MovieChat Forums > Squirm (1976) Discussion > 4.1 (currently)? REALLY?

4.1 (currently)? REALLY?

posted 12 years ago by Tenebrae81
12 replies | jump to latest

I just don't get it.

Considering the insanely unrealistic subject matter, this film played it pretty straight and managed to genuinely creep me out. It's not oscar-winning material, but it's a prime example of the 'nature run amok' sub-genre of horror.

I guess what upsets me is that this film is often considered nothing more than a cheesy, 'so bad it's good' kind of film. But Squirm is so much more!

I live in Toronto and one of our TV stations here is City TV. They would broadcast 70s and 80s horror films all the time (in fact, they were my main source for this kind of stuff for years) and the films were always uncut if shown after 9pm. This was a nightly staple for me, called "City TVs Late Great Movies". I managed to see this for the first time around 1996 during City TV's annual "City TVs NOT so great movies". Naturally, because of this label, I hesitated. I'm glad I gave this film a chance. It definitely made me check my bedsheets that night before going to bed and to me, that's a sign of a good horror film (checking the closets, backseat of the car, etc).

I don't see too many folks bashing this film on the forum here, so I have to ask: why the low rating? Squirm deserves at LEAST a 6-6.5. Personally, I gave it a 7.

[–] nsavage3-1 12 years ago

I completely agree with you.

I have had an appreciation for this movie since I saw it in my local movie theater back in '77. There was a batch of movies like this that came out in the 70's- "Frogs", Food of the gods", "Giant Spider Invasion, and the list goes on. "Squirm" did not receive as much publicity when it opened, and I did not even know about it until it played as a "second feature" with a new movie that was opening. At first, it was the FX that attracted me to this movie, but every time I watched it, I gained more respect for other excellent qualities, such as:

-music/score
-photography/lighting
-likable or interesting characters
-"fun" setting (small, rural, slightly-hick town)
-decent acting.

The movie has a somewhat slow build to the big attack scenes, but I never find it boring, because the characters sort of grew on me. I have the DVD now and I still watch it about once a year.

[–] YankeeDood 11 years ago

Yup, unbelievable. Shows how many new millennium brats are on imdb caught up in their DC Universes, ha! This is one of the better horror movies out there. Prefect EC style to it and it doesn't fail to gross you out either. I also love that small-town-in-the-70's atmosphere to it as well.

My Rating - 7/10

"I had to rescue a burning baby. See, I got burning baby all over me."
- CHEECH

[–] donniedarkooct31-1 10 years ago

Agreed. Great movie. Deserves a higher score.

[–] hatr 10 years ago

I agree, anything under 5 in a travesty for this fun movie. I gave it 7

[–] questar 8 years ago

This movie is a travesty of quality writing.

[–] GroovyDoom 9 years ago

It's just a hunch, but I'm willing to bet a lot of the people who came to this page and gave "Squirm" a low rating had their opinion of the film handed to them by MST3K before they even watched the movie. Try looking up other movies that were featured on the show and you'll see lots of brief comments that are all variations of the same mantra: "This movie sucks, the only way I could sit through it is with Mike and the 'Bots." I can't imagine another reason why anybody would rate the film so ridiculously low, even if they didn't like it all that much. The low voters obviously are viewers with no appreciation for what a remarkable achievement "Squirm" is in terms of low-budget cinema and horror films in general. Jeff Lieberman and his crew did things here that looked simply amazing on screen, like the first floor of the house becoming a sea of worms, the bathroom scene, etc. Not to mention Rick Baker's incredible makeup effects. It also had a very tongue in cheek feel to it, something that seems to have gone right over the heads of the MST3K crowd.

groovydoom.blogspot.com

[–] Steamboy 9 years ago

I gave it a 5, I could have gone as high as 6, but I thought the pacing was really slow and nothing remotely exciting happened at times. Or perhaps I'm too sleepy. I liked all the characters though, that's not a given with horror movies.

__________________________
www.1up-games.com Last seen:

[–] robert-blau 8 years ago

I give it a 6. I thought it was an interesting little story, fairly nicely done, and kept one's interest (if one likes this type of thing). And decent characters and acting. AND Miss Pearcy was certainly charming.

[–] questar 8 years ago

4.1 is an average rating... and it deserves better? Really? In order for a movie to be good, it has to be captivating, in order for it to be captivating, it must be realistic. Thousands upon thousands of worms which instantly appear and then disappear is just not believable to me. I admit that I've seen worse, but this movie was absurd none-the-less. Also, it's a Horror Commandment that no serious horror story shall have a perfectly happy ending.

03/10

[–] Wuchak (8858) 6 years ago

it's a Horror Commandment that no serious horror story shall have a perfectly happy ending.

Well, it's not exactly that chippy of an ending when so many people died -- the mother, Roger, the sheriff, his woman, Roger's dad and Mr. Beardsley. Yes, Mick & Geri found succor in a tree and Alma survived in a chest, whoppee. Have you ever seen "Jaws."

Besides, your "Horror Commandment" goes against what art is all about -- including all genres of film -- there are no absolute rules, except for being entertaining, one way or another.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]