Movie Appraisal: Moon (2009)

Moon, directed by Duncan Jones, is a film I've wanted to see for a good long while. And now that I have seen it, I must admit that it's been worth the long wait. I don't know how much I consider this a horror film, even if it does have elements of horror, including gore, tension, claustrophobia, and ultimately death. I think I could put it into that genre of space horror, so often maligned and so often incredible. I can see it in the same genre as smart space movies like Sunshine, and maybe that is where it aptly should sit forever as an idol to what space movies can and have achieved.

Again, I'm not sure how horrific this movie is or how well it would fit in a horror review month, but I think that enough elements are there that if somebody complains I can defend myself by saying, "Look, idiot, this is my review month. I thought this was tense and creepy at times. It could be pretty scary if you look at it the right way. So, deal with it, fool."

This, ultimately, is a movie about love, loss, drama, tension, clones, capitalism, the horror of losing oneself and one's mind, and psychology. There is radiation sickness, seeing what you used to be laid bare, seeing lies and knowing you're powerless, and the moon, always the moon, featured.

M-O-O-N that spells Moon, a movie about a man working on a space station on the far side of the moon, mining helium-3 and mainly being there to oversee the big machines that mine it. He is alone for three long years and starts losing it little by little. Then one day, when he is only two weeks from leaving the moon base, he gets into an accident and wakes up with no memory of what happened. Kind of.

You see, this is where the early twist comes into play. The man who wakes up is not the Sam Bell we started the movie with, but rather a clone, woken up because the other one was "lost." This new clone feels that something's wrong and goes to find what's up only to find the earlier Sam still crashed in the lunar vehicle. He saves him, brings him back, and they learn from each other and figure out a plan to do something memorable.

I don't want to say much more about the plot. It's incredible and worth the watch, even absolutely worth the watch. If there's a single film about space you should watch in your life, it should be this one, absolutely this one, even over 2001: A Space Odyssey. The movie is poignant at times, showing that love is something beyond the mortal bounds, showing that there is more petty evil that humans are capable of than there are stars in the sky. And yet there is also heroism, caring, and again, that love that so often drives us to do stupid things.

The story is meticulously pointed out and paced, so much so that it is as close to perfect as a story can possibly be. It's very tight at times, but it does what it needs to do to tell the most convincing story possible. This is a memorable film, and one I certainly will never forget. I put it up there with Ink as one of the most affecting standalone movies I can think of. It's a bit of a life-changing movie, but one without the great punch of an ending I really wish it would have.

Sam Rockwell shines in his role as Sam Bell, as does Kevin Spacey as GERTY, the AI companion to Sam that seems to know much more than he tells and is much less malicious than HAL, even though the comparisons are certainly apt. Both actors do a great job in being their characters absolutely. Sam Rockwell plays several clones of his own character. His portrayals of the two main Sams is actually incredible, showing both as physically and mentally very different and yet fundamentally the same.

I really want to mention the subtle love story this movie has in it. I don't usually like love stories all that much, but the tragic ones often hit me rather hard, even though the ones with happy endings rarely do anything to me at all. The tragedy here is palpable, nearly breaking one of the Sams, who had waited for three years to go back and be with the woman he loves. The love between Sam and  Tess is absolutely wonderful... but also tragic in every way possible. Again, another comparison to Ink, but one I'd rather not go into very much depth with since its a spoiler for both movies.

Maybe this movie hit me so hard because of its themes of isolation, of psychological torment brought on by loneliness, and by the main character truly loving and missing his partner in love. To me those moments worked so well to bring about some kind of emotion, to evoke a response in me. I like bringing personal input into these reviews, telling why this stuff affected me, why I personally love it or hate it so much. I know a ton of people expect bare bones facts, telling about what the movie is and interpreting it and saying exactly what's going on, and telling EVERYTHING FACTUALLY. Because that's important for some reason.

The thing is, I'm not like that. I meander and go off on other topics. And I don't like people telling me how to write or how to review. This movie, Moon, affects me personally, in a personal way. And maybe that's why I like this movie so much and why I can view it as psychologically horrific. You see, I'm engaged to a woman who lives 200 miles away from me, working a job that leaves me nearly completely alone for ten-twelve hours six days a week. I spend a lot of time by myself. And I spend a lot of time missing the person I love so much it numbs me. So, this movie hits me hard because it's so easy to see how Sam feels, and it's so easy to respond in kind.

I bring all this review stuff up here because I can't stand it. I hate when people expect me to give them answers to movies that are ART that don't necessarily have a singular answer to them. Especially these more psychologically minded movies. Lately I've even gotten people being rude to me, demanding answers to movies, or screaming the answers at me saying I didn't get it. The worst is when people demand I keep personal feelings to myself when reviewing citing it being unprofessional or wrong or just me specific.

Yes, that's the idea, numbnuts. I am personally reviewing and analyzing these movies for me. What I liked and what I didn't like. Seriously, there are many blogs out there to read, many reviewing similar things to what I review. Go ahead and check them out if you don't like the way I review. To me this is fun, watching great or crappy or mediocre movies and just writing about them, talking about them, and having people read them. It's relaxing to watch a movie or read a book or play a video game and then talk about it. It's nice. I like interpreting, but more than that I want to talk about how something hit me about the fiction. Did I like it? Why? Did I hate it? Why?

So, I liked Moon so much because of its story, characters, and setting, certainly. But I loved it so much because it affected me in a more personal way, like Ink or 1408 or other movies that I view as much deeper and more personally affected me than just a movie.

I'm somewhat sorry to get into this in this review, but it's a great movie and I guarantee someone would say something about how this isn't a good review because I should be focusing on the movie, not my feelings on the movie. But that's so dumb. Yes, the movie is about the moon, good old Luna in the sky, but its also about a person, a personality, love, loss, and realization, horrific and disheartening realization. I think this is one of those movies I'll rewatch every once in a while. It's way too good to not watch.

Obviously I recommend this movie. If you haven't seen it already, go find it immediately and watch it.

Movie Appraisal: Europa Report (2013)

Watching this film I am reminded of Apollo 18, only Apollo 18 with a bit more science, a bit more bite, and a lot more character. Again, as I've said a million times before, I like these space horror movies. Something about them strikes the right place in my scientific mind. Maybe it's something about the unknown and the unknowable. Or maybe it's simply that love of discovery and exploration. I don't think there will ever be a moment when movies like this won't appeal to me in even the smallest of ways.

