Head of the Family (1996) User Reviews

Sure it's cheese, but it's fun cheese!

[scorpioprimus · 5/10 · 6 July 2006]

This is one of those movies where the point is to embrace the campiness. Yes, this is a B-movie; what were you expecting, Shakespeare? Not all of the acting holds up, it is true, but the leads do a fair job of selling their characters, and there is full awareness they are doing parody. To be honest, the plot holds together a lot better than a lot of wide-release horror movies with "name" talent. And yes, if you don't get distracted by her lovely form, Jacqueline Lovell is doing some honest-to-gosh acting here. If anything, the flaw with this movie (despite the premise of the title villain), is that it's not quite bad enough to be truly campy.

Band under a pseudonym? Uh-Oh.....

[Lexx-2 · 4/10 · 13 August 2002]

Don't get me wrong. I've got a considerable soft spot for the works of Charles Band, both as producer and director. But you've got to raise an eyebrow when the man who was willing to put his name to "Dollman Vs The Demonic Toys" sticks a pseudonym on anything. As a bit of bad-movie fun, "Head Of The Family" is rather lacking, although it is better acted than you might expect. Jacqueline Lovell is a definite talent who deserves better than these kinds of movies. J.W. Perra is also quite funny as the titular monster, though for such a superintelligent being he does get hoodwinked quite easily. Y'know, I'm nitpicking because the rest of the movie is so sharp and witty of course....

And having a lead character called Lance Bogan? Nice one guys. We didn't know you Americans knew that piece of slang!

Not at the head of its class...

[Aaron1375 · 5/10 · 23 October 2016]

This film was brought to us by Charles Band who did a lot of horror movies back in the day. I do believe he was the person behind Full Moon studios which brought us many horror films, some good and a lot of them bad. One thing that can be said about his films though whether good or bad is that they were generally very short! This one was actually one of the longer films I have watched that he did and it was not horribly bad, but it was not good either. Basically, this film had a lot of talking and a lot of sex and nudity, but not a lot in the way of horror. I was not quite sure what to expect when I chose to watch it as I had it on one of those sets of DVDs that has a bunch of other films on it, but I sure as heck was not expecting this. I do not know if that is a good thing or not as I just watched this thing unfold and all I was getting was sex scene, talk, sex scene talk and maybe someone getting punched in the face to change things up. The positive about this formula is that the lead girl was super cute and another girl featured was also rather attractive, but I think the Loretta character was way more attractive than the Ernestina character though Ernestina was the one who was supposed to be super sexy and irresistible.

The story has three rather zoned out people to start and then flashes to a restaurant/store where an obnoxious biker who is apparently hated by most people in the town is making deals and being completely oblivious that his wife is having sex with the guy who owns the place. One night while he and the woman are continuing their affair they witness a strange roadblock and the guy investigates only to discover that there are some strange happenings at the house of the three zoned out people. He soon hatches a plan to use this strange family to take care of the woman's husband; unfortunately, he gets a bit too greedy and even after the family takes care of the husband he continues to blackmail the family until the head of the family devises a plan to get the man into his custody where he intends to torture the man for a while, but the guy who seems so stupid seems to somehow be able to counter the super smart head every step of the way.

One of the reasons that this film kind of doesn't work is the fact that the lead guy does seem to be able to easily outmaneuver the super intelligent man who lives within the house that is a lot bigger on the inside than the out as it looks like a large house, but not large enough to have a fairly large basement and sport an auditorium. Another problem is the fact that most of the movie is just talk, they discuss things a lot and then there is the sex, which is good because the lead girl is so cute and she is more than willing to take it all off more so than the one that is supposed to be super powered sexy. If this were a porn, it may be okay for it to follow this formula, but it is a horror film...granted it is one of those Full Moon horror comedies. Not going to say the comedy fell completely flat, but the horror was nonexistent. The payoff at the end sucks too. It was not terrible by any means, but it certain was not at the head of its class either.

So bad its good cheesy horror film more sexy than scary!

[Dirtfish · 6 May 2000]

Head of the Family is cheesy B-movie trash at its best, the plot if there is one revolves around mutant quadruplets that are control by their brother who just happens to be a giant disembodied head. The plot good as it sounds really takes second stage to a number of cheap special effects and several sexy scenes. The star of the film is ex-porn star Jacqueline Lovell better known as Sara St James who plays a cheating wife looking to have her husband killed. Lovell gives a performance worthy of better source material and she gives the you the impression that a name change and a career move could prove very worthwhile for her. The film works because it doesn't take itself seriusly, the plot is crazy, the characters are shallow, the effects will make you laugh and the girls are sexy while losing their clothes at every chance they get. Despite of all of this you laugh with the film, its a bad film and it doesn't pretend to be anything else. The film while never rising above its B-movie roots does entertain for 82 minutes and if you want a Friday night popcorn movie you could do much worse than this.

