Alien Magazine Covers

Alien and Aliens: the perfect combo. I love them. I bought pretty much anything with their logo. I even love the Kenner toys. Yes, they suck. I mean they are ridiculously awful (Bishop has a giant fuckin gattling gun! did they watch the movie?!?! he gives back the pistol Vasquez tries to hand him), but I still love 'em. Anyway, in honor of that, feast your eyes on these:

Badass Creature: Pumpkinhead

I always loved going to VHS stores and roaming around the aisles, looking at all the covers. Pumpkinhead was always one of my favorites. The design of the creature is outstanding, and I just found this UK VHS cover I had never seen before.


And here's my shitacular drawing of him.

Is Avatar really Dances with Wolves in space?

Even Cameron himself has said as much in response to critics trying to use this against the film (and this was clearly a conscious decision as proved by the Native American dreamcatcher in Selfridge's office). Since everyone has pointed out how much the two are alike, let's look at how they are different:

1) Jake is a paraplegic. You don't often see tentpole sci-fi blockbusters where the lead is stuck in a wheel chair. True, there's a way out of this for him, and Cameron is repeating his own work on Dark Angel, but still, he deserves some credit.

2) The very title Avatar highlights a key story distinction and something we haven't really seen before in live action: transferring one's consciousness into an alien body.

3) The planet Pandora with its unique wildlife, landscape, and bioluminescence. Yes, there are horse-type creatures, but there are also many, many others that are completely original.

4) Sigourney Weaver's character Grace is not in Dances with Wolves. Neither is Norm or Trudy (she would've been the equivalent to a Union soldier defecting to help Lt. Dunbar). Most importantly, there is no Colonel Quaritch. Considering how crucial he is to the narrative of Avatar (main antagonist, present from beginning to end and my favorite character), this is a pivotal point.

5) The ending is not the same at all. Dances with Wolves is rather anti-climatic and depressing. Avatar is anything but, and it has like 30 min of amazing, extremely-well-choreographed action.

These are just some of the major differences, but there are a ton more. Obviously, Avatar is not simply Dances with Wolves in space. That is a rather crude unfair assessment. Rewatch them both back-to-back to see what I mean. I really liked Avatar, and I'm anxious to see what Cameron does with the sequel. If there's one person who understands how to make a good sequel, it's him.

But it's interesting to look at what Cameron and Ridley Scott are doing right now. Cameron has gone more toward PG-13 love story epics (Titanic, Avatar) while Scott is still going hard R with a return to his Alien roots in Prometheus (plus, he gave us Gladiator, Black Hawk Down, American Gangster, etc.). Both have now embraced 3D and are working with pretty monumental budgets. I would argue both are still at the top of their game although I wish Cameron would go back to R-rated fare (you can't beat Aliens, Terminator, T2). I know the rating doesn't necessarily dictate quality, but if you compare Aliens and Avatar side by side, there is a distinct contrast compounded by the gritty nature of the former with its harsh language, gruesome on-screen deaths (plenty of the red stuff), and nightmarish xenomorphs. People still die in Avatar, but their face isn't getting melted off by acid. Ah, the good ole days...

Why The Thing Prequel Sucks

This is how painful it is to watch this piece of shit.

1. The mystery of Carpenter's infamous opening has been replaced by a typical boring "We found something so let's investigate even if it came from a spaceship and looks like a monster that will more than likely devour us." The film doesn't start in medias res to shake things up, which might be a good idea if your audience already knows what you're doing. Instead the prequel has a predictable and cliche setup with no hook to keep us interested. Simply discovering the UFO from the first film DOES NOT WORK especially when the people who find it are trapped in such a way they could never get back to their camp (seriously, their snowcat was stuck hundreds of feet down an ice chasm with a ten story drop to a metal ship). Carpenter could've had his movie begin just like this one, but he opted to do something smart and interesting instead.

2. The audience is ahead of the movie before it even starts. We already know what's coming, and it's clear the filmmakers are treading the same territory without trying something new. MacReady was a helicopter pilot so you do the same exact thing with the new male hero? How thrilling. If Cameron had opted to do another haunted house in space film like Ridley Scott, do you think Aliens would've been so damn good?

3. The creature itself has apparently gone full retard. It breaks out of the ice in front of two witnesses and alerts everyone to its presence. This completely contradicts everything about it that was established in Carpenter's film.

The one universal truth of bad horror films: morons deserve to die.

