of a huge laundry press possessed by a demon from hell is amusing in itself, like King's original the script is played totally straight which I thought was alright. While not the most coherent film ever & it can drag a little in places overall I liked the originality on show here, the character's are OK with Hutton making for a sleazy by likable anti-hero & Gartley is a bizarre villain. I really can't say I hated The Mangler but at the same time it's far from perfect, the significance of the pills is a bit hard to grasp & the talk of demons & exorcisms does get a little dry & dull at times.

Tobe Hooper has often been called a horror master & has made some good films but his career has been sliding downwards for a long time & is now pretty much relegated to low budget direct to video or made for television crap, while The Mangler isn't his best effort it has some nice creative touches which don't always make sense but I'll take them anyway. I love the look & feel of the film, it has an anachronistic feel to it as it's set in contemporary times but the laundry plant is a dark pit full of old machines & steam pipes letting gas off & an old newspaper photographer with an camera from the 40's, the mangler itself looks suitably menacing & I think the production design is excellent right down to the villain with his leg braces & sinister office or the spiral stone staircase that leads down the grimy sewers. There's some good gore but it's not as plentiful as maybe I would have liked, a couple of people are mashed & squashed in the mangler with various limbs being seen to be crushed & the flattened remains seen later on, a guy has his arm cut off, someone is folded & squashed like a sheet & someone is ripped in half. There's some silly scenes here though, that guy being attacked by a possessed icebox is daft & the huge mangler monster at the end isn't in it enough.

Apparently filmed in London, Los Angeles & South Africa, co-produced & co-written by the notorious Harry Alan Towers. I'm not sure what sort of budget this had but it looks to had some money spent on it & it looks better than I expected. The acting varies, Levine is alright but looks a bit drunk throughout while Robert Englund hams it up like you wouldn't believe as the bad guy (he's never done that before has he...).

The Mangler isn't a film for everyone, those who liked the King short story probably won't like it, fans of Hooper's other films probably won't like it & general audiences probably won't like it but I did like it & those looking for something different in the horror genre might like it too. Followed by two unrelated sequels, the absolutely dire The Mangler 2 (2002) about a computer virus & the much better The Mangler Reborn (2005) which returns to the original killer laundry press idea.

Bizarr But Not Awful

[gavin6942 · 5/10 · 24 February 2016]

A laundry folding machine is possessed by a demon from Hell.

The reviews for "The Mangler" are predominantly bad. Richard Harrington wrote, "The Mangler is ludicrous from start to finish: its plot lines dangle, its effects fail to dazzle and the acting and directing are uniformly bad... even the least demanding of genre fans will be hard-pressed to tremble in its presence." This is partially true. The plot is not as strong as it could be, but it does have a few nice touches, most notably the gore.

Mike Long rated it 0.5/5 stars and wrote, "There have been many bad, throw-away projects based on material from Stephen King, but The Mangler has to be one of the worst. The movie's laughable premise is only brought down by the inept filmmaking on display here." Yep. The acting is pretty bad (especially the way lines are delivered), and there is just no getting around the fact this is a story about a possessed laundry machine... it might be good as a short story (I don't know), but to make it believable on screen? And I think they made at least one if not two sequels...

Who knew the laundry could be so dangerous!

[damianphelps · 5/10 · 24 September 2020]

As far as Stephen King adaptations go this one sits right in the middle.

The story trickles along nicely and the machine is both funny and cool.

Robert Englund is over the top but that's nothing new.

A nice late night 'horror' movie watch.