Full Moon Pictures, of course...

[insomniac_rod · 4/10 · 16 July 2004]

I get angry when I think about this movie. When I look at the box cover my anger increases. This is the typical horror movie that has been for years on your local Blockbuster's horror shelf and no one has ever picked it up.

I tend to rent a good movie and a terrible movie. I usually watched the good movie with my girlfriend or family and then, at midnight or later ir possible I watch alone the bad one.

When I rented this crap I also rented The Insider (one of the best movies I've seen). I had a good taste in my mouth after watching it, but then HEAD OF THE FAMILY one of the worst horror movies ever made ruined my day. Castle Freak is a great horror film by Full Moon Pictures, why would they ever release a movie like this?! They've shown that they can make a good horror movie, why not follow the winning formula of Castle Freak?

HEAD OF THE FAMILY has some elements (out dated by the way) like lots of nudity, gore, and a villain. The problem here is that none of the basic slasher elements work for this atrocity. I can't say if it's a horror comedy, a sci-fi mess, or an ultra low budget horror movie.

I just know that it fails on everything! The storyline is a mess, it tried to spoof (I like to think so) TCM and Re-Animator but it just didn't work.

But there's something good about the movie: Jacqueline Lovell. Her sex scenes are kinky! fit perfect in the B-movie label. She's hot! The scene where she's tied isn't violent, it's hot! Anyways, when you think that the best feature of a Horror movie is a hot woman, then it means that the movie is a total mess.

I'm not whining, I'm preventing anyone from renting this one. Avoid it like the plague!

1/10.

Another unique flick from Full Moon

[lordzedd-3 · 7/10 · 3 March 2007]

Now I got to admit, there is allot wrong with this film, there are serious character issues. For one, the Stagpool family is doing twisted experiments and murdering people. Lance is a hood that blackmails them, so he's not much of a hero either. So, again like BLOOD DOLLS, with two opposing sides both bad, it's hard to know who to route for. But the Stagpool mutants are kind of cool, Myron is my favorite of the male members of the family. Now he said he has a fascination with the human brain, but what was the goal. Brain experimenting without a goal is just playing. The character issues aside, it is a watchable movie during a late night and you can't sleep. 7 STARS.

And the point is?

[Dave-330 · 1/10 · 8 April 1999]

I saw this movie on a show that was showing bad B-movies and trying to get you to buy them. It basically was just a long trailer but gave you a really good idea of what the movie was about. After viewing the trailer, I thought I would rent this movie because it looked stupid and generic, but could still be entertaining in a perverse sense. IT'S NOT ENTERTAINING in any sense of the word. The film has two (or should I say four) things going for it and it's not the number of deaths, it's the women. They are hot and naked a lot and Ms. Lovell could be a legit actress, but not in a movie where the emphasis is on T&A and corny dialogs. This isn't even a horror movie or scary, unless you are talking about watching the actors try to act. The production value is pathetic, the acting is worse and the writing is the worst. What was the point in making this movie? To scare people? To rip off "Texas Chainsaw Massacre"? To try and be funny? To show off the women's breasts? To put some guy's head into a retarded outfit, with fake hands and legs? To have a character just say the word "Snow" over and over? To not have any real violence but have enough nudity in an attempt to cover up the fact there is no real plot? To be able to make a sequel to a movie no one has seen or will ever watch? I made a mistake in picking up this movie, don't make this mistake too.

STAY AWAY FROM THIS MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A Guilty Pleasure

[Cenobite136 · 6/10 · 19 September 2023]

I know in my head, Head of the Family is a bad movie. My heart however has a different viewpoint. The movie has no real plot, generic kills, and some terrible special effects. (The head is amazing though)

It's just such a fun movie, and very unique. The dialouge between Blake Adams, and the head had me rolling laughing the entire runtime. I've always been a fan of B movies. A person could argue that this is less of a B movie, and more a C movie. However my mind on it won't be changed. If you don't mind your Horror/Comedy being mostly comedy, then I say this is at least worth a watch. I've seen far worse movies with a lot bigger budgets.