I say it reminds me of Apollo 18, but this a movie that was made to be more than a simple schlocky horror movie. It was made, definitely made, to be a thinking person's film, one about sacrifice, science, and ultimately the unknown. While it's hard to exactly call a "horror" movie per se, I do believe it has those elements to it, relying on tension, claustrophobia, and mystery to tell its doomed story.

The plot is about a group of six astronauts going into the unknown reaches of space, to Europa (as seen in the title), which is one of the largest moons in the solar system and a moon of Jupiter. It also has scientific value, being one of the few places in our own solar system that could have liquid water on it and therefore may also have life. Thus, unlike our own cold dead moon, Europa might be a more viable option in terms of extraterrestrial life. Because of this, and a few other reasons I'll get into shortly, this movie seems like an answer to Apollo 18's questionable storytelling.

First of all, unlike that other movie, this one tells how the transmissions of what happened got back to Earth. It also gives more believable creatures for the environment. Finally, the emotions and characters are certainly there, putting this above and beyond most space horror movies. This one seems to be more in league with 2001: A Space Odyssey and Moon to name a few. It is a serious movie with serious science and serious acting backing it up. The musical score is excellent throughout as well, but... there are issues. And I'll get into those shortly.

The story is nonlinear, following two basic storylines. The first is the landing of the landing module of the Europa One (the spacecraft) onto the moon. The second is the loss of the first astronaut of the mission, which also was the point in the mission that the communications' devices went offline. The second story is the first in chronological order, although its climax doesn't occur until about halfway through the movie. So, throughout the first half of the movie, we know that an astronaut has been lost and the communications are not working, but we have no idea why or what happened. Then we are told, and such a tale it is.

There was an unexpected solar flare that started the bad business and bad luck of the mission. It took out a great deal of systems, but notably took the communications to Earth offline as well. The two engineers, Andrei and James, go out to fix what needs fixing. There is an unexpected accident in which Andrei rips the hand of his spacesuit and James becomes contaminated with hydrazine, which is a toxic chemical. James saves Andrei but sacrifices himself for the mission in an unbelievable and frankly upsetting way. It was an emotional scene meant to evoke an emotional response, and you know what? It got me.

It speaks to the performances of all the actors in the movie, but specifically of Sharlto Copley, who plays James, and Michael Nyqvist, who plays Andrei. They are both amazing in this movie, even though James' time on screen is limited. That's not to downplay the other actors, but those two did such a great job that they deserve a special mention. All the acting here is good though. Very solid performances throughout.

With James' death, the mission goes on but without the enthusiasm it had once had. They land on Europa, start their science, and discover that all is not right. There are mysterious lights in the distance, more radiation than expected, and something odd under the surface of the ice...

This leads to a tense conclusion that leaves you wanting so much more. And with that there's a twist that will leave you reeling, almost like you were punched in the gut. I'm going to spoil it because I want to talk about it. Skip the rest of this paragraph if you don't want to know what it is. When it is revealed that Rosa didn't escape, and therefore didn't survive the mission, it is like a blow in the face. Throughout the movie there were cuts to several interviews, one of which was the CEO of the private group that financed the mission, one was a scientist talking about the mission, and the final was Rosa. These interviews were all implied to be taking place after the fact. And it is a blatant misdirection. Rosa gave her "interview" towards the end of the mission, as a last ditch effort to talk to Earth and tell their doomed story. That hit me hard, especially because I truly believed that she had survived the mission as so many of these characters do. Like Apollo 18 though, there are no survivors, only a record. To me that's perfect and wonderful, upsetting and perfect storytelling.

I think that's my ultimate point (as I stop with spoilers), the storytelling here is fantastic even if the technical pieces of the movie are less than stellar at times. And that brings me to a few of my gripes. The first is that at times the found footage aspect of the film wears thin. I understand why it was used, and I appreciate it in terms of the narrative. That being said, I simply did not like how many cuts there were, how fast the cameras would cut at times, and the amount of shaking and video static that would appear on screen. Honestly, it gave me a bit of a headache, something I did not appreciate all that much. Not all found footage films have quite that much interference and movement of cameras, but this one had way too much for my liking.

I also did not like the creatures. While they do not show up as a true creature, full and in frame, until the very end of the movie, I did not like that aspect of it. It was the monster shot, pure and simple, and the payoff seemed sillier than I wanted out of this mostly serious movie. The CGI was not good in that moment and the Europa monster was not believable just like certain MOON MONSTERS from Apollo 18 were also silly and unbelievable. Maybe if the CGI was better I would have appreciated the monster more, but in the end it left me with a bad taste in my mouth. I get the feeling my imagination would have been happier without a concrete answer to what the Europa creature was. Instead I see it as a glowing octopus monster, which takes away any thrills, fear, or mystery that it could have had.

Again, while these are legitimate gripes, it doesn't really take away from the brilliance that I see in this movie. It's very good, with some legitimately touching and terrifying moments that will keep you on the edge of your seat. If you like space horror movies or space thriller movies or space mystery movies or space movies, then you will probably like this one quite a bit. I know I've compared this movie quite a bit to Apollo 18, but the comparison stands up quite well. You could also compare it to Sunshine (without some of that movie's more slasher moments). But out of the found footage space horror genre, this is probably tops right now. Check it out if you can. I recommend it fully.

I'm also glad I could wash the bad taste of the terrible movie I watched yesterday out of my mouth. Blegh.

B-Movie Appraisal: Plaguers (2008)

The cheapest movie you will ever see.

So. This is something, let me tell you. This here is a movie among many other movies. It is a horror film. It is, in a word, something. I can't say if it's a good something or a bad something. All I can say is that it is something and leave it at that. I call this a B-movie as well, even though it isn't necessarily such because of the acting, the way the movie is shot, and, mostly, because it absolutely is. Unlike many of the movies that I review that are put into this October month of reviews, this one is wholly terrible. It rips of Alien and Aliens so bad it is actually physically painful. There is nothing good in this movie. There is no dialogue that is worth your time, money, or effort. There are no characters that are going to give you new thoughts and motivations throughout your life. There are, in fact, no redeeming features of this movie. It is, quite possibly, the worst horror movie I have ever seen. I would even go so far as to say it definitely is the worst horror movie I've seen, even worse than those crappy Japanese horror movies I review sometimes while I sigh and hate myself.

And yet.

I think I must have something wrong going on in my head. I think I must be seriously deranged and damaged. Because despite all the negatives about this film (and the film is nothing but negatives remember) I had a goddamn great time watching this movie. Its effects are laughable. The "zombies" or plague victims or whatever are laughable. The acting is literally almost painful. The script is terrible. The premise is simply awful. But there is something under the surface that makes it interesting despite the fact that it is a movie made of flaws. It is an enjoyable trainwreck.