A pleasant surprise

[mattfngrant · 2 November 2003]

I picked this one up in a hurry six years ago and now it sits in my living room. I expected a snore-fest but was surprised by how the filmmakers made such a silly premise both entertaining and somewhat original. Odd cast as well: Freddy vs. Buffalo Bill? -and who is this Matmor character? This movie was an hour and a half of unapologetic misery with above average writing, performances and special effects at a time where Stephen Kings work was being pushed onto TV in the form of Diluted MOW garbage. Not for everyone, but in the eyes of a horror fan it is fair to say that it could be Tobe Hooper's best work in years.

bad but fun

[ztanlines · 5/10 · 7 January 2006]

This is a B-movie through and through. Terminally flawed, but, if you let yourself, you can have a lot of fun watching it. Levine and Englund are both over-the-top and captivating, the plot, script and score are simple and stupid, but in a way that renders them unimportant. Just invite some buds over, get some beer and laugh as Robert Englund hobbles around cursing, Ted Levine pops pills and the machine folds people like sheets. Don't get me wrong, it's really bad and, at times confusing. But, while Tobe Hooper may have dropped the ball on this, he never kicks it out of the court. If you're looking for stupid fun, this is pretty solid.

If this is the best he can do, Hooper should retire.

[capkronos · 2/10 · 21 May 2003]

THE MANGLER is further proof that some of the "top" names in horror can make 'em as bad as they come.

This one concerns a possessed laundry press (getting kind of desperate for new ideas, aren't they?) that is turned into a killing machine by a splash of virgin's blood (!) It grinds, smashes and burns workers in a small, grimy New England factory. Robert Englund does some heavy duty hamming as the cruel, greedy owner with white hair, an eye patch and leg braces, who lurches around on crutches, degrades (and has offscreen sex with) his female employees and screams nearly every line of his terrible dialogue.

Even his fans, and fans of Hooper (if he has any left) and Stephen King (whose short story in "Night Shift" this is based upon) will want to steer clear of this dreary, senseless, humorless gorefest with a handful of decent FX. The screenplay (by Hooper and Stephen Brooks) and supporting acting (especially Daniel Matmor as an occult expert) are both terrible.

I've read that this film (produced in 1993) was initially targeted for a wide theatrical release, but only got a limited one before heading off to video world in 1995. Avoid the sequel, too.

I gave it a 2 out of 10 only because it's slightly better than Part 2.

Horrible Garbage

[Johnny_West · 1/10 · 21 July 2017]

Mangler is one of the worst movies ever made. Robert Englund is a horrible actor in any movie where he is not playing Freddy Krueger. Ted Levine is equally bad here.

The movie features a dry cleaning press that eats people in order to guarantee profits. So when the employees are putting the shirts in to get pressed, the Mangler grabs onto their arms and pulls them in to chomp and mangle them to death.

The comedy of seeing a dry cleaning press stomping through a building trying to eat people, who manage to fall down at the right moment, is what takes this movie from just poor and stupid to incredibly lame and silly. This movie could have been a decent comedy if it had been produced as a cartoon with Sylvester and Tweety, or Mutt and Jeff.

Somewhat over the top horror.

[Aaron1375 · 5/10 · 10 February 2004]

This isn't going to get the most gory movie award ever, but it does have some blood and gore in it. Granted I never saw the unrated version though. This is another of King's short stories that were changed around a bit to make a feature film. The story was about a press that through a series of accidents becomes possessed by a demon. Two guys figure this out and try and perform an exorcism on it, but ultimately fail. The press comes to life...the end. Here there are other factors. One of the main changes or additions added is the Robert Englund character as the sort of villain. I am guessing the person who adapted the screenplay figured you couldn't use an inanimate object as your lead villain. So the series of accidents from the short story are no accident here. A bunch of conspiracy stuff is included as well as a haunted refrigerator. Though that may have been in the story as well. This movie has its moments for me and I certainly would not put it in my bottom one hundred movies of all time, but I also do not question those that do. If you want to watch a horror movie late at night and you don't care about the quality then this one fits the bill quite nicely. Otherwise, you should probably listen to all the other reviewers who say stay away.

a good "B" horror movie

[jake-179 · 5/10 · 17 March 2002]

I am surprised that this movie got such a low rating on the IMDB, but I am not surprised they made a sequel. This is an OK horror movie in an old fashioned "B" movie sense. The acting is a little cheesey, the plot is silly enough to be entertaining and morbid at the same time, and all of the death scenes are pretty gorey.