4. You get the ridiculous "I hear a noise so let me go die a total idiot" moment. Never seen that before...

5. Right after the creature claims its first onscreen victim in front of another witness that it leaves alive, it STAYS in the same spot so everyone can run over to shoot it and burn it. How fucking stupid is this thing? It's outside. It can run and hide anywhere. It never even tries to attack the people who are killing it. There is a scene like this in Carpenter's version except it did actually try to fight back as well as flee but then the creature was in a confined space so it couldn't escape so easily (it was also busy absorbing a lot of dogs). But here's a thought: STOP RIPPING OFF THE SAME FUCKIN SCENES AND MAKING THEM SHITTIER.

6. CG breath. When Carpenter made his film, it was actually cold since they shot on a glacier, and even when they did some shots later on sound stages, they made sure it was nearly freezing on the set. It makes a big difference both to the performances of the actors and the audience watching.

7. Same exact dissection scene. Why is this a bad idea? We've seen it before, and you're not going to top it especially not when you have the asshole in charge tell the pretty girl to help pry open the monster's stomach. If she is supposed to be smart, why would she touch that thing?

8. There's a dog guy just like in Carpenter's except you groan seeing him, because it's all too clear this is a poor imitation of an all-time classic horror movie.

You spent millions of dollars on this? WTF?

9. Use practical effects! USE PRACTICAL FUCKING EFFECTS! Then your monster won't look like an awful video game graphic. The face splitting effect on the helicopter looked HORRIBLE.

10. The sets look like sets, and they're overlit. Shadows are incredibly important in horror films... did you even see Carpenter's?

11. Don't show obvious CGI when someone looks through a microscope. I'm sure this is a shocker but let us see what cells actually look like when you use a microscope then you could digitally manipulate real footage so it doesn't look like fake shit or get real footage of a virus attacking cells! You have millions of dollars for fuck's sake! This isn't rocket science!

12. When the score isn't copying Morricone's, it sucks. Probably any music was doomed to fail here. You can't compete with Ennio Morricone. The best thing would've been to use very little music since it kills tension anyway and then when appropriate, use Morricone.

Who the fuck is this guy? I watched the movie, and I still don't know. Beard man #5.

13. Carpenter's film had distinct character actors with unique traits for them to play so each one stood out on his own and became memorable. They seemed like real people with a lot of contrast between them. In this prequel, you don't know who the hell most of the people are. They all blend together, and you couldn't care less about them. There's almost zero character development. You can really appreciate the genius of what Carpenter did when you look at this. There are still a lot of characters in his film but you remember them. They're not just faces with anyone-could've-said-this lines. In Carpenter's remake, you also got a sense of what it was like to be up at the Antarctic for so long. You saw them rewatching old VHS tapes, how fucking boring it was, the fact MacReady drank a lot while playing computer chess with a "cheating bitch," etc. Aside from one early joke (which is dialogue that doesn't show anything), it doesn't seem like being up there is much of a pain at all. You could tell the opposite was true just by the look on the faces of Carpenter's actors.

14. Mary Elizabeth Winstead (she really doesn't have much of a character except we know her occupation) gives the same speech MacReady gives right after they do the same exact thing... burning bodies outside in the snow. You can't just copy Carpenter's story beats. That will never fucking work, and you're constantly reminding us how much better Carpenter's version was. Think about T2. Is that the same story as the first? No, you have two Terminators racing to Sarah's son where the bad guy from the first film becomes the hero and then you have a boy becoming friends with a machine. Connor herself is different. It's not recycling the same shit.

15. Why would all these guys follow Mary Elizabeth Winstead? They've been up there a long time so I find it hard to believe no one tries to hit on her or make advances or anything. She is a very beautiful girl too, which just makes it even more unrealistic. No one questions her being in charge. They all just magically stand around and listen to her during MacReady's speech. This is supposed to be in the 80s too, and she's a foreigner up there at the Norwegian camp.

Watch out! That cartoon is going to eat you!

16. I like the idea of the creature not being able to copy inorganic material, but as far as black fillings and things, it could copy the color and shape if not the exact material because otherwise it would have to make something new in place of the other (ie white teeth where there were black fillings). Carpenter's blood test scene was a million times better and part of that is the lack of music during the scene, which increased the tension. One thing I did appreciate is the creature didn't reveal itself for no reason, which makes you question the test (the fact it hides so well here though and not when it first erupts out of the ice just underlines the shitactular quality of that earlier scene and the fact they didn't put much thought into it). And of course, I like the fact you realize the test ultimately failed, but then you see a shit ton of awful CGI to negate that positive.