Is it ever scary? No.

Will you ever have nightmares over the gore, the make-up, the situations, or anything else? No. Nothing is scary. The characters are never fleshed out enough to be interesting. The dialogue is so wooden and flat that it sounds like these "actors" for the most part are just reading off of a half-finished script. Steve Railsback is good as the android character. I'll give the movie that. It did have one legitimately decent actor in it.

But I think calling this movie terrible goes against all of my instincts. Is a movie terrible if it still entertains? Is it terrible when it is absolutely memorable? Yes, everything about this movie is bad. But at the same time I was never bored, never uninterested. Hell, I watched some scenes more than once simply because I wanted to laugh at them again. And some scenes played twice in the movie because the editing was literally that terrible. I'm looking at you, scene(s) where Riley's chest gets pulled open. The same shot of his rip-cage being exposed twice? Wow, movie. Did you really think I wouldn't notice? You must have. And yet, I still loved it.

There must be something wrong with me.

I will say that you'll know exactly what you're getting into in the first scene. Oh boy is that opening scene terrible. As soon as you see that you'll know what this movie is. It's schlock, pure and simple. It's a "horror" movie with terrible dialogue, terrible acting, sexy women because why not, an android because if they're going to try and rip-off Alien thirty years after the fact they'd better damn well use an android. Who is even going to notice? Besides everyone?

Oops, I meant to say syndroid there. Syndroid. Yeah.

There are moments of actual interest to me as a human. I think there is something to be said of each female character being strong in various ways and each male character being weak in various ways. The women are the strength of this movie and the male characters are paperthin and very horny caricatures of what a man might look and act like if sex were the only thing on his mind constantly.Which some might argue is completely true. I simply found that interesting. The male characters are in the background, with only Tarver the android (not really male) being interesting or compelling in any way. The rest of the characters who are interesting are all female. The captain who is the tough one. The psychotic pirate. The pirate who wants to be in charge. And... yeah... I'm sure there are others.

This movie makes me need a drink.

Any movie I've complained about before is nothing compared to this. This is the single worst horror movie I've ever seen. Why I enjoyed it I will never know. Why I can complain about and hate The Innkeepers and like this movie I will never know. That movie was at least shot competently and for its budget. This movie was not. And yet I liked this movie so much more. It had so much more to offer despite crappy visuals and everything else. It never talked down to me or asked a ton from me at all. It was a gory fun stupid horror film. I mean, no, it was never scary, but it had some life to it.

I don't know. I don't even know where to start. Or end. Or whatever. I guess the story is about these spaceship people who take aboard a mysterious object they found one day. They thought it was heading to a planet named Thanatos. Don't ever call a planet Thanatos. Seriously. You're just asking for trouble. Why it was called Thanatos nobody will ever know. Because that place has been dead for two years. Thanatos. Ugh. WHY? (For people who don't know Greek, Thanatos mean Death, usually in reference to the personification of Death.)

Anyway, these spaceship people find another spaceship in need of help. On board that ship they find four "gorgeous" women who appear dirty and awkward in terms of acting. These women turn out to be pirates who activate the zombie effects of the mysterious device. Then everybody turns into an awkward zombie (and some are awkward alien zombies for some... reason that none of us will ever understand). And that's it.

I have no idea what to say about this movie. I thought it was really something. While terrible in every way, it made me laugh. I had a good time watching it, and I get the feeling that watching this movie with friends would be really enjoyable. It's never scary or horrific, but it is substantially gory. There's no nudity even though parts of the movie look exactly like what a porn film looks like. You know, those stereotypical bad porn films about the pizza man coming into the house awkwardly asking to show the barely dressed bored woman his big sausage or whatever they do these days. Yeah, with how this movie was shot, I was literally expecting that. Anyway, we have Brad Sykes to thank for the way this movie was filmed and directed. I guess, good job? I have no idea. I said way too much about this movie already.

Movie Appraisal: Doom (2005)

While I can see exactly why Doom, directed by Andrzej Bartkowiak, has gone down in history as a pretty bad video game movie (and a pretty disregarded movie in general), I'm going to express my disapproval with that assessment. Yes, this movie has mostly negative thoughts thrown around about it (with good reason). Yes, the acting is never really all that good. Yes, the story is fairly terrible to say the least. And yes, the music is downright awful. There are many more negatives I could say, and will say, about this film, but those are the starters before the main course. The visuals never really look right, seeming very much like an action film trying very hard to be a horror film in both visuals and tone. The problem is that the film never elevates itself. It never grows to a better level of movie. While there is a lot to enjoy about this film, there is very little to objectively like. It had its heart in the right place: no CGI monsters, prosthetics, practical effects, and some decent actors. But the movie just wasn't all that well done anyway. See, I still enjoyed it even with its obvious flaws, but I do not begrudge anybody who thinks that this film is garbage.

None of those things, those problems, make it a bad movie. It's simple. It's quick. And for some unknown reason it is one hell of an entertaining flick. I was engrossed by it, taken in by the simple story, the simple characters, and the simple premise. Sure, I (admittedly) have a soft spot for movies like this. I can't say I don't. But whatever my feelings about movies like this are, I still found this one compelling enough to enjoy and halfheartedly recommend for enjoyment purposes.

There are many more things wrong with this movie than right with it. The characters are one-dimensional, all introduced quickly, without fanfare. The audience is just expected to know the characters and like them. The story moves at a breakneck speed, never slowing down for a moment, even if parts of the story make no sense whatsoever. Maybe that's why it moves so quickly, so it can lose the audience to intense scenes, flashes of light, and blood. I was taken in. I can't say I wasn't. So, I guess it might have worked for me at least if that was the intent. While it is a terrible adaptation of the video game Doom, a terrible horror movie (if it was ever trying to be one at all), and too fast -paced for itself, it still is a good action film with some genuinely thrilling moments, and some wonderful expressions from The Rock.

Karl Urban and Raz Adoti, playing John "Reaper" and "Duke" respectively, are the only good actors here. They both do such a great job in their roles that their performances really helped make this movie an enjoyable experience for me. Karl Urban especially has always been one of my favorite relatively unknown actors. He gets great parts and always seems to give every role his all. I really hope he goes somewhere. He seems to be getting somewhere slowly and surely. I hope it continues. He really is a gem of an actor. His performance in this movie was excellent, probably the only truly genuinely "good" thing about this movie. Raz Adoti as "Duke" was just fun to watch. I was hoping he wouldn't die in the end. Obviously, he did. He had a truly excellent personality, and his scenes were genuinely thrilling and suspenseful.