The plot of the movie may seem a little goofy (and it is) and it somewhat resembles other Stephen King stories. CHRISTINE was the story of a possessed, demonic car, and MAXIMUM OVERDRIVE was about possessed, evil mechanical devices. I guess Stephen King likes that theme. This movie is about a possessed, demonic Laundry Machine. Yes, you read that right, a Murderous Laundry Machine called "THE MANGLER." The exact reason why the machine is possessed is somewhat murky throughout the movie. There is something in there about the machine always having been possessed and Robert Englund and the rest of the town are controlled by it. Then there is something about feeding the machine a 16 year old virgin's blood. And the whole demonic, murder rampage is set off by an accidental contact with an old fashioned ice box. Which brings me to the goofiest part of the movie: a demonic, murderous, ice box. The silliest scene in the movie is when the ice box slams its door on the Philosopher guy's arm. That was just ridiculous. Then the cop, who played "Wild Bill" in SILENCE OF THE LAMBS goes crazy and beats the ice box with a sledge hammer. But almost right after the laundry machine goes psycho, it "mangles" a sweet, helpless old lady. The scene is really brutal and bloody. As one character describes it, the machine "folded her like a sheet!" Its pretty messy, believe me, and you got to love that.

Silliness aside, the movie is pretty gory and has some genuine scenes of suspense and dread. The end is a little wierd, but I thought it was really cool.

SPOILER ALERT

The Mangler comes alive and chases the main characters down in to a really creepy labyrinth, like a descending stair case in to hell. The best special effect in the movie is in this scene, when it reaches out with it's mechanical claw and rips the Philosopher guy in half, leaving his bloody torso still screaming on the floor. I liked that part, and rewound it to watch it again. It was definitely worth the rewind, because the effect was done really well.

Check out THE MANGLER and watch it with somewhat of an open mind. Its not really written all that well, but as long as you don't expect too much, you will enjoy it.

Underrated!

[Jonny_Numb · 6/10 · 7 September 2008]

A 3.0? Really? Have horror fans suddenly come down with a case of collective amnesia in the facts in the case of Tobe Hooper? The same director whose signature traits include a smattering of extreme gore garnished with dark humor? The man who made one of the most influential, landmark films of the 1970s ("The Texas Chainsaw Massacre")? I mean, granted, Hooper's career has been frustratingly inconsistent overall, but "The Mangler"--easily one of his most maligned works--is an unsung gem that suggests his tongue was planted firmly in cheek, but nobody really noticed. While the concept alone has "disaster" written all over it (a feature-film rendering of a Stephen King short story), what Hooper does with (and to) "The Mangler" is, really, what should have been done with "Graveyard Shift": he tears into the story with the veracity of a mental patient chewing the head off a rag-doll, elevating the absurdist elements to their breaking point, filling the film with (un)intentional humor to counteract the bloodletting, and fleshing out the characters and concept into a satisfying marriage of B-movie bliss. The plot? It's all about an anachronistic laundry facility where an ugly beast of a steam press starts folding the employees into bloody pulp; a pill-popping, chain-smoking local cop (Ted Levine) and his wiccan brother-in-law (Daniel Matmor) suspect foul play on the part of the disabled owner (Robert Englund, once again under a heavy latex mask), but the real reason is much more sinister (Hooper does succeed in making a compelling argument for the ridiculous explanation). While I haven't read King's short story, I will say that the script (by Hooper, Stephen Brooks, and Peter Welbeck) efficiently captures the quirky, small-town mannerisms of his characters, juxtaposed against evil spawned out of the banal territory of Everyday Life. While Hooper is unable to sustain the tricky balance between terror and dark humor that has made "Texas Chainsaw" so endearing, he ultimately transforms "The Mangler" into a sturdy, clean-burning B movie, buoyed by fantastic performances by Englund and especially Levine (who seems to be operating under the influence of a perpetual hangover).

Wait, what?