Cheesy fun

[grantss · 5/10 · 12 June 2023]

Lance, the owner of a local diner, is having an affair with Loretta, the wife of a local thug. Lance discovers that a local family, the Stackpools, are a family of mutants, each with a special physical attribute. The family is controlled by Myron, so intelligent he is little more than a head. Lance uses their secret to blackmail the Stackpools with unforeseen consequences.

A B-grade horror that is reasonably good fun. Unlike many B-grade horror movies it doesn't take itself too seriously, making for a light feel to proceedings. It does get quite dark on occasion but even then it's still more a comedy than a drama.

At the end of the day this is still a mediocre schlock-horror but it is better than most horror movies (not that this says much).

A family of village idiots with super powers ...............

[merklekranz · 6/10 · 29 October 2010]

A muscle man, a trollop, a big head brain, and a sensitive guy, make up the ultra-weird Stackpole family. They get their chuckles by waylaying strangers, giving them a lobotomy, then caging the victims in the basement for their amusement. Enter a diner owner, who's fooling around with a psycho biker's wife. Blackmailing the Stackpoles into getting rid of the brutish biker, he then puts the bite on them for money, which forces the plan to quickly spiral out of control. "Head of the Family" is outrageous and has enough dark humor to satisfy the "black comedy" crowd. There is very little gore, but be prepared for at least a bunch of nudity, including full frontal. Recommended of it's type. - MERK

Chop This Head Off... :=8P

[MooCowMo · 2/10 · 11 November 1999]

Ahh, nuthin' like cheesy, explopitative, semi-porn, masquerading as horror...This one stars Jaqueline Lovell(sometimes Sara St. James), the nubile starlet also seen in "Femalien", "The Erotic House of Wax", and that family favorite "Nude Bowling Party". She is now a fixture in Surrender Cinema's line-up of talentless cuties starring in pointless, soft-porn exploitation flicks. "Head of the Family" actually tries to be a real moovie. A con-man and a tramp try to get said-tramp's husband off-ed. They turn to a large-brained evil genius in a wheelchair, and his family of moronic misfits, who uses mind control to send out zombies to do his nefarious bidding. Said-genius has a giant head, hence the clever title of the film: that's about the extent of the film's humor. But basically, it's an excuse to show off the ample talents of Lovell and Dianne Colazzo (Ernestina). Laced with some of the wierdest dialogue can be herd (what the heck is "plowing oats", anycow??), and just plain stupid, this titular thriller will moost likey appeal to the breast-cownters of Drive-In Theater, but no one else. The MooCow says avoid the devoid, unless yer looking for a rent on cheesy T&A/horror night. :=8P

Use Your Head

[dennis-68 · 8/10 · 22 June 2001]

C'mon folks. Do you really think the producer, director and cast intended this to be serious? A tongue-in-cheek parody of all those cheesy horror flicks I used to enjoy as a kid -- that's what I think this is supposed to be. Belly laughs? No. But I did find myself chuckling on occasion at the subtle touches and I was continually amused by and pleased with the thing. In this day of bloated, anything-goes, lowest common denominator comedy, this is a pleasant departure because it's serving up all those types of films (hence the over-the-top family of misfits, the gratuitous sex, etc.) and it's right on target. And personally, I think the acting is way above average here --they're making fun of all the bad acting that goes on in these films. It's too bad some of my fellow reviewers here tried to take this film as serious scary stuff. It's not intended to be that. I think it's poking fun at an entire genre. It's a well crafted little movie that dares to be different. I appreciated -- and enjoyed -- it.

Best horror movie ever!

[stuthu · 6/10 · 25 August 2005]

This has to be one of the all time greatest horror movies. Charles Band made the best movie of 96' in this little seen gem. Highly realistic and , incredibly stylised- with a visual flair David Fincher would envy, its not hard to see why Band went on to make such classics as 'Killjoy 2: Deliverance From Evil', 'The Regina Pierce Affair', 'Virgins of Sherwood Forest', and 'Timegate: Tales of the Saddle Tramps'.

With a highly sophisticated story- a tiny body with a large head controls a family of weirdos who perform experiments on naked women, this movie may be a bit too much for younger viewers and is only for the most educated type of viewer, but for those who see it, Band is able to convey subtle messages about the human condition through his masterpiece. The head is symbolic of the lost love and longing for one's inner self that we all must face at one point or another, and for this reason i was able to engage with this film on a deeply personal level. Although many earlier critics have compared Band's film to Re-animator and other lesser works, this stands head and heels above the rest. It is gorier, but not pointlessly. The gore in this film is well crafted and used to enhance the storyline, rather than to just get a cheap shriek out of the audience. Also, the special effects in this film are absolutely top notch, easily the best work done in a horror film since... well... ever! The work in this film makes Savini's effects look like the work of a blind, limbless hobo.