The other actors were pretty bad. No, they weren't historically bad, but none of them were good. Most of them were simply mediocre. I enjoyed Richard Brake as Portman and Dexter Fletcher as Pinky, though neither of them precisely "acted" in a traditional sense. Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson should have been good, even could have been good, but his hammy performance, although fun, was probably the worst of the entire movie. His eyebrows helped make the movie memorable, at least. That's saying something.

I have no idea what else to even say. There is a lot wrong with this movie. The first-person sequence towards the end of the film, although kind of fun, was also so very cheesy. The whole plot about how the "demons" came to be was also pretty stupid. Genetic research? Really? Why make the plot so complicated when all the filmmakers had to say was that these were demons from hell? Why bring pseudoscience into this? It's absolutely bizarre, but in the movie the science and discovery are treated like something the audience should already know everything about. It's such an odd thing, the pacing, the way the story is told. I can't for the life of me think of any other standalone movie that has the same strange breakneck pace in introducing its own characters and premises. Maybe Aliens? No. Even that movie had a pretty lengthy prologue. This film literally expects you to know these characters before they're introduced, to sympathize with them before you have a chance to know them.  It's weird, almost as if this movie were a sequel to another that had introduced them first. It's the only way I can explain it.

Anyway, I kind of wish they had ditched the story about the genetic research. That was truly very stupid. As a person who has more than a cursory knowledge about genetics (I went to school for it as a matter-of-fact.) they really should have stuck with hell and demons. Those are very simple to understand.

But, for all the many negatives, I still enjoyed this movie. It was a fun "turn-your-brain-off" kind of flick. It was as entertaining as I made it. And that's really what it all comes down to. I liked many of the sequences after the lightspeed introduction, and that's about all there is to it. The main monster was well done, the dark scenes in the sewers were actually harrowing. I loved the medical autopsy scenes as well. They actually gave the film some character of its own beyond the mindless space marine plot. The actors seemed like they were having fun for the most part too- well, all of them but Rosamund Pike playing John's sister Samantha. She had an expression of surprise on her face the entire movie, and her acting was literally painful to watch most of the time. As one of the few females in the movie, and the only one with significant screen time, her performance was pretty pitiful and rarely enjoyable at all. While she did get better the longer the movie went on, her first few scenes made me wince every time she was onscreen. She looked like she was not having a good time at all in the first half of this movie.

So, yeah, I'll recommend this movie for a good time. Don't expect anything, and it will probably surprise you. Expect a lot, and you'll be incredibly disappointed. Have fun with it. Don't take it seriously. I know I didn't, and it was a truly fun experience, even though the movie was not great.

Space Horror Mini Movie Appraisals: Prometheus (2012), Pitch Black (2000), and Screamers (1995)

I think it would be pretty cool to review three space horror movies that I haven't gotten around to reviewing yet. While I'd love for all of these movies to have their own reviews, I don't think I have enough to say about these movies to have content enough for full reviews of each. Prometheus itself is so incredibly popular and talked about that there's not much more that I feel I could add to the conversation. Pitch Black, although excellent, only leads me to say one major thing about it, and Screamers, while I have the most to say about that movie, has a simple yet effective story, but little else to offer.

So, starting with Prometheus, this prequel to Alien, made by the same director as that movie, Ridley Scott. It was his first time returning to the franchise since Alien and... yeah... I have a lot of the same problems with this movie that I had with the first one. While I think the movie looks absolutely gorgeous (and it really does) it relies heavily on CGI, even if that CGI is some of the best I've ever seen. The story itself is fairly bland, full of plotholes, characterization misses, and generic alien environments. It doesn't fit well looks-wise into the Alien franchise, and *probably* should have been a completely new franchise that works on its own without the Alien franchise limiting it. Now, I love Aliens, but that doesn't mean that any other movie in the franchise really appeals to me. I also truly think that this movie, even while having those stunning visuals, is basically a really awful movie.

I hate the acting. The characters, except for David, are largely uninteresting, have no discernible or qualifying features, and are really, really flat in general. David, played by Michael Fassbender, is brilliant though, and he continues the legacy of all the Alien films I've seen having the best character (and actor) being an android. The plot makes literally no sense to me. As a biology major with a concentration in genetics, I have no idea why the archaeologists somehow figure that the "Engineers" created humans or why these archaeologists have any say when it comes to actual genetic samples that need interpreting. Look, you have a biologist for a reason and you're supposed to use him... I mean, yes, he dies quickly and stupidly, but the plot could have been worked better. I'll even throw out my own hypothesis here: If the DNA of the Engineers and humans are the same, then that points out that we are probably descended from them rather than created by them. It would make a great deal more sense serving as a hypothesis rather than humans being created and still being 99.9% similar to chimpanzees in the end anyway. It basically dissolves the theory of evolution, which would be a pretty ignorant thing to do (no offense meant, but it is the best explanation of why genetic material is so similar even across large taxonomic gaps). I truly wish more thought would have been put into the science rather than the visuals, but... what is a big-budget film these days except a movie that puts style over substance?

Other complaints are more varied, including complaints about make-up, random dead people not being dead anymore for some reason, and a male only operating tube thing. None of those make me happy. They're all terrible and stick out in a movie that should be much better structured all around with a powerhouse of a director, and a ton of money behind it. I really wondered why some of the make-up effects were so bad, particularly on Guy Pearce's character. I have to mention him specifically because he looked just plain silly. The movie also delivers no tension, no real character moments, and a generally ridiculous plot that makes no sense and ultimately ends with a whimper. This isn't horror so much as stupid.

I can't help disliking this movie. I can't recommend it. If you want a good Alien movie watch the first movie or Aliens. Avoid this one.

Pitch Black is all kinds of brilliant. I've seen the theatrical version, the edited for TV version, and the Director's Cut, and I've loved them all. It's a wonderful film no matter how you watch it and a great space horror flick to boot. I can't recommend it enough if you want a really good horror movie, a really good space movie, or a really well acted story and character based movie. Riddick has quickly become one of my favorite characters movie fiction. While I don't like the second Riddick movie anywhere near as much, this one really works on every discernible level. Vin Diesel plays the perfect Riddick. It was like the role was made for him and him alone, and that's not something I say about most characters and their actors. Nobody else could ever play Riddick, and that's about the highest praise I could give about a character. Radha Mitchell also does a great job as Carolyn Fry, pulling out a surprisingly emotional performance that I thoroughly enjoyed.