[docchainsaw2000 · 4/10 · 11 August 2004]

"The Mangler," as you already know, is based on the short story by Stephen King, and directed by Tobe Hooper. This movie's getting a lot of negative feedback, and it's not hard to see why. It's basically a trash horror film, made slightly better with some good performances.

Robert Englund plays a vicious old man that owns a laundry shop, where a big sheet-presser thing is possesed. Thing is, this dude's so whacked out of his mind, he really doesn't care. Englund plays the character way over the top (the way it should be).

Ted Levine is the detective that's determined to discover why this machine is the cause of many disasters and a few deaths. Of course, demonic possesion didn't really seem like a possibility, but his brother-in-law convinces him otherwise.

Anyway, the movie overall is pretty much a peice of garbage, but Englund is having fun, and it's cool to see Ted Levine in a hero role, which he plays well. The effects are pretty weak, the supporting cast is pretty bad, and all the gory scenes just seem to be an excuse for excessive gore. I give it a 4 out of 10 thanks to some good performances.

A Humorous-Allegory of the Evils of Capitalism

[myboigie · 10/10 · 13 April 2006]

"And did the Countenance Divine Shine forth upon our clouded hills? And was Jerusalem builded here Among these dark Satanic mills? "

William Blake, "Jerusalem", 1795

"We all have to make sacrifices!" --from the Mangler-screenplay, 1995

Coming from Stephen King's 1978 collection of shorts, "Night Shift", Tobe Hooper brings us his very different-take: a parable of 19th Century, proprietary-capitalism and the nightmare of the American-workplace. This film is what labor-conditions were 100-years-ago, and what they could easily become again if we aren't too-careful. Since the discovery of a slave-sweatshop in El Monte, California a few-years after the release of this film, it isn't so fantastic. Maybe some of us were too-comfortable to "get" this film in the Clinton-era. Most people don't get this film at-all, even just watching it on its surface-levels. It's a real hoot! Yep, you can watch it with a beer, and you can watch it with an open-mind thinking about its deeper-meanings, or you can do both. And--shocker!--ALL of them are FUN.

Tobe Hooper has said for-decades he wanted to do comedy, and he comes close here, which helps this film from being too-oppressive. Ithink Hooper understood the story better than Stephen King--it seems King worked in a clothes-pressing plant like this one in the 1960s, which gave-rise to it, but Hooper has always struck me as politically-radical in his approach-to-horror. The best horror usually has a real subversive-edge, and this is what makes this a good one. Sure, it's hokey, but it has its tongue firmly-planted in its cheek, it is jokey. It also has some sub-themes in the lines, "There's a piece of me in that machine--and a piece of it in me." It speaks well of how people are spiritually-contaminated by our system. The disease is greed.

If it wasn't for Ted Levine ("Buffalo Bill" in Silence of the Lambs) as the bedraggled town-cop John Hunton, Robert Englund would literally steal-the-show here. Tobe uses some great low-shots and wide-angle lens compositions (ala "Citizen Kane") that lend the film a great comic-book look, and make Englund shine as a despicable-villain. The irony is, mill-owner Gartley is also a victim of the machine, even robbing him of the ability to walk. He's also half-blind, which makes-sense. The characters are pretty well-drawn, and we learn that Detective Hunton has some baggage left-behind from the death of his wife in a car-accident, years-earlier. The town is run like a virtual-dictatorship by Gartley, who basically represents the "robber-barons" of the 19th century (as well as today), completely-uncaring about the safety and welfare of his employees. A man who has lost his humanity. Sound familiar?

Eventually, an accident occurs where the niece of Englund's character spills her own blood on the "Mangler", a clothes-press that must be 100-years-old. Another shop-employee spills her belladonna-laced antacids into the guts of the machine, and it begins taking-victims...and parts. Oddly, all the people Bill Gartley "owns" (the Mayor, the Police Chief, Doctors, etc.) have missing-fingers. Of course, the premise of a demoniacally-possessed machine is fantasy, which is what makes the story a parable, but it's fun. Over-time, Detective Hunton finds that the Gartley dynasty has been-sacrificing their own young to the infernal-machine for a century, and now they're "spreading-the-love". Don't all employers? Some require the blood of a virgin!

