Skeeter

I watched this one late last night. With a name like "Skeeter", I was expecting another b-flick that would have me rolling with unintentional laughter. While there were a few (the dialogue slips sometimes) I found "Skeeter" to be a somewhat enjoyable monster movie that kept me entertained all the way through. It didn't have the standard "look" of a straight to video flick, but the effects were a little cheap in places (you could tell they used two screens) but other than that, the acting is quite good, the directing was competent (could've been a little tighter) and the leads were pretty likeable.

This was such a bad movie... I mean, bad. It's two redeeming qualities are: 1) Now when someone asks me "What's the worse movie you have ever seen?" I will have a suitable reply. 2) It was mildly entertaining to see a movie that uses the kind of giant plastic bugs that you can buy at dollar stores... how often do you see that? It looks like it might have been trying to be "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" meets "Arachnophobia," but it unfortunately only managed to be "my 10 year old son meets cam-corder..." and, come to think of it, he would have done a better job. I mean... gargle afterward.

Yech.

I wonder how this film lost its rightful place in IMDB's "bottom 100" list. It is unworthy of the term "horror flick"; it's more of a character drama, which perhaps would be fine if the characters were even remotely interesting, but they are not. As for the special effects, when the mosquitos don't seem to be flying around held by invisible strings, they seem to be literally painted onto the film. "Skeeter" runs only 95 minutes, but they feel like four hours. Not recommended, even to my worst enemy. 0 out of 4.

"Skeeter" is a passing fair critter-condundrum movie. I like it. It is merely another basic entry in the long-lived monster genre originating in the 1950's; and I'm a fan. You cannot go into one of these films with expectations of high drama, magnificent special effects, and flawless plot lines. You go to see the monsters run amok and the films' characters, in more ways than one, attempt to stem the tide of nature on a rampage. As to the special effects, if you are a fan, after the initial shock and laughter, your brain accommodates; and the mosquitoes, or squids, or bats, or whatever, take on a surrealistic and entertaining quality.

One improvement we do get with these newer entries is generally better acting than in the past. The directing hasn't changed much over the years; it is still marginal at best. But more good actors are available now. They are eager for work and generally do an excellent job with marginal scripts, formula plots, and overwhelmed directors. The cast of "Skeeter" is quite compelling and the characters are believable for the most part. The plot drags a little as the director attempts to create some reason to watch the film other than to see giant mosquitoes run rampant. These new directors have forgotten that there is no other reason. But I think "Skeeter" is fun and, worth some good escapism time. Be sure, in the early part of the film, to try and figure out what the "dead cow" really is. I personally think it's an army surplus blanket. My recommendation is to see "Skeeter" with a friend, have a crossword handy, and then you'll have three interesting things to do. One of them should work out. It just might be "Skeeter"!

Drake is a greedy mining magnate (Robinson) turning the sleepy rural town of Clear Sky into a prospect, lining the pockets of corrupt local officials in the bargain, until water poisoning results in over-sized mosquitoes sucking the lifeblood out of the locals. Local deputy and part time metal sculptor (Youngs) isn't on Drake's payroll and decides to engage the services of a chemist (Sanderson) to ascertain the cause of the pollution. Naturally, Drake and his cronies try to hinder the process, until finally the mutated "skeeters" become the common nemesis.

Despite its disjointed, pedestrian pace, the vast array of familiar faces and corny set-ups are almost redeemable qualities in this otherwise meandering mish-mash. There's some nice photography and amusing dialogue, and the effects aren't so bad they're unwatchable, but continuity is the chief concern, with so many scenes of limited relevance that characters are reduced to cameo appearances (recognizable faces like Pollard, Putch & Flower are virtually bit parts).

The primitive tension between goodbye girl Griffith and her former companion Youngs manages to simmer to a gentle boil for one, romantic interlude in the sheds – by candlelight of course. It's one of the hallmarks of the weakly conceived storyline, or its interpretation, that the mood can switch so frequently from scene to scene as it does in this film. In some passages, it seems almost as if the "skeeters" are a sub plot such is their lack of relevance; in reality, the film carries so much peripheral baggage, it can't successfully meld them cohesively. Lots of location work, stunts and pyrotechnics to show off some semblance of a movie budget, but the connective tissue is so malnourished, it's barely alive.

So while the cast is attractive (see Trainor & Edwards in all too brief roles), capable (Napier particularly) and with some exceptions sincere in the performances, the fatal lack of connectivity or momentum consigns this one to trash-video status. Not to be avoided at all costs, but don't expect much in return.