The only problem i have with this film is the copious amounts of full frontal nudity, which were ultimately unnecessary in achieving the composer's goal- to create a timeless epic that would forever go down in history as possibly the greatest film of all time. If it were not for this slight problem i would have given this film a perfect 10.

Scary Christmas?

[Electric Rat · 4/10 · 3 February 2002]

This movie is awful, just awful. Someone bought it for me as a Christmas present because they knew I liked a good horror flick. I don't think they understood the "Good" part. All I can say is next year this person is getting slipper socks from me. Avoid this movie-- it makes you bitter. Peace.

"A big turd in a small toilet."

[KillerWorkout · 19 June 2001]

That's a line from the movie, and that's what it is. This movie was wacked out from the start. The Stackpool quadruplets each have an odd abnormality. There's Wheeler, whose sense of smell, sound, and sight are incredibly enhanced. Otis has the strength of ten men, Ernestina (?) has, well, some special physical talents, and Myron is a giant head with a tiny body. Myron has cleverly dubbed himself "head of the family" because his special talent is an infinite intellect and he has the power to telepathically control the other 3. What a privilege. This is most definitely one of the oddest films I have ever seen. The southern one-liners are all over the place, and there isn't enough horror to classify this as a horror movie. However, the scene where Myron's big nasty 3 foot tongue slobbers all over Jacqueline Lovell's breast was rather horrifying. While this film was definitely , well, different, I must admit I got some enjoyment out of it.

Wow, that was just bad.

[Oda Nobunga · 1/10 · 15 August 1999]

This movie gives a cinematic example of the word worthless. It's awful, you can forget plot or decent acting, cause it's not there. And with the dismissal of any decent story or acting or even the trait of being mildy frightening then there is usually only one plus left for a horror film. The appeal to those who like soft core porn. This film doesn't even have that. The women show a little skin, but not really anymore than say the Xena show. Except for the main star who is not particularly attractive and has a couple of poor, and I mean poor sex scenes. So in short if you like good movies you have no interest in this film, if you like cheese you still don't have any reason to rent this film, if you like erotica and soft core porn you really have no motive to rent this film, and most importantly if you value your time in the slightest, you cannot do better than to avoid this movie.

Head of the Family (1996)

[jonahstewartvaughan · 7/10 · 30 July 2023]

Cult Cuts Volume 31 (Return to the Video Store: Full Moon Rising Part One)

#4/4: Head of the Family (1996)

(7/10): So if I'm not mistaken this is one of the first films that Full Moon made after the severance with Paramount as they had some creative differences, and as far as I'm concerned they still showed a decent effort considering that they had their budgets cut.

Head of the Family is a weird oddball horror/comedy that focuses on a young couple and the guys friend who, unbeknownst to him is constantly sleeping around with his girlfriend. After a late night hookup in the backseat of his car they drive off and find a suspicious road block that he goes to investigate and finds a group of people carrying unconscious people into their house of which he decides to get the license plate number of the car that they were using as well as other pictures.

He then ends up getting on one of their nerves in public and then they go back to the house where he meets the Head of the Family, the Brains of the operation who is telepathically linked to his siblings all with various deformities or powers. He then begins to bribe him as he has a set up with a lawyer that if not fulfilled he will mail the evidence convicting the family to the authorities and get them arrested.

He wants her boyfriend out of the picture but once they oblige he gets too greedy and starts bribing them for money which then gets the Head to take it upon himself to dig up information on his arrangements and take care of the evidence and then them.

It's got some solid low budget production value and interesting and memorable character design as well as quite a bit of nudity to accompany it.

It's well paced and has a runtime that doesn't overstay its welcome. The jokes didn't always land for me but it was enough to keep it interesting and enjoyable.

The film even lends itself, purposefully, to some old horror tropes and has fun with them.

It's a movie that one could deem offensive today as it's portraying people who have deformities in a manner that seems like it would be mocking them but it's really not, it's just a B-Movie that is just having fun with its silly ideas.

Although I do gotta say it's type of humour isn't for everyone, it's for people who enjoy good bad movies.

A pathetic excuse for a movie.