So, people have been wrong about this one. It's a minor-classic of a bad-decade for horror. The genre has its fallow-periods where interest isn't as-high, and 1995 wasn't exactly a banner-year for horror-buffs. And quit-comparing every film a director does to their most well-known ones, it's emotionally-retarded. This is a solid horror-film, and if it had been presented in the proper-context, would have been better-appreciated. The short-story is good, but this is better, and Stephen King sure isn't Edgar Allan Poe or Lovecraft ferchrissakes. The New Line DVD is great, it has a perfect widescreen-transfer, and even includes the gore that was cut with split-screen comparisons to the theatrical-version. A great horror-film, and a respectable one for Tobe Hooper. Now you can all go and rewatch the original "Texas Chainsaw Massacre"--just don't touch-yourself so-much this time. We all have to make sacrifices, after-all. Ignore the other reviews, those people are snobs.

Not as bad as bad critics make it look

[princesspupuce · 6/10 · 8 December 2019]

Its not great but still entertaining when you don't know what to watch. I saw what i wanted to see, there are movies that tease you with "horror" but never show real juicy things, for example the movie "its alive" is about that baby creature but they never show us the baby, but this one did just enough. The only small problem i had was the characters are a bit cartoonish like the way robert englund's character speaks sounds too fake, we are far from freddy for sure. Besides all that, the story is entertaining because freak accidents like that can happen in real life and it gives me chills.

Great sets, but story doesn't wash.

[Hup234! · 3/10 · 10 November 1999]

I really wanted to like "The Mangler". Stephen King, as a struggling young father and aspiring author in the 1960s, took a grueling job in a sweatshop laundry where, to pass the time and exercise his imagination, he fantasized about the hulking machinery there as being an evil entity, waiting to kill. (Remember as a child being apprehensive about walking past the furnace in the basement?) Well, he did pen "The Mangler", a masterful short story about just that, a possessed washing machine, and made it a minor classic. Now here comes Hollywood in the 1990s, hanging its story lines not on mood and atmosphere but on in-your-face special effects and adolescent gore. This film is an insult to King's pioneering short story, and to the set designer who indeed created a worthy villain in the brooding machine monster. "The Mangler" is only lifted off the rock-bottom 1 rating to a 3 because of its well-done sets. Otherwise, just read the terrific original short story, and leave this bomb out to dry.

"The Mangler": A Tribute to H.P. Lovecraft's New England?

[JVSanders · 26 May 2002]

I'm one of those who believe that Stephen King owes a very large debt of gratitude to H.P. Lovecraft (1890-1937.) In all fairness to King, though, he has graciously acknowledged Lovecraft's many important contributions to literary horror.

It's possible that director Tobe Hooper also recognized Lovecraft's significance when adapting The Mangler for the big screen. The short-story version does not offer a substantive historical link between the present-day and the genesis of the demon machine in the 1920s; the decade when Lovecraft began his short but illustrious writing career. Hooper took great pains, however, to develop an atmosphere that evokes the New England of Lovecraft's youth; a period when mill towns offered the only refuge for immigrants and native poor unable to make a living off the land. It was a time before the New Deal social reforms of President Franklin Roosevelt offered some relief from the exploitative and dangerous conditions inflicted on America's working class. For me, the philosophical sub-text of The Mangler is the evils of unbridled, industrial capitalism. The fact that rural communities have often depended for their very existence on a dehumanizing local industry is not lost on the socially progressive King.