17. When the MacReady-like character (I don't even know this prequel character's name) desperately needs to use his flamethrower, the exact same thing happens as in Carpenter's version where the weapon malfunctions. It's pretty much the same scene too right after testing each other. What the fuck is the point? Your time is better spent rewatching Carpenter's masterpiece.

18. The part on top of the Alien ship is just stupid. Amazingly stupid. It looks fake as hell. Terrible backgrounds. Laughable CGI. Plus, Mary Elizabeth Winstead (Kate I guess) falls how many stories and lands on a metal floor yet she gets up without even appearing to be banged up at all. Don't think during this movie or you might just think, "Wow, what a piece of shit." The scenes inside are just as bad.

What the fuck is that? Did someone's computer just have a stroke? Is the Alien ship playing tetris?

19. By setting up the opening of Carpenter's film, the prequel's ending ruins the other's mystery. Before you never knew why they were chasing a dog and trying to kill it. If anyone watches this shitty prequel before Carpenter's movie, they'll know why, and that proves just how big of a mistake this fuckin prequel was.

UPDATE: Most of the FX were actually practical, but they were painted over and replaced with shitty CGI. You can see ADI Studio's excellent practical FX below:

Review: Cyber Tracker (1995)

Wow... talk about shit. Never heard of this? Neither had I. Trust me. That's a good thing. Combine The Terminator and Robocop but throw in an awful cheap-ass look, ridiculously atrocious dialogue, seppuku-worthy acting, and a coma-inducing story. The cyborg in the opening scene actually wears a black leather jacket just like Arnold in T2. Even the music copies the iconic theme. But nothing beats, “You are to be executed… now.” See the “now” there is important, because you don’t want the criminal to be confused on when you’re going to execute him (please please be considerate machines). And you’ve got to add some shitty CGI too so a gun can morph out of the robot’s thigh. That’s so much cooler than Robowhatever. You need a green scanning mode too (red would be too obvious). Badass. Don’t forget to change the manbot’s voice so he sounds like a synthesizer crying for help. That always works.

I like the one crook telling the other, “That thing is hot man. That’s the piece I used to cap that old man.” That is some damn good storytelling there. Tell. Never show. And be sure to use the word “cap” when you tell. “man” is also a good way to make the bad guy hip. If you were worried they couldn’t maintain this level of quality all the way through, rest easy. They don’t disappoint.

In the next scene, some guy actually yells, “Computers killed my brother!” Amazing. They should’ve had another lady yell, “Computers killed my cat!” But the brother guy really sells his line. He has an expression on his face like somebody just crushed his crayons. It's priceless. Never trust dem compooturs.

When the female scientist leader whoever-she-is finds out all the members of the resistance team were killed, she turns away slightly and quietly says, "No." It's like she just screwed up spelling her name. Shucks... all dead. Hmm... I wonder what's for lunch? Bet you didn't know scientists wear white lab coats.

Guess what happens when a van flips over a car? It immediately bursts into a 10-story fireball. Awesome. Next time though make the fireball morph into Godzilla. Amateurs.

Review: Ring 0: Birthday (2000)

There's no way this movie is going to be good. Explaining the origins of Sadako is just a bad idea. It's not necessary, and if you remove all the mystery with some heavy-handed explanation, the whole thing will blow up in your face. Ringu told you everything you needed to know. But the fact is that's all wrong, because these filmmakers knew what they were doing, and they were incredibly smart about it. They very wisely keep much of the mystery intact and execute an extremely well-done character study that builds to an inevitable but somehow still shocking conclusion. The reason why it works so well is because they take the time to develop the characters so you actually care about them when the shit hits the fan. That's not to say the film isn't frightening. It is, but they're far more interested in atmosphere and tension than cheap jump scares. There is a love story, but it works, and like all great love stories, it becomes a tragedy. Making Sadako a beautiful, kind, and sympathetic girl yet also a terrifying, heartless, and deadly monster seems like an impossible problem to solve. You have two extremes that are complete opposites, but they come up with a clever way to do it and deliver a haunting heart-breaking story that no one should miss. George Lucas, this is how you do a prequel.