While the plot is simplistic, I think it works incredibly well. I love the characters, the situation, the beginning, the end, and the middle. It is one of my favorite movies I newly saw this year. I can't help recommending this film as much as I possibly can. Watch this movie if you want a movie sort of like the Alien movies, but all kinds of different nonetheless. I found this movie incredibly enjoyable, much more enjoyable than any Alien film, and easily one of the best horror movies taking place in space/on another planet outside of Pandorum, Sunshine, and Event Horizon. It is horrific in all the right ways, has some great directing courtesy of the wonderful David Twohy, some pitch-perfect visuals, and an alien that rivals the alien from the Alien series for purely horrific and terrifying. If you haven't seen this movie you need to.

Screamers, a movie about opposing military bunkers on a planet with an important natural resource during a civil war, has an incredibly complex plot, some really interesting moments, and harbors one of the better stories I've seen in movies of this time period. Based off of Philip K. Dick's short story "Second Variety" and starring Peter Weller, I don't think I could easily dislike this movie. It has some similarities to Dick's Blade Runner as well, specifically the reliance on robots/androids for things humans cannot or will not do. In this case the robots are killing machines bent on destroying the other side of the conflict with no ethical reservations. These robots eventually start evolving, become closer to human, but never having emotions, and always bent on destruction... uh... kind of.

I guess there is some room for the robots to evolve and at least one (maybe two) of the robots seemed to develop quirks in their personalities, specifically in regards to either having emotions (love and hate) or being able to pass well as humans. The robots are named "screamers" because when they attack they give off a high-pitched shrieking sound, whether they are little underground robot or more evolved models.

The human robots seem to be both creepy and heavily advanced from humans. They can pass as humans, among humans, for days without being found out, but just like in Blade Runner their fatal flaw is that they cannot pass perfectly. In this case they show their true colors by having tics and random repeats of certain phrases or motions. Also a model will look the same as a model of the same type, which is convenient. This movie features some blood and gore, but a decent amount of actual tension as well to create the horrific atmosphere. When the main characters are in the enemy bunker they've been going towards for half of the movie to help sign a peace treaty between the two sides, but find it tomb-like and full of death- well, I don't remember too many other moments that were quite as effective at creeping me out in other movies of this type. It's actually funny just how creepy an army of murderous robotic children screaming at you can be. I would have never expected that particular thing to be terrifying.

All-in-all, this movie is fun even if it is not perfect. I would call it average if not for a few wonderfully tense scenes towards the middle and at the end of the film. Check it out if it sounds interesting. I enjoyed it much more than I thought I would.

B-Movie Appraisal: Galaxy of Terror (1981)

In taking some time to research this movie I found that a clip of this film is on a DVD entitled "The 50 Worst Films Ever Made." This is so untrue that I don't even know how to take that seriously at all. Roger Corman certainly has a stigma for his movies, but this Roger Corman directed space horror film is not even a slightly bad film. It is a very good film. Yes, there is some roughness around the edges, the acting isn't always stellar, the sets and creatures are kind of ridiculous looking at times, and the plot leaves a lot to be desired, but this movie works very well for what it is.

And what it is is B-movie schlock. Or that's what it should be. That's what people think it is. That's what it's promoted as. That's where this movie's heart lies. But in reality it works really well as something other than just a crappy horror film. It has a heart to it, and that really makes all the difference in the world. It seems like the people involved actually cared about this film, obviously to varying degrees, but the attention to characters and details and just the quality that came out of this movie shows the quality of care put into it. I don't usually talk about stuff like this with movies, but it's impossible not to with this one. It works in so many more ways than I would have expected, being both subtle and different than many other things I have seen. It has visceral imagery and scenes (and gore effects in those scenes) that work a heck of a lot better than I would have ever thought they could. The movie even looks better (with a few obvious exceptions) than a lot of CGI effects from newer movies. I find that fascinating how something like this can actually look better than newer movies too. It's pretty neat. The worst effect in the movie is arguably the one that should have looked better, the Master's glowing face. I have no idea what a master is and why he has a red lightbulb for a head, but there it is, and it isn't a good effect.

As for characters, most of them are well done. Each has his or her own strengths and weaknesses, and the acting of each and every character carries some emotional depth if not the stellar acting capabilities of a Grade A film. Special mention goes out to Robert Englund as Ranger, Grace Zabriskie as the ship's captain, Trantor, and Taaffe O'Connell as Dameia. Robert Englund shows his acting chops before becoming famous for portraying Freddy Krueger in the Friday the 13th series of movies. He comes off as intelligent and willing to do anything to survive. He's the first character who survives his fear. Grace Zabriskie is fantastic as a captain who has clearly lost whatever sense she had. She very definitely has PTSD,and her acting may very well be the best in the movie. Taaffe O'Connell is an honorable mention because of the famous scene she has, the worm rape scene, which may in fact be the sole reason that the movie was so badly received. The other actors all do a fine job with Edward Albert, Erin Moran from Happy Days fame, and Ray Walston as the lead characters, but they don't go over and above in their acting like the three I mentioned previously do.

The movie's premise is basically that the ship Quest is sent to the planet Morganthus for the purpose of rescuing a crew stranded on the planet. The crew is found to be dead, but the Quest is stranded on the planet until all the bodies are recovered... or something. Anyway, the planet has a weird effect of showing the characters their worst fears and then killing them with those fears. That's the main premise of the film, and each character has to either survive their fears, mastering their own mind, or succumb to their fears. Later it is learned that the entire planet is a trial and a test to find the next Master. The story is pretty simple, but works quite well.

I enjoyed this movie a lot. The famous worm rape scene was probably the hardest part to watch, but most of the film has some great effects. The gore is well done. The costumes are pretty good. The ship looks good. The environments look good. The actors are good. Hell, there is little about this movie that I would say is bad. I have no idea how this movie found its way on a list of the worst of all time. I'm sure I can name way too many movies that I've seen even semi-recently that are so much worse than this one. I can't even think of negative things to really even point out. Most of the movie is quality inside and out. I have to recommend this film, especially if you like the B-movie styled films, but even if you don't it's a pretty good movie to watch. Not too many scares really, but the gore and the effects will certainly be enough to show a pretty good adventure.