Some have characterized The Mangler as an outstanding B-movie. I prefer to regard it as an all around entertaining flick. Although such films tend to be formulaic, Hooper and co-screenwriter Stephen David Brooks deserve credit for fleshing-out King's short story in a laudable fashion. The film's characters are well developed, and Robert Englund's portrayal of Bill Gartley, the grotesquely maimed, delightfully evil owner of the laundry machine from hell, should have earned him an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor (a nod that should also have gone to Fred Gwynne for his fine work in Pet Sematary.) Ted Levine, and the versatile Jeremy Crutchley -- who portrayed two different characters in The Mangler -- also turned in noteworthy performances. Last but not least, the film's surprise ending, totally different from the climax of the original short story, is satisfying and appropriate.

Despite the overwhelming popularity of his novels, I believe that King's lesser works best demonstrate his creative gifts. The short story format demands an economy of words and a disciplined approach that can result in high emotional impact for readers. Short stories also provide additional latitude for movie makers to offer their unique interpretation of the work. The film adaptation of The Mangler is a fine example of the creative synergy between literary and cinematic artists, and a must-see for horror fans.

Possible Spoiler - More of a review

[David-Crane · 1/10 · 28 December 2005]

This film about a laundry folding machine possessed by the devil, is one which is highly disregarded by the critics. After viewing it is understandable why, this film is horrible and painful to watch.Although starring horror legend Robert Englund(Freddy Kruger), his performance falls short for a leading role character and out shone by highly underrated actor Ted Levine. Levine somewhat saves the film from being a total disaster. Levine, who a lot of people would recognise as Buffalo Bill in Silence Of The Lambs, portrays a small town cop on the trace of the killer of a mill worker, no knowing of the horrible secret the mill holds inside its walls. When Detective John Hunton (Levine) is called to the scenes of a gruesome accident involving a laundry folding machine, he suspects there may be more to the case then first thought, so he decides to investigate. His suspicions where confirmed when he discovers that the folding machine has acquired a taste for human flesh, and the mill owner, Bill Gartley (Englund), is sacrificing the virgin daughters of local business men for the man eating, devil possessed machine. This film takes a horrible turn, for the viewers, towards the end when the machine begins to chase the detective down a stair well. Although the film may appear to have one or two positives, the negatives strongly outweigh these and ultimately make it one of the worst films we've ever seen. (David Crane and Nick Shepley)

mangled machinery

[lee_eisenberg · 5/10 · 7 June 2011]

Despite being based on a Stephen King short story, "The Mangler" is no "Carrie". Despite being directed by Tobe Hooper, it's no "Poltergeist". Despite starring Robert Englund, it's no "Nightmare on Elm Street". The rather silly plot has a laundry-folding machine getting possessed and start eating people. Yeah, really. It's pretty entertaining for the time that it runs, but this movie cannot get treated as any sort of horror classic. Aside from Englund, the other star -- aside from the diabolical apparatus -- is Ted Levine (Buffalo Bill in "Silence of the Lambs").

I'd like to see Tobe Hooper, John Carpenter, Wes Craven all collaborate on a movie.

Total piece of crap....and yet I enjoyed it!

[Coventry · 5/10 · 4 March 2005]