[Adam Flig · 1/10 · 18 February 2000]

I watched this film on the advice of a friend who assured me it was one of the funniest things he'd ever seen. Sadly this person is completely lacking a sense of humour and I was forced to endure two hours of the worst film making I have ever seen. Please do not watch this film. 1/10

I wanted to like it more

[Groverdox · 6/10 · 21 September 2022]

I wanted to like "Head of the Family" a little more than I did because it's a fairly novel set up for a story. It features a super-intelligent head in a jar who controls his three siblings by telepathy. An unlikeable idiot tries to blackmail the head to get rid of another unlikeable idiot, so that he can make off with that guy's wife, who's also pretty unlikeable.

This was one problem with the movie: there's nobody to root for and the characters are drawn in very broad strokes with no depth to them. You think the protag is acting out of love for the woman he's having an affair with, but he continues trying to blackmail the family for money. In that case, the woman should be a channel for sympathy, but she really isn't.

The only character who behaves out of anything other than self-interest is one of the two brothers of the head in the jar, but he's dumb and barely says anything, and only emerges with a personality trait at the end of the movie.

Not giving you anyone to root for, the movie distances you from its characters, and some scenes go on far too long.

I will say, in its defence, that the movie has much more nudity than I expected. I'm still without a Full Moon Features flick I really like.

Bad Bad Bad Movie

[pacifica333 · 1/10 · 9 November 2001]

No gore, no blood, no gratifying death scenes...dumb dumb dumb dumb. Dear God sitting through this movie made me sick. Sick sick sick. Very boring...extremely boring...

Theres not even a humorous aspect to this film! i cant find a good thing to say about it, other than the lead guy had a nice body...I guess. Definitely not worth the fifty cents I paid to rent it.

Not too bad, could've been way worse

[kannibalcorpsegrinder · 7/10 · 25 September 2022]

Trying to keep their affair a secret, a woman and her lover inadvertently witness a family of freaks capturing a traveler and dragging him into their house which soon causes them to end up blackmailing the family into helping get rid of her husband only for a deadly complication to disrupt their deal.

This wasn't too bad and had a lot to like about. One of the better elements here is the completely original story that had hardly been seen in horror films offering a perverted take on the type of story featured here. The main idea of the family operating in town with numerous people aware of something off about them but not knowing what until the sleazy resident uncovers the truth and blackmails them into doing what he wants serves this one well enough with the type of familiar setup that allows for a rather nice grounding that allows the more deviant nature to arrive here. It's not just the type of characters permeating this one but also the way they go about trying to outdo the other group of individuals which ensures that the atmosphere here is pretty grimy. There's also quite a lot to like with the film's amount of cheesy elements featured throughout here. Even though there weren't a whole lot of special effects in the film, the ones that are featured here seem pretty realistic, with the giant head of the family being plausibly done and looking like something that could exist, the designs of the freaks that they keep in the basement are very creepy and look threatening upon first glance, and the finale offering the demented showcase the expensive setting that's all quite fun to see here. The real asset, or assets, to this film is the amount of nudity in the film which centers on the main lead. Not only is she a good-looking actress, but she also went topless three times in the film, including several for long periods of time including three more instances of full nudity. These were the main positives to like here. There are a few big issues that hold this one back. The main issue here is that, despite the setup providing this with a generally sleazy and cheesy atmosphere, this one never really goes for a genre atmosphere. For a horror film, you need something dark and macabre to happen which doesn't happen at all. This film has no jumps, shocks, or even jolts with how everything transpires and the whole thing ends up feeling like a low-rent crime drama rather than a true genre effort as a result. Since there are backstabbings, an affair, a femme fatale conspiring for money, and devious deals with low-rent characters, the tone and feel is quite a bit away from the tone of what would be expected here as without the nudity the film would be just a drag. Alongside the low-budget look, these are what hold it back.

Rated R: Full Nudity, Several Sex Scenes, Violence, and Graphic Language.

Not a bad 3 but good for a watch!

[blankistoblank · 3/10 · 2 January 2019]

I gave this film a 3. Its a really good 3 though! Its got some good writing but really bad writing at times to. Every time i see the blonde she is having sex. Its good for a late night flick.

A Prime Example of Horror, Though Maybe Not Great Horror

[gavin6942 · 9/10 · 10 October 2006]

In an effort to steal one man's wife, the protagonist Lance has a family of freaks kidnap the man and he then blackmails them to keep the whole affair silent.

Many and perhaps most people would write this film off as being incredibly stupid and a horrible movie. And maybe they're right. But I think there are some things in this movie that should not be overlooked.