Movie Appraisal: Alien (1979)

So, I'm back and ready to review! I'm almost sorry to review Alien though. It's a movie I've avoided watching for a very long time. I think it was mostly because I didn't want to be disappointed. I'm such a huge fan of space horror as a genre, and Alien is really the granddaddy of all modern space horror. I mean, Event Horizon, Pandorum, and Sunshine are some of my favorite films of all time. No, they're not just some of my favorite horror films of all time, but some of my favorite movies period... of all time. That's quite the accomplishment, especially when I'm pretty finicky about movies in general. I know how much influence the Alien movies and especially this one have had on this weird and niche subgenre of sci-fi horror.

So, for the first time ever I checked out Alien. I usually am very fond of Ridley Scott. I usually like movies that have this kind of premise. I think you know where I'm going with this. I found Alien to be pretty mediocre. And there were large tracts of the movie that I didn't like at all. The story was pretty good. But the characters felt so weak in response. Okay, let me elaborate. I found the story to be very standard for a movie of this type, certainly derivative of some earlier sci-fi films like Planet of the Vampires and Forbidden Planet, but with a much more serious tone and a horror focus. And that's fine. Honestly, that's a good thing. I like the early sci-fi movies, but I have to admit to loving the more serious efforts of the 1970s and 1980s. The problem with this movie wasn't its derivative story or the quality of that story, rather it's really the lack of a focus on characters. I mean, I felt nothing for any of the characters. None of them had a well-developed story or anything interesting about them. I felt that I couldn't relate to any one of them whether they were male or female. There simply wasn't enough to establish the characters as actual humans. Instead every last one of them felt so generic and boring that their deaths were meaningless to me. The whole movie was basically meaningless for me.

A lot of the issues that I saw in Alien were fixed in other later space horror movies. You look at a movie like Event Horizon and you can clearly see the improvements from this baser movie. At the same time, despite the characters having literally no depth at all, the acting is fairly well put together. I'd put a lot more blame on the script and the pacing than I would on the actors. And the thing is... this is an absolutely all-star cast. Maybe they weren't all-star then, but nowadays you hear the names of Ian Holm, Sigourney Weaver, John Hurt, Tom Skerritt, and Harry Dean Stanton all being in the same movie, you'd definitely be interested in the movie. Hell, Ian Holm in a movie is enough to get me interested in it. So the acting is solid, but I have to say that the performances of Ian Holm, John Hurt, and Sigourney Weaver should have a special mention. Each really tried to bring a life to their respective character. John Hurt, although he has limited screen time because of... well...

...uh... yeah...

...let's say reasons and leave it at that. He really does a great job with the time he is on screen, really making Kane one of the only characters that has any memorable qualities at all. Ian Holm was also quite good, and his characterizations actually made a lot of sense. He also happened to be my favorite character for much of the movie, but that's less about the character of Ash, I suppose, and much more about how much I like Ian Holm. Sigourney Weaver and her Ripley is obviously the famous character, but I honestly can't see much of the character in this movie. Sure, she's tough and survives, but all-in-all she comes across as more of a generic female heroine than the icon she would eventually become. Now, this might be because I'm watching it over thirty years after this movie came out, and it was groundbreaking in its time and just hasn't aged as well as I would have liked. That's fair. And I can't argue that as much or as effectively as I'd like to argue the point. I doubt that there were too many female heroes of Ripley's calibre back in 1979, and it stands as a testament to the movie that it was a huge movie that happened to have a female lead. I respect it for that, but I still have trouble liking it.

The movie was incredibly slow-paced at times, but they were all the wrong times. When the movie should have been slower, to establish characters or the titular alien, it moved quickly and without remorse, and when it should have moved more quickly in action intense scenes or hectic times, I felt it dragged on and on, often focusing on character faces and such for long periods of time while more interesting things should have been focused on. I'm certain it was an artistic decision... or maybe one to remove copious amounts of gore from the movie, but it seemed really awkward throughout. Having an intense moment with a character who is about to die only to have them die off-screen while another character is focused upon became incredibly frustrating. I couldn't enjoy the movie if it literally shielded me from the scarier moments like I was a baby. It felt terrible. I hated that feeling of the movie literally not letting me feel tension or not letting me feel fear... I go into these horror movies wanting to be creeped out, but with this movie I only found myself annoyed at the lack of actual horror. Kane is the only character truly shown to die. The rest are either off-screen or their faces are so focused upon when they die that you have absolutely no idea what's going on. Dallas, played by Tom Skerritt, and Brett, played by Harry Dean Stanton, completely die or are taken or whatever offscreen. Nothing is shown of their fates (yes, there are deleted scenes, but that's not what I mean) and they basically just disappear from the movie without any establishing character moments, without any heroics, without even showing their deaths or really even reacting to them. I found it so badly done that I seriously thought that I had missed a scene or the DVD had skipped or something. The same thing is true for Parker, played by Yaphet Kotto, and Lambert, played by Veronica Cartwright. They kind of get killed by the alien, I guess, but I have no idea because the scene flew by with quick shots of their faces that I had literally no idea they were dead until Ripley saw them and was like, "Oh they're dead." without even checking them to see if they were dead. I guess they must have been very obviously dead, but I couldn't tell.

I guess that all comes down to the script and the editing. And I have to say that the editing was really not my style. It was, in my opinion, really badly done, to the point where I literally could not tell what was going on for large portions of time. That should not happen. I should know what's going on in a pretty simple movie that I already know the premise of. Instead I was more confused than anything else, finding flaws all over the place in the editing of this film that should have been scary and should have been good, but instead came off as fundamentally flawed.

I will say that the set designs were well done though, as were the actual artistic assets done by H. R. Giger. The man can certainly create an alien image that looks creepy on a fundamental level.

One way or another, you look at the alien there and you feel slightly unsettled. I think the designs were incredibly well done for the time, and it was easily the most compelling part of the entire movie... although there were times that I found the alien unintentionally hilarious and kind of awkward looking, but that might just be because I'm a jerk whose really hard to scare.

Anyway, for the most part I was very lukewarm on this movie. It had great designs, good acting, decent direction by Ridley Scott, and an interesting story that should have worked for me, but the editing of the movie, the script, and the lack of characterizations really hurt this movie on the most basic of levels, so much so that I can't even recommend this movie. It wasn't fun for me to watch. Hell, I enjoyed watching Nightflyers and The Dark Side of the Moon a ton more than this FAMOUS POP CULTURE MOVIE. Eh, well, I'm not changing my opinion. The movie didn't suck, but its flaws outweighed any good feelings I could have about it.