Terrible acting, dialogues so poor they'll make your stomach turn, weak directing by the once-eminent Tobe Hooper and a premise so ridiculous that you can't possibly believe it's from the pen of Stephen King. More than enough reasons to label "The Mangler" as one of the worst horror movies of the nineties. The plot is pretty much rubbish and focuses on a possessed industrial laundry-press (!) guarded by the cripple and insane Bill Gartley (played by Robert Englund who continued collaborating with Hooper after the dreadful 1993 "Nightmare"). The demon-machine has developed a taste for virgin blood and Gartley, alongside other prominent villagers, regularly attempt to provide it with a fresh 16-year-old girl. It's up to skeptical cop John Hunton (Ted Levine who played the legendary "Buffalo Bill" in the Silence of the Lambs) and his flower power brother-in-law Mark to prevent more victims from getting squeezed and folded by this mechanical beast. Levine gives away one of the lousiest and most uninterested acting performances ever (he talks as he suffers from a swollen tongue) and not once does he manage to get inside the skin of his frustrated, jaded cop-character. The story is so absurd you'll hardly believe your eyes most of the time! The climax in particular is a fine example of demented plotting, as it somewhat resembles "The Exorcist"...only with a ten ton washing machine instead of a 12-year-old child. Small detail! So yeah, all the above states that "the Mangler" is a worthless horror effort, better avoided by people with a good taste in cinema. And yet I couldn't help loving most of what I saw and I really do think some of the less obvious aspects deserve some praising. Like the comic book-like characters and atmosphere, for example! Rather than Stephen King creations, the protagonists (Bill Gatley and J.J.J. Pictureman in particular) seem to come straight out of a vile pulp-magazine! Although the story is set in present time (I suppose), the set-pieces often make it look like you've landed somewhere early 20th century. The photography is dark, moist and utterly depressing which fits the story real well. The mangler itself is an impressive piece of scenery and - thanks to the eerie cinematography by Amnon Salomon - it looks truly ominous and petrifying. Last but not least, this film contains a lot of gratifying gore sequences!! the 'mangling' is quite a repulsive process in which the unfortunate victims are completely wrung to bloody pieces! In other words: buckets of blood, crushed skills and torn off limbs. To me, these are enough elements to appreciate Tobe Hooper's mad movie but I can easily understand why many people here voted it straight into the bottom top 100 (currently spot #88). I guess The Mangler is destined to remain a guilty pleasure of mine but, if you're into pitch black humor and unscrupulous pulp as well, you might want to (re)watch it soon!

not nearly as bad as i imagined...

[shawshank86 · 4/10 · 24 February 2007]

stephen king, tobe hooper, robert englund: three legends come together to make one scary movie. here's the problem, it is one of stephen kings weaker stories. this one was in one of his collections of short stories, and there's usually a reason that they're short; they're not designed to take ninety minutes to tell; children of the corn is a perfect example. englund gives a nearly comic performance, but pretty much anything he does is done well. the idea is that a massive machine that steam-presses and folds sheets gets possessed by a demon. i don't think they included everything that king put in his story that possesses the machine into the movie, but essentially everything that causes possession happens and it is quite difficult to get the machine cleansed. basically, they should have made a few short movies and released them all together, like creepshow. that would have eliminated quite a bit of the weak points.

Keep the machine fed.

[michaelRokeefe · 3/10 · 26 August 2006]

It's not oil that keeps a laundry folding machine running...its blood. Director Tobe Hooper adapts a Stephen King short story in this mediocre tale of horror at the Blue Ribbon Laundry. Accidents keep happening at the laundry plant and detective John Hunton(Ted Levine)investigates. It seems the folding machine has acquired the taste of humans and the laundry owner Bill Gartley(Robert Englund)does his best to keep the mechanical demon fed. Some pretty messy scenes and interesting are the braces holding the laundry owner's mangled body together. Blood and gut chunks spew and even the folding machine becomes animated in its need to feed. Also starring are: Vanessa Pike, Daniel Matmor and Jeremy Crutchley.

Not as bad as it's reputed to be.

[HumanoidOfFlesh · 7/10 · 20 May 2006]

Robert Englund is the evil owner of the laundry company who has the ancient steam press that periodically sucks workers into its bowels,turning them into bloody mess. Ted Levine stars as the local sheriff who is called in to investigate the deaths and solve the mystery. Levine discovers the steam press was possessed when a virgin cut her hand into it's gears causing it to come to life. And Englund wants to make his niece the next human sacrifice to unleash the evil."The Mangler" is an enjoyable little flick filled with plenty of gore. It's based on Stephen King's short story in his famous collection "Night Shift". Admittedly the plot is pretty silly and there are some huge lapses in logic,but who cares. I wanted grue and this flick provided it in spades.7 out of 10. Much better than crappy sequel that followed.

This mess is from the director of "Texas Chainsaw Massacre???"