Review: Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla (1974)

Mechagodzilla is my favorite of all Godzilla's adversaries largely because the original design is so damn well done... the eyes without irises or pupils, the spike on its head, the sharp pointed teeth. It looks like something designed to destroy. It's fuckin badass, and he really represents the perfect opponent for the King of the Monsters as illustrated by the scene where Godzilla fights Godzilla (who could prove to be a more worthy nemesis than himself?). Sure, the story is pretty silly with the space monkeys in disguise (somebody loved Planet of the Apes a little too much), but the prophecy about a monster appearing to destroy the world certainly sets the stakes high enough. I tend to forget about all the crap with the humans (you watch a Godzilla movie for Godzilla and the monsters, not the people... this is a versus title after all). That said, the mystery of the artifacts, the space titanium, and the cave base are handled well. Plus, our heroes are sympathetic enough especially when they're about to be barbecued in the red torture room of death. This film isn't playing around. All those people could've easily died if they hadn't gotten lucky and outsmarted their captors.

I just love how bloody the film gets when these two monsters fight. It gives those scenes a lot more weight and shows that Mechagodzilla does inflict some real damage. After the first battle, which our protagonist loses, a ton of blood appears in the water where Godzilla fell in. That sets a dark tone... we don't see Godzilla again for a while so it's not like he just walked away. You know he got hurt, and he could've died for all we know at that point (yes, he's invincible, but don't forget, if it bleeds, we can kill it). Even the first appearance of the disguised Mechagodzilla is brutal when it rips apart Anguirus' jaws, and Godzilla is covered in blood during much of the final fight. The red stuff literally sprays out of his wounds multiple times as Mechagodzilla attacks him with its various weapons, which are pretty impressive in their diversity and strength (neither Godzilla nor King Caesar could penetrate Mechagodzilla's spinning-head force field).

King Caesar isn't the greatest, but I grew up with the movie so I don't mind him. That damn song, however, is forever embedded in my brain (help me), but I like how two monsters have to team up to bring down Mechagodzilla, reinforcing the idea that Godzilla has met his match. Better yet, I love how the humans have to interfere to disrupt Mechagodzilla's controls in order to win the finale. Mechagodzilla's weakness proves to be his dim-witted hairball creators so the notion that Godzilla couldn't defeat him without help is preserved all the way through. Yep, I wanted Mechagodzilla to win. He could've at least killed King Caesar. You think it's fair King Kong beat Godzilla? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard, and don't try to tell me it's different in the Japanese version. I wish. Godzilla should've burned that moron to a crisp. Who wrote that crap? And yeah, Mechagodzilla should've won. Stupid space monkeys. Wait... why the hell are they monkeys?

Behind the Scenes: Gojira (1954)

I grew up watching Godzilla. TNT's MonsterVision is one of my fondest childhood memories (somebody needs to bring back Joe Bob Briggs). I love practical effects: miniatures, guys in suits, squibs, animatronics, etc. and a large part of that is Gojira.

Here's an awesome article Patrick Brennan wrote on the original film. Go, go, Godzilla!

Review: Inside (2007)

From the very beginning of this film (the opening credits in fact), it's all too clear the intention of these French filmmakers.  They want to gross you out and exploit the inherent body horror aspects of pregnancy.  The problem with this: it's easy.  Disgust is the most simple and cheapest of all reactions to evoke in your audience.  Just show a fingernail being pulled off, a tooth being yanked out, the vomit as someone throws up, etc.  Basically, forget good taste, and there you go.  I mentioned that first example of the fingernail on purpose, because I want you to think back to David Cronenberg's masterpiece The Fly.  It also has some stomach-churning moments, but unlike Inside, you actually know the lead character, and you care about him so when Seth Brundle's body starts to deteriorate, these scenes also become genuinely horrifying as well, because you've made a connection with the protagonist.  You put yourself in his shoes.  Otherwise, it's superficial, and that is the real issue with this horror movie.

Spoilers below.

I don't know anything about this pregnant girl except she was in a car accident, her husband died, and you guessed it: she's pregnant.  She is not portrayed as a full-fledged human being.  There are no chances for levity or humor in this film.  She can't smile or make a joke, not that one normally would after such tragic events, but even in the worst of times, we often find something surprising that causes us to show the stark opposite emotion of what you'd expect.  I'm sure she would reflect back on some positive memories with her lover.  You need something to flesh her out so we can get to know her as a person.  As someone we understand to be real and not just a puppet on the stage.  We really don't get anything about her, and that one dimensionality brings us to the next point.