Movie Appraisal: The Dark Side of the Moon (1990)

Recently I've been enjoying some sweet space horror movies. I've always liked the genre, especially with some spaceship floating through space and finding something waiting out in the cold darkness. It's always been fascinating to me. I mean, look at the tagline of this movie: "Something is waiting." This movie is about space, anything could be waiting. Anything at all. It's what makes space so fascinating, and it's what makes space a perfect place for all the best kinds of horror. You have to be creative when you use space as a medium for sci-fi and for horror. It's not just regular movie monsters jumping out at you, but can be anything from creepy aliens to something very different. Hell, it can even be ourselves. Sometimes we are the demons.

The Dark Side of the Moon was a direct-to-video affair from 1990, directed by D. J. Webster and starring some actors who I recognize and some whom I've never seen before. Joe Turkel is arguably the most famous of the cast (being in Blade Runner will do that for you), and besides my vague recognition of Alan Blumenfeld, Turkel is really the only actor in this movie that I've seen in other sources. I will say that for a direct-to-video movie, it's pretty high quality. There are very few effects, which is a good thing. When they do show up, they're not the best things I've ever seen. Most of the movie's charm comes from watching the actors do their thing and watching the story unfold.

Now, before I get far into this, I have to say that I have a special liking for these types of movies, and I really did enjoy this one. Again, kind of a cheaper sci-fi horror/space horror affair, but it's competent and pretty fun to watch. It has a pretty standard, almost SyFy channel-esque plot and plot twist at times, but the acting and the cinematography are MUCH MUCH better than most direct-to-video crap I've seen in the last decade or so. Hell, this is better than most of the movies I've seen in theatres. I mean, I'd much rather watch this than the travesty, the absolute abomination, that is Black Swan. That movie still makes me angry even almost two years later.

The film starts out on a maintenance spaceship going to fix a satellite only for all systems on the ship to fail. It moves quickly as the crew tries to figure out what's wrong despite all of the systems being green. The ship's computer, a robot woman... uh... thing... named Lesli, tells the crew that nothing is wrong, and yet the ship is rapidly losing both air and heat, and the systems still aren't responding. Now, I have to take a moment and talk about Lesli. Her character is utterly baffling to me. She's a robot computer thing controlling the information of the ship and such, but she's also somehow a beautiful woman for some reason. She never moves out of the chair she's sitting in, and she never truly has any real relevance to the plot beyond being used as an exposition machine. She has a beauty mark and a whole lot of cleavage, but never is shown to have any effect on any of the male crew members who treat her as a machine and nothing more... all the while the one female crew member, Alex, is hit on by basically all of the slimebag characters. Lesli also seems to have some element of artificial intelligence rather than just being a computer, but I'm still baffled. Why does she exist as an actual person? Can she move out of her seat? Can she move at all? Why was she made like that? Does she have functionality close to what a human would? Why didn't they simply make her a gynoid then? She became kind of the central question to me. She was treated as an utterly normal thing to have on a ship (maybe a little experimental with Joe Turkel's character taking care of her, but still...) and it seemed that most of the suspicion for earlier events of the movie fell onto her, but she was never really utilized. Why didn't she do anything? Why was her presence never really a thing? Why did the antagonist presumably try to take her over? And more importantly, why did he fail? I was much more interested in what the hell Lesli was and what she represented and how she was being portrayed than I was in the actual plot of the movie. I still have no idea why she existed in her form in the movie besides being good to look at, but why waste the resources and the time and money and such to have that character when a computer would have been sufficient? I mean this as a question both in the universe of the movie and to the filmmakers. I mean, Camilla More did a fine job as the character, but I'm still baffled by Lesli's presence in the film. I guess if I had the choice I would have used her in some way, used her to make a statement or as a central protagonist or ally to the antagonist. When Joe Turkel's character Paxton goes rogue, I assumed he would shut off control of Lesli's character. It was set up earlier in the film that he could do that with a swipe of his hand, just shut off certain controls to certain crewmembers. That's why I thought he was visiting her near the end of the movie. But no. He went to visit her so she could tell him to back off... and I guess he did? I'm so baffled that my head hurts. I could go on about this for a very long time. It's easily the most confusing and most interesting part of the film. It sets it apart from other films of this type, but still has no reason to be in the movie. Why is she there? What is her purpose? Why wasn't she put to better use? I mean... if I has a robot that could move and was humanesque... well, I would have sent her into the shuttle the crew finds, instead of risking the lives of the crew. Okay, I'm going to stop. I could keep harping on this for a long time.

So, anyway, the ship finds another ship, this one a lost space shuttle, drifting towards them and then eventually docking with them. Nobody is alive on board though. The shuttle does give them both air and some hope, but that doesn't last long. The shuttle has a ton of water damage for seemingly no reason and eventually they find a body in a standard sci-f horror way. The doctor, Dreyfus Steiner (played by Alan Blumenfeld), discovers that the body has a perfect triangle cut into its stomach... and that's when the plot gets a little ridiculous. It all has to do with the Bermuda Triangle and a corresponding triangle on the dark side of the moon, and all that space in between somehow. It's a really silly plot, really SyFy movie schlock, but it actually works kind of well as long as you don't think too hard about the whole thing and how it would work because the moon... you know... orbits the entire Earth and the Earth rotates itself. Also, since the FAR SIDE OF THE MOON is not always dark, there really isn't a DARK SIDE OF THE MOON. It would be like calling the where it is night on Earth "The Dark Side of the Earth." It's silly. (Yes, I know that the term references a radio blackout to and from Earth from that far side of the moon, but most people think of it as an actually dark place which is totally false.)

Yeah, the sci-fi of the movie is weird. Thinking about the movie too long in most aspects of it will make your head ache. It has a Biblical plot tied in with the Bermuda Triangle too... because why not. And let me tell you that the religious aspect is dealt with in the most awkward way possible, showing some of the crew having religious affiliations just fro the express purpose of showing parts of the crew having certain religious affiliations. It's not well handled, with the captain crossing himself at one point despite never mentioning religion the rest of the time, the doctor being Jewish suddenly and inexplicably before having it forgotten before and afterwards, and the body of Gotier having a cross around its neck. And the Devil is some kind of parasite that leeches onto a certain body and gets transmitted through the triangle in the possessed people's stomachs.

The effects for the devil are ridiculous. He's not scary, quoting Biblical passages at me and being so over-the-top evil. It's kind of silly rather than terrifying. There is a scene in this movie as well that's also kind of baffling as the Devil goes to take over his first living victim. There is a weird nude scene... but I already found the objectification of women off here with Lesli. With Alex showing her breasts its all kinds of why? What I mean is that in some of these movies the girls get naked for some reason... a reason that I guess only the filmmakers know. I don't mind it. I mean, seriously, who minds a little nudity from time-to-time? But in my opinion the nudity felt incredibly awkward and out of place in a movie that was kind of sterile and felt like a good made-for-TV movie. I mean even the gore effects are pretty tame... and yet... nudity?  I guess it goes together with the B-movie status of most of these films, but I find it kind of strange. I haven't seen too many other movies this summer (besides Possession) to have a girl show off her assets. And it's weird that it would be this movie to be the first in a while to have a girl get naked in front of the camera.