[shaun98 · 2/10 · 7 August 2002]

*minor spoilers!*

Stephen King's short story "The Mangler" was probably unfilmable to begin with, but one would hope that with Tobe Hooper at the helm, it would have a chance. No luck. The result is a borderline-unwatchable mess, a major step down from the director's brilliant "Texas Chainsaw Massacre." It bombed at the box-office, doing no good to his already-sagging career. I cannot imagine why anyone would have thought the material would have made a workable film. I would be curious to know the behind-the-scenes history of the production. Who greenlit this thing? Was there not anyone who, at some point, questioned the wisdom of this endeavor? When Hooper watched the rushes, did he perhaps consider that he might be responsible for one of the most misguided horror projects of the decade? Were exhibitors self-conscious about displaying the poster? It's about a demonically-possessed, man-eating laundry machine for crying out loud! It was almost most certainly doomed from the start.

The script is muddled and badly paced, with a weak, confusing ending. Hooper seems to have forgotten a lesson from his TCM; that psychological terror and suspense are more effective than outright gore. Parts of "Mangler" are just plain disgusting, especially the infamous scene where that poor woman gets chomped up by the machine. In contrast, there's no real suspense or terror. The only thing he does right is the camerawork; even then, it seems like a desperate attempt to distract us from the rest of the movie. It's all a hack job, as schlocky as other ill-fated King adaptations. This is one author who needs to be more selective with whom he sells his work too, but then again, how could he turn down Tobe Hooper, of all people?

Given the circumstances, Ted Levine and Robert Englund do a fairly good job with the terrible script. Both performers have an undeniable charisma and screen presence. Englund, in particular, actually seems to be enjoying himself, certainly more than I ever could. They actually make it through intact, a minor miracle. In contrast, Daniel Matmor is irritating, and one wonders why Levine puts up with this clown in the first place, even if they are brother-in-laws. His interest in the occult is never explained, but that would be asking too much of the film. The guy reminded me of Kevin Smith, whose Silent Bob character would at least have had fewer lines to annoy us with. Every performer concerned is in desperate need of a new agent.

According to the film, the only way to defeat the machine is to exorcise the demon by throwing in holy water, sacred relics, etc. They should have sufficed with the negative of this movie.

* (out of ****)

Released by New Line Cinema

Surrealistic portrayal of manufacturing where management will sacrifice anything to machines for money

[tgraham128 · 10/10 · 14 January 2007]

While on the surface this movie may seem a little silly, trite horror movie, having worked in a manufacturing environment for the last 12 years, I found it fascinating. The contrast between workers and top management, the lack of regard for employee's safety, the willingness to literally sacrifice to the almighty machine were too close to reality. The extreme portrayal of the main characters, laborers so meek and owners so owned by wealth, are reminiscent of Dickens. The FX were startling and exceptional. I loved this film and I don't love films very often. Even the over acting was great, because the roles required overacting. And woven through the whole story was the mundane and relatively normal main character.

Tobe Hooper and Englund, on top form.

[RatedVforVinny · 7/10 · 14 December 2019]

A cult movie from the twisted mind of Tobe Hooper and based on a Steven King novel. The story involves an industrial laundry compressor, which you certainly don't want to get caught up in (especially if it's one that's possessed). After a good few who get mangled up (inside the mechanics), someone has the bright idea of shutting it down! Robert Englund, is to on top form.

Should Have Been Made in the '80s

[bean-d · 3/10 · 11 March 2011]

I decided to see "The Mangler" (1994) for the sole reason that it was directed by Tobe Hooper. Well, his direction didn't do much for this stinker of a film. Actually, I suppose it's interesting in one way. The horror film was on the wane in the mid-'90s--or at least the cheesy horror film, and "The Mangler" only hastened the decline. This film might have attracted an audience in the '80s, but it seems quite anachronistic in the mid-'90s, especially when based on a story from that icon of the '80s, Stephen King.

The plot is simple: A big, ugly laundry-pressing machine is awakened when a virgin cuts her hand and spills blood on it. The machine decides it likes eating people and more accidents happen. The predictable "discovery" plot ensues, with a tough, skeptical cop having to be convinced by his quirky, New Age friend that a demon possesses the machine.