First, the sheer excess of nudity and sexual activity. While in most films it would be completely unnecessary, this film seems to realize how silly the whole thing is and continues pushing the nudity to become even more outrageous. Half the plot develops while the main female lead is nude.

Second, the plot is more intricate than many might assume. The plot, as outlined in my first sentence, is nothing spectacular. But they made the plot deeper and more serious when they put in a series of "what if" moments that arise when we hear about he hiring of multiple lawyers for use in the blackmail plot. What could have been a simple device is now a battle of the wits.

Third, the film seems stupid because the ideas are silly and the nudity overshadows the rest of the film. But actually pay attention to the dialogue and you'll see the writer is a clever wordsmith. Such phrases as "foul play of the permanent variety" suggest this man would have had a good contract working for "Buffy the Vapire Slayer".

If you like cheesy horror films, this is one you shouldn't pass up on. And you know it's cheesy because it's Full Moon Entertainment (makers of the "Puppet Master" series). While the gore is at a minimum, the b-movie schlock is at an all-time high!

Good ideas & craft, mired in slow pacing & excessive dialogue

[I_Ailurophile · 6/10 · 24 September 2022]

I worked in a video store when I was in high school - not Blockbuster, but a local independent establishment that had a far more substantial library, and much more variety. I never had nearly enough time to watch all the films I'd have liked, and in hindsight, I deeply regret the missed opportunities. One of those movies I never watched nonetheless had cover art that distinctly caught my attention, so one day I knew that for better or worse I had to check out 'Head of the family.' Now that I have, I'm not entirely sure how I feel about that decision.

In theory this is a horror-comedy. Any attempted outright jokes and gags frequently outright fail to land. Dialogue is often tired and tawdry at large, nevermind more than a few instances of sexism, ableism, fatphobia, and other nonsense. Some lines bear a spark of cleverness, yet too much of the potential earnest fun is quashed by hopelessly leaden pacing. For that matter, the writing generally and plot development specifically are also heavily dulled by the bizarre slothfulness, and by undeniably excessive dialogue. The narrative, characters, and scene writing are pretty decent, I think - there are actually some swell ideas here in the assemblage. It's too bad they're trapped in tree sap that's halfway to becoming amber.

On the other hand, the cast is obviously having fun, and it's hard not to get a little bit caught up in that spirit. The production design and art direction are swell, at their best faintly recalling genre flicks of the 80s, or arguably British horror from the 70s; that's almost kind of impressive given the usual standards of Full Moon Pictures. In every instance the costume design, hair and makeup work, prosthetics, and effects look really great, on par with like contributions in more reputable titles. I'm as surprised as anyone to say that from a technical standpoint this is quite well made, including lighting, cinematography, and editing.

'Head of the family' isn't half bad. There's real entertainment value here, for the horror vibes and to a much lesser extent for fragments of comedy. The screenplay is, in fact, much better than not, and Charles Band's direction. Yet arguably as much as half of the dialogue could be cut without losing anything, and thereby a few entire scenes and a fair bit of the runtime. Had the length been thusly trimmed, the end result would have meaningfully and substantially improved. For all that is done well here I'd love to say that I like this more than I do; my enthusiasm, however, is restricted by how meekly the movie limps along. A smidgen more mindfulness would have gone a very long way, and it wouldn't have even required anything more by way of a budget.

Believe it or not, ultimately this is rather worthwhile, and probably among the better features Full Moon has ever churned out. It simply didn't need to be this long, or this verbose, and the execution frankly needed a stimulant or four. Still, if you have the chance to watch 'Head of the family,' it's an enjoyable, cheeky genre romp; just don't get your hopes up.

Horror Comedy with No Real Laughs or Scares

[TheExpatriate700 · 3/10 · 24 April 2016]

Head of the Family is an extremely weak effort from Full Moon Pictures, failing at being a comedy or a horror film. Although it boasts some decent make-up effects and a decent performance by J. W. Perra, it otherwise offers little of interest.

The film follows an adulterous couple that blackmails the local family of freaks into disposing of the female's lowlife husband. Unsurprisingly, things start to go downhill when they try to wheedle money out of the family.

Aside from a weak, predictable plot, the film suffers from numerous other problems. The acting is mostly awful, with Jacqueline Lovell especially poor as the distaff half of the murderous couple. The only actor who is remotely compelling is J. W. Perra as the eponymous head. The actors are not helped by a terrible script which reduces each character to the most basic one note.

Other than Perra's performance and some good makeup, the only thing this film has to offer is its brevity and copious nudity from Lovell.