Anywho, the pacing of the movie is pretty good. I found myself interested in the movie the entire time. I was never bored, never wished for it to be over. The ending was good, although I think some people would be unhappy with it. I honestly feel that it should have ended with the Devil succeeding... but that's okay. It worked well the way they did it.

I honestly enjoyed this movie quite a bit despite certain failures of the plot and sense. I enjoyed the characters, enjoyed the situation, and found the movie acceptable in most ways. It is highly reminiscent (even though it came out before these movie) of Event Horizon and Sunshine, but much, much worse than either of those films. I still haven't reviewed Sunshine, have I? That's a movie I have to get around to watching again. Hell, I've been wanting to watch Event Horizon again too. I love that movie so much.

Well, anyway, I guess I'm moving into doing some space horror movie reviews. I was on an Asian horror binge for a while, and I do have more to watch and more will be incoming, but I need a break from those movies at times. The ones I've seen are all very similar to one another and most... although being creepy at times... are rather dry and boring at others. I recently took some time and saw Whispering Corridors and Apartment 1303, a Korean and a Japanese movie respectively, but haven't written reviews of either of them yet. They'll be coming, I just don't know when. I also saw Roger Corman's Galaxy of Terror, and I can't wait to put out a review of that.

Uh... oh no... I'm getting away from The Dark Side of the Moon! It's a decent movie, but one I would not recommend unless these types of movies are your thing. There are many better space horror movies, and this one is more average and kind of dumb when compared to others. I enjoyed it though although as you can tell I had way too many unanswered questions that I was baffled by in the end. That took away from my ultimate enjoyment of the movie.

Movie Appraisal: Nightflyers (1987)

Here's a movie that deserves a review more than most movies I review. See, some of the movies I review are definitely bad or arguably quality. The quality films I never have much to say about. Mostly I reiterate why I think the movie is quality and why the movie seems to be a quality movie. Yeah, I can go on for a while about how a good film might have good effects, good acting, good directing, and good pacing, but honestly most of the good movies I watch and review are relatively boring to review. The same is obviously not true for an utterly terrible movie. I can go on and on and rant until my fingers bleed about how a bad movie is literally the worst thing ever. At the same time there are many mediocre films I review as well, with most of them presenting their own unique problems.

Most of the movies that I analyze are mediocre films. Ones that have the ability of both being much better and much worse films than they are. Each is fun to review because they all present a unique challenge for review because, to be a mediocre film you have to either succeed or fail in different categories or you have to  be an utterly cookie-cutter film with no real quality besides not being terrible and having some competence. Well, Nightflyers is a mediocre film on a whole, but has both very good and very bad qualities to it. It's based on a novella by George R. R. Martin that I've never read before, although it seems as though it was better received than the movie was at least.

I've seen reviews of this film go anywhere from saying this movie is amazing to saying it is the worst thing ever made. I like films like this simply because of all the differing opinions and because I think the truth of this movie lies somewhere in between the two extremes although I have to say that the visuals of this film really put it into the realm of more negative than positive.

There are way too many negatives aspects of this movie. The pacing is all over the place, never feeling consistent and never feeling comfortable with the pacing of its story. The characters are pretty one-dimensional despite the film having the feeling that everybody involved wanted the characters to have more meaning than that. The sets are generic. The scenes are either too light or too dark. The visuals throughout the film are such a mess that there's no way to accurately describe how much of a mess they are. And the directing of the actors is sometimes absolutely baffling. I have to point out that Robert Collector, the director of the film, did ask to have his name removed from the credits after obviously some issues during editing. He is instead credited with the pseudonym T. C. Blake. And the editing reflects the idea that no director really seems to have had a say in the final cut of the movie. It's all over the place, rarely has a consistent pacing, and works against itself constantly. Visually, this film is a trainwreck, possibly one of the biggest trainwrecks in the visual department that I have ever seen. It is ugly, drab, and never really feels comfortable with its style or visuals to the point where I had trouble believing this was a horror film or believing it was a sci-fi film. My suspension of disbelief was absolutely shattered time and time again. I also have to add that I hated the opening narration. A film that is any good doesn't need an opening narration. This one didn't need it either, but there it was.

That paragraph right there seems to be saying I didn't like any aspects of the film at all... but that's not true. I liked some parts of it, and that was some of the most disappointing aspects of the movie. The script and the dialogue were really well done, reminding me of better science fiction films all the while I was watching this one. The story is pretty solid, being an odd amalgamation of 2001: A Space Odyssey and Event Horizon with maybe some Alien mixed in for good measure. The villain is reminiscent of HAL (VERY REMINISCENT), and I kind of liked that, especially because this movie is nowhere near as pretentious as 2001 certainly is. Although I hated the psychic aspects of the movie, the psychic characters were some of my favorites, and the backstory of seeing a specific psychic as a witch was actually intriguing. I liked a great deal of the science dealt with in the film, and the premise of the people on the expedition going to find extraterrestrial life was one that I thought was both fun and interesting. The crazy computer plot was enjoyable, as they often are, and the gore was both tastefully done and well crafted. I did like some of the costumes (the ones that were not incredibly 1980s). And the middle of the film was pretty good in general.

So, here were many aspects of this movie I liked... and there were many aspects of this movie I couldn't stand at all. Overall I mostly enjoyed the film, finding it more entertaining than not even if it was incredibly derivative at times. The visuals on this thing are terrible though, reminding me more of 1950s sci-fi B-movies than late 1980s horror sci-fi. That's basically unforgivable, really taking away from any positives this movie could have offered. I think it's a slap in the face to say this about any film, but this movie would have worked better as a radio drama... at least then I wouldn't have had to stare at the rotten visuals for 89 minutes.

I can't recommend this film. In fact I'm actively going to tell people to stay away from this flick. It's not good enough to spend the time watching, and it's not bad enough to deride. This would be a prime candidate to remake with better visuals and a better cast. (Although I will admit that most of the actors were pretty decent, some moreso than others though.) It's basically an utterly mediocre film that doesn't add much to the genre and is entirely forgettable and very drab. I bet tomorrow I won't even remember I had ever watched it, and sadly... that's all for the best.