Inside basically has one mood throughout: depressing.  Everything is grim and dark.  Her house looks like a living nightmare simply because of the way it's lit, which I like since after losing your spouse and returning to where you two used to be happy together, it would become an awful terrifying reminder of what you've lost, but to convey such material, you need contrast.  You'd have to show the house before and after so we see and feel the change (think of when RoboCop goes back to his empty home).  One mood can work, but it's tricky.  John Carpenter's The Thing pretty much has a bleak mood all the way through; however, you care about the characters, and some of their antics, like MacReady pouring his drink in the computer chess game after it "cheats," are pretty funny so it's not all one note.  Inside, on the other hand, is always the same, and unfortunately, it's only concerned with surface details.

Let's look at the antagonist.  You don't learn anything about her until the third act of the movie.  Up until then, all you know is she has baby fever and she likes scissors.  So yeah, she's batshit insane.  She's also not too bright since she quickly alerts the pregnant girl to her presence by standing right outside the house in plain sight to where the girl calls the cops.  Good move.  The audience is left to wonder who the hell this woman is for 80% of the film.  So she's basically the shark in Jaws up until the end, which could work if I knew the protagonist (Brody? Quint? Hooper?) but I don't.  I don't know anyone so I'm not invested in what's happening.

Another monumental flaw is the way the movie strains believability with genre cliches.  The pregnant girl kills her own mother by mistake.  Sound familiar?  It should.  The same kind of thing happens in The Strangers, The Descent, and about a billion other movies.  It's extremely hard to sell that, I've seen it before (especially recently), and even if it manages to work (I don't think it ever does although it didn't bother me as much in The Descent), it's still annoying.  If you want to read some deep message into how the girl is taking the place of her mother by killing her or whatever, quit kidding yourself.  That is far too obvious to be interesting, and if they intended that to be a theme, it's not developed.  The mother-daughter relationship is not explored at all in the film.  As soon as you meet the mom (and by meet, I mean see, because you don't get to know any of these characters), she is killed in one of the most contrived deaths I've ever seen.  Of course, the girl would not see her mom before opening the door and stabbing her.

The other ridiculous cliche would have to be the stupid cops.  Do they call for backup even after they realize something is horribly wrong?  No.  Do they have radios or cell phones on them?  No.  Do they behave anything like real police officers with training?  No.  Do they all get killed by being complete idiots?  Of course, they do.  What's sad is they fool you into thinking they might be doing something smart with the cops, because they have one realize that the lady answering the door is not the woman who called for help, but then instead of immediately alerting his co-workers or calling for backup, he turns into a total moron so he can die, and the other officers follow suit.  You'd think one might possess some intelligence but no.

You also get the villain that never dies.  Evil witch basically gets her whole face burned off (the makeup looks outstanding, but that's the only positive) and yet she still survives with enough strength to overpower the protagonist and kill her.  Yes, it's a happy ending (actually, I like the last shot, but I hate the movie).  Now, let's go back to the discussion of bad taste and grossing out your viewer.

Have you ever wanted to see a makeshift C-section with scissors going in a woman's belly button?  Well, you get one in all its disgusting glory.  Does it really add anything by showing it?  No.  Is it cheap and exploitative?  Yes.  Is it completely predictable?  Yes.  Do they give you a nice insulting overview of the aftermath with our dead protagonist?  You bet they do.  Somebody must really hate pregnant women, because they have no sympathy at all, and they don't have any for the audience either.  Got to be extreme, right?  And what's more extreme than cutting out a baby with scissors?  This is not what horror is supposed to be, and it's just giving ammo to the genre's critics.  I could not defend this movie to non-horror fans, and I would not try.  It's a sad excuse for storytelling that fails on every level.  There's nothing smart about it.

So by the end, we find out the antagonist was in the same car accident, and she was actually pregnant too, but she lost the baby because of the crash.  This would be a good twist if the protagonist had been developed, because they basically switch roles.  We might have rooted for the antagonist had we known all along and had she been built up as a sympathetic character although she's probably still too psychotic to win us over.  But it turns out this twist is mind-numbingly stupid.  The protagonist tells us that no one else survived according to the authorities.  So they lied to her?  Everybody who arrived at the scene?  All the doctors and nurses at the hospital?  Why would they do that?  That doesn't make any sense.  Of course, someone would've told her.  So they didn't know someone survived?  How is that possible?  There would be the other vehicle with evidence that someone left the scene.  I'm sure she would've been injured (she did lose the baby in the accident) so blood would've been left behind.  If she was the driver, obviously, they would've known there was a survivor.  If she wasn't, she still had to get out of the vehicle (which I imagine she couldn't do by herself after such a bad accident), and if she was with a spouse, they would've known to look for her.  Even if she was just dating the guy or he was a friend, their families would've known when they were notified.  It just doesn't make any sense.  Did the protagonist's family not let the authorities tell their daughter the truth or did her parents lie to her so she didn't suffer more trauma?  That is still such a stretch, and it doesn't make sense either, because the authorities would've had to tell the parents so they would've recognized the woman in the house.  Why is this line even in the movie?  It just makes the whole thing unravel.

