Carnosaurus

Well, what can I say? I'm a huge fan of b movies, so I've seen some great big piles in my life. I was going into this expecting a poorly-shot, bad-humor-filled, crappy-effect-infused, pox-ridden Corman romp of "Night of the Blood Beast" or "Wasp Woman" proportions. I was rather surprised, actually. The effects were nothing to write home about, but they weren't horrible. At least this was before CG was on the open market, so they stuck with practical effects (which, in my opinion, are underrated). The acting was par for the course, but I feel Diane Ladd did a pretty good "mad scientist" with Tiptree. Mainly Raphael Sbarge was a good washed-up drunk with Doc Smith. Some things made the movie a little tedious (the romantic plot between Thrush and Doc, Clint Howard's character, etc.) but I found this an overall enjoyable cheesy gore-ride of fun weirdness.

Watch if you are used to horrifically cheesy movies.

4/10

First and foremost: THIS IS NOT A JURASSIC PARK RIPOFF. Stop saying and thinking that it is! It takes a minute to do some basic research and realise that. What it is is a CASH-IN. I believe that Corman bought the rights to the novel so he could a) use the cool name and b) lend his new film some notoriety, so he could say the CARNOSAUR franchise (which he owns...) predates Jurassic Park (which it does). He may also have bought it to prevent some other filmmaker doing it. But ENOUGH with the ripoff accusations. This is not about a theme park.

"CARNOSAUR" (1993, Simon) is a really weird film. It's a really nasty film that features a lot of gore but also some surreal gross-out stuff; some is reminiscent of Ridley Scott's "ALIEN", which is weird in a dinosaur movie.

I really like the aesthetic of John Beuchler's special effects. It's unapologetic in style but always goes the extra mile. The Deinonychus has a dreamlike quality to it. It's uneasy and never quite fits in but yet it's there all the same.

As an adaptation this film is a 0/10 because it is so far removed from the novel on which it is based that it might as well not have been an adaptation. "CARNOSAUR" was written by John Brosnan under the pseudonym Harry Adam Knight in 1984 and it is a good book that could easily have been adapted faithfully on a tight budget so why Corman opted for this strange sci fi horror is a mystery only answerable by understanding Corman.

Something about this film really irritates me but I just can't put my finger on what it is. The acting's not bad, it's off the wall and mad, and I at least like the sequels. Plus I would take the CARNOSAUR franchise over Jurassic Park purely because there's more onscreen Dino action.

Come on, did we really EXPECT a worthy rip-off of "Jurassic Park" here? If it's taken at face value, CARNOSAUR is a fun way to kill 90 minutes. The dinosaur effects are laughable at best, but overall it's better scripted than the average Roger Corman slaughterama, and Dianne Ladd gives an over-the-top performance that alone makes this one worth watching. You get the feeling that there was probably a decent movie here if only they'd had a big enough budget. It may not be saying much, but at least it's better than the two sequels that followed. If you're in the mood for a good, goofy, gory B-movie, CARNOSAUR shouldn't disappoint. Besides, you can buy it on DVD for only $5.99 (like I did). Can't beat that with a stick!

Carnosaur (1993)

** (out of 4)

Diane Ladd plays a mad scientist who plans on returning the Earth back to the dinosaurs. She's created a special serum that will have women giving birth to the creatures and soon they will take over everything. CARNOSAUR was producer Roger Corman's attempt to cash-in on Steven Spielberg's JURASSIC PARK, which would be released later in the year. It's pretty funny that Corman was able to get this thing a theatrical release but sadly the movie doesn't live up to much because it's just a tad bit too mainstream for its own good. Overall the film does manage to get a good feel of those 1950s monster movies where there's really not much of a story and instead of one we just get a monster running around killing people. This is actually one thing that works with the picture and I think another good thing is that the filmmakers never take the subject or story overly serious. This works for a number of reasons but the biggest is that star Ladd takes the material so serious that you can't help but be entertained by her maniac style performance. I liked the fact that she was so serious in the movie simply because it adds a level of entertainment that you wouldn't have had had the actress simply shown up to cash a check. Obviously the special effects weren't going to be on the level of the Spielberg film but for the most part I thought they were good. Yes, it's obvious these things aren't real but that really doesn't hurt the film as they're at least entertaining for what they are. I think what hurts the film is the fact that it's a tad bit too pretty for its own good. With the Spielberg movie being what it is, usually these rip-offs try to just be exploitation 101 and CARNOSAUR really doesn't reach that level. The usually seen nudity isn't anywhere to be found and the death scenes are pretty lifeless and uninteresting. A film like this really needed to deliver for its lack of effects and story but instead we're just given a watered down version of a horror movie.

"Carnosaur" is a film that can probably blame its obviously low budget on it being a missed opportunity. This movie contains many good elements including a very wonderful performance by Academy Award-nominee Diane Ladd. About half of the time, this movie kept me entertained in its own unique way and the other half of the time I was bored to tears. Thus, I give it two stars out of four. Half and half. Sounds fair to me.

"Carnosaur" is loosely based on a novel by John Brosnan about a mad scientist (Diane Ladd) who is disgusted by the human race's destruction of the planet and plans to wipe it out with a killer virus while genetically engineering dinosaurs so that they can take over the planet once again.

I was really surprised that film critic Gene Siskel, who had given the Oscar-winning masterpiece "The Silence of the Lambs" (1991) a negative review found this movie appealing and gave it a marginally positive review. But now that I've actually seen the film, I can agree with him part way. I still give it a negative review, but I do see why he might have enjoyed it. First of all, like I mentioned earlier, Diane Ladd plays a terrific villain in this movie. Even though she was given some awfully poor lines to act on, she somehow managed to keep me interested and even a bit frightened whenever she was on the screen. I'll say this; she is a lot more interesting than the dinosaurs in this picture. Perhaps the reason "Carnosaur" was even made was to beat Steven Spielberg's "Jurassic Park" (1993) to the big screen and make a little cash, which it did despite negative reviews from both critics and audience members. The film was made on a low budget and you can tell by the bad acting (excluding Diane Ladd, of course) and the poor special effects. The dinosaurs are seldom convincing at all. They are portrayed using rubber puppets and even though they are shot at night, they do become revealing at times. Sometimes painfully revealing. I also felt that the amount of blood and gore used in this film was way overdone, but that is typical of films of this grade.

And there is also one major plot problem in this movie. If the Diane Ladd character wants to wipe out the human race, why not just create the virus and not even bother with the dinosaurs at all? Why go through all the trouble and risk being caught? Of course, the dinosaurs were thrown in one because of the novel source and two to get people interested in seeing the movie, but still it almost seems as though "Carnosaur" would have been better, at least more logical, if there were no dinosaurs in it at all. And it also doesn't make any sense that she only breeds carnivorous dinosaurs and no herbivores. There are some strangely appealing elements to "Carnosaur", much to my surprise, and there are some ludicrous and unbelievably poor elements, as anticipated. It is just too bad I wasn't surprised more while watching this movie. A few re-writes of the script and a slight ante in the budget would have done it wonders.