One last thing I want to talk about is the CGI.  Most of the film uses practical effects, which are quite good, but then you get these awful jarring shots of a CG baby in the protagonist's womb reacting to the mother getting hit, kicked, etc.  You shouldn't do these shots if you can't make them believable.  They're like a bad cartoon.  They don't fit at all.  They don't add anything anyway (I didn't expect the baby to be smiling in there), and since they look so fake, they instantly take you right out of the movie.

Every good film has characters you care about.  Characters that are actually developed.  Making a film to be extreme is just silly and pointless.  A good filmmaker understands the difference between good taste and bad taste.  They're saying something or expressing something meaningful to them, and it should be communicated well enough to where it becomes meaningful to the audience as well.  The whole movie shouldn't fall apart if you spend more than two seconds thinking about it.  Anyone can disgust somebody.  Just chew with your mouth open.  That's the cinematic equivalent of Inside.

The Walking Dead Season 6

The one thing that bugs me about The Walking Dead is the CG blood. It always looks awful, but I still like the show (Daryl! Maggie!). For me though, I'm always going to do practical FX. No CGI. I just think it's a million times more believable especially in horror. I actually made this film before The Walking Dead became such an insanely-popular TV show, but if you like that, you should definitely like my film, and you can be happy to know you're supporting practical FX. My next movie is a creature feature with literally hundreds of monsters so your money will go to a worthy goal. Plus, my movie won two Best Feature awards, an Award of Merit for Cinematography, nominated for Best Score, it has a 7.0 rating on IMDb with over 1,000 votes, it has gotten a lot of good reviews, etc.

Buy with Paypal: Click here!

Buy with Credit Card: Click this text!

Review: Carnosaur 2 (1995)

Like Aliens? Good, this is the same movie. Pretty much scene by scene. Remember the Dropship pilot Ferro getting killed by an Alien? Just change it to a helicopter, raptor, and some girl you don't know. You loved Hudson? Does this sound familiar? "How did they cut the power man? They're lizards man!" They don't even try to hide it. Does that mean it's good? Well, it's better than the first. They got rid of the retarded women birthing eggs bit. The dinosaurs still look pretty fake, and they reuse some shots at the end of the movie since they steal the climatic battle from the original film, but hey, give 'em a break. They had to rip off the Queen vs. Powerloader fight too. It's not easy to cannibalize your own work and someone else's. If you had to suffer through one of these, Carnosaur 2 would be your best bet. The acting is an improvement over the first, but that's not saying much. It's not like you'll really care about anyone in it, but then again, if you have some insane thirst for dinosaur-induced bloodshed, this may just be your fountain of youth.

Confession time: I actually like this movie. I'm a huge Aliens fan so throwing in dinosaurs works for me. It's horribly flawed and not original by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, a lot of it is awful, but it's not like we've had many (any) good bloody dinosaur movies. And this one is a lot more fun than the first. Yeah, I think it's just cause I love Aliens so much. That is a perfect movie.

Review: Carnosaur (1993)

Compare this to Jurassic Park, and it's the worst film ever made. But putting that side, if you ever wanted to see a T-Rex brutally devour some helpless hippies, here you go. It's also got women giving birth to massive dinosaur eggs, which kills them. Yeah... this movie really isn't good. But there are lots of chickens. Because they're used to... oh, who gives a sh*t, it's got dinosaurs eating people! Yeah, it's dumb. Incredibly dumb. But it's based on a book, which is probably good. I don't know. I wasn't inspired to read it after this. But the characters are named after birds. See... it's smart too? Right? No? Ok. I tried. It is extremely gory. The FX range from good (raptor attack in a jeep) to piss poor (flabby fat T-Rex neck). The good part is they're all practical, and really, they're not too bad for a low budget Roger Corman flick (he was the Executive Producer, they had two directors! two is better, right? no?). A few shots manage to look convincing (just a few though). But they only had 1 million dollars to slap together this monstrosity (Jurassic Park was made for 63 million, quite a difference). Ever dreamed of seeing a small-town Sheriff gutted by a raptor (erm Deinonychus)? What the hell is wrong with you? I mean... welcome to the movie of your dreams! Apparently, the novel had different protagonists (two journalists vs a night watchman and an environmentalist... yes, I'm stealing this from Wikipedia, do you think I have thoughts of my own?), a whole lot more dinosaurs, and no virus women-laying-eggs subplot (damn, I guess that confirms my theory the book actually doesn't suck). This movie did have an awesome preview on TV. Something about God resting. Then he made dinosaurs, and they ate people. It was ridiculous. Ridiculously awesome. Unfortunately, no one has uploaded it to YouTube yet, which is a shame. It's better than the movie. The official trailer, on the other hand, is worse so I'm not embedding it. I found a clip from the film though. Be warned: it's bloody, it's in Spanish, and the raptor couldn't look more fake. What does the guy to say to it? "Greetings, Earth Brother." What else would you say to a giant dino? Yes, he deserved to die.

Review: The Fly II (1989)

David Cronenberg's The Fly is one impossible act to follow. It's a classic with a flawless script, incredible acting, tight pacing, amazing practical FX, and a haunting tragic score (the music at the end is so far beyond brilliant, it makes ninjas explode out of my face). Yeah, it's that good.

So how does the sequel measure up? Obviously, it's going to take a beating. Could anybody top the original? Besides Cronenberg himself? I doubt it, but you know what I actually love The Fly II. It's not perfect, but it has a certain 80s charm to it. And Daphne Zuniga is a large part of that. She plays her role with ease and makes the love story believable. It's not hard to see why someone would fall for her. Everyone likes to rag on Eric Stoltz, but I think he does a good job in this, and the villains of Bartok Industries are pitch perfect. Of course, Lee Richardson does a stellar job as the evil head honcho, switching from a sweet surrogate father to a greedy heartless bastard in no time. I never see Gary Chalk get any credit, but he's absolutely fantastic as Anton's second-in-command. I love his death scene and especially the moment right before when he gives his boss a crazed pissed-off look as he reloads his gun. It's a one-dimensional part (and it had to be), but he nails it.

I much prefer the design of the Brundle Fly in the first film, but the monster in the second one is a lot of fun, and it has a lot more screen time, which means it's that much harder to pull off. It works though and seeing it melt faces off guards is another highlight of the movie. Ok, onto the story. An early treatment for the sequel had Seth's consciousness surviving in a Telepod computer with Bartok scientists enslaving him to develop the system for cloning purposes! WTF! That sounds a little nuts. Then again Cronenberg endorsed it at the time so maybe it would've been good. Who knows. But what do we get? Seth's son growing up inside Bartok trying to figure out his father's work so he can cure himself. With a love story and a betrayal. A much more classic monster movie, and I'm always a fan of those. And of course, the dog. Sure, the little mutated critter might be cheap, but the dog gets me every time. And it makes you hate Anton. It works. Frank Darabont worked on the script. No wonder it's good even if other cooks messed with the recipe.

The directing is solid. No shaky cam. Again, it's not Cronenberg (and I do love my Cronenberg... Scanners anyone? The Dead Zone?), but it's well done and clear. The music by Christopher Young (Hellraiser) also fits the feel of this film. It's a little more light than Howard Shore's phenomenal work (damn, I love that score), but it's good.

The Fly II is worth your time and then some. I love it, and I wish they'd make more monster movies like it (and definitely a helluva lot more like the original, but Cronenberg is Cronenberg, which is what makes the first so extraordinary).

Review: Godzilla's Revenge (1969)

Not a horror movie you say? Watch it, and when your eyes bleed out their sockets, try telling me that. Where to start? Did you like some other Godzilla movies? Good, because you get to rewatch them in this. Everything is reused footage aside from the me-like-apples retard conversations between Godzilla's brain-damaged son and some Japanese kid (who has probably hanged himself by now). To sum it up in the most sophisticated manner possible, it felt like my brain realized some foreign entity declared war on it so it lathered itself up with fire and started playing the banjo in fire-resistant overalls until it decided the only reasonable solution was to self-destruct in a pair of beige blue rocket pants. In other words, I think I lapsed into a coma and died. Yes, I'd recommend it. I think the moment the light from the movie hits your eyes, your pride retreats into your skull and melts. This is your guaranteed ticket to shame and remorse. Ever wanted to go full retard with a fat little Barney impersonator? What about a green bug-eyed midget that blows smoke rings? Meet Godzilla's Revenge. And I actually like Godzilla's son in other movies. "But it's got Godzilla in it," you say. "Can't be that bad." That's what I thought when I watched the American Godzilla movie, and then my soul remembered the meaning of pain. Masochists, this one is for you!

Review: Son of Godzilla (1967)

Where to begin... Godzilla himself looks like a saggy mutant hippo with one enormous fat neck that's bigger than his actual head. It's by far the worst of the suits. Couldn't they just reuse an old one? The giant praying mantises are actually pretty well done as is the spider Kumonga (though the fact they're his only enemies is ridiculous), and I actually like the scenes between father and son, but overall, this film is extremely disappointing. It's nothing compared to the masterpiece of the original or my personal favorite, Godzilla 1985. All the sets and everything look so cheap, which I'm sure they were. And besides the big guy's laughably bad appearance, any sense of danger from him is gone as well. There's no king of the monsters here. Obviously, this was aimed at kids, and it shows. It's a complete 180 from the atomic nightmare Godzilla was supposed to represent. No cities are destroyed. Godzilla couldn't even stay in shape for this one. God, that suit looks awful. My eyes are crying out for help. Did they want him to be deformed? What the hell happened? Did he finally let himself go? Jeez, that's one of the worst things I've ever seen. Wake me when it's over.

Review: Split Second (1992)

A lot of people call this a crappy Predator ripoff. While it's true the monster vaguely resembles H.R. Giger's famous Alien (ok, it looks just like it), I have to disagree. Because this little movie has one thing going for it that's more badass than anything in the known universe. Rutger Hauer. And of course, Neil Duncan. Together, they're an unstoppable force that elevate this to new heights. This feels like an 80s flick. It's got the gore, nudity, tough guys with guns, one liners, practical FX, and a monster ripping out hearts. Sure, the creature is never explained. It's the devil! And yes, it can shoot guns with those long sharp fingers. It took lessons, ok? Yeah, it paid for 'em. It loves MasterCard. What the hell do you want? It's got fuckin' Rutger Hauer! And the best line(s) ever in the history of cinema: "Guns! We need bigger fucking guns!" How can you not love that? It's hilarious. Hauer and Duncan make this thing awesome. I wish they would've done a sequel just so they could team up again. And the setting kicks ass. A flooded London in the future. The sewers. Is it as good as Aliens? Well... no. Predator? No. Terminator? No. Dammit, stop saying good movies. It's better than Carnosaur! Never heard of it? Yeah, it sucked. Actually, it was like a bloody Jurassic Park with a shitty story, no park, and worse FX. Kinda enjoyed it in a bad way (and you thought I had good taste). Anyway, the point is Rutger Hauer! Rutger fuckin' Hauer! And yes, this is the most in-depth review you've ever read not written by a 12-year-old. Did I mention Kim Cattrall? No? Ok, good. She sucks, but you should see it. It's awesome.

Review: Killer Klowns from Outer Space (1988)

One of the greatest cult classics ever made. Popcorn shooting space guns, cotton candy cocoons, a Godzilla Boss Klown, giant curly blood-sucking straws, face melting pies, what more do you need to know? Are there robots? What are you? 10? What's that? Ninjas? You're seriously asking me if there are ninjas? That's a good point though. Note to self: always include ninjas. No, there aren't any ninjas. But there's an old man and his dog in a cute little homage to The Blob. And there's a creepy circus tent in the woods. And there's a shower scene where clown plants attack a lady. Yeah, that part kinda sucked. I mean... yeah... uh, it was awesome! Best thing I've ever seen. But seriously, I died a little bit inside when I saw that.

The Mooney puppet though is awesome. That's my favorite scene. The lighting is perfect, and it's actually a little unnerving. It helps if you think clowns only exist to drag you under your bed and eat you, which they most certainly do. But John Vernon does a great job in the grumpy cop role, and he completely sells that part.

What else? There's some girl klowns with inflating balloon breasts, and they have the hots for two guys they find. Nothing strange about that. So yeah, question. Old dude sees a tent in the middle of the forest with no paths leading to it. No roads. No people anywhere. No power sources. It's dark as hell outside, probably midnight, and he just wanders inside? What a dumbass. But yeah, that's what I'm nitpicking. Everything else made sense. I love the movie though. I hope they get the sequel off the ground.

Another Best Feature Award!

The Sky Has Fallen won Best Feature at the 2009 Freak Show Horror Film Festival! I was actually down in Florida visiting my brother so we were able to go to the screening. I never thought it'd win anything, and now, it has won two Best Feature awards! I can't believe it. The version playing at festivals is actually still an early cut, but it won't be long, and the film will finally be out on DVD.