Carnosaur - La distruzione

Reading about Carnosaur, I was expecting a terribly cheap movie and for it to be blatantly derivative of the Steven Spielberg classic Jurassic Park. While far from a good movie, and certainly nowhere near as fun, thrilling or intense as Jurassic Park, I was expecting far worse than what I saw. Diane Ladd relishes her mad scientist, and this is one totally bonkers mad scientist, and the baby carnosaur is genuinely scary. Carnosaur is also gorier and bloodier than JP, and the gore is actually quite good and has moments where it is used inventively to the extent that you may be put off eating for some time after. Carnosaur is a very cheap-looking movie though, the sets lack colour and the camera work and editing lack finesse and cohesion. But I agree about the special effects and the animatronics on the dinosaurs faring worst in this regard, they are truly dreadful and definitely some of the worst dinosaur effects I've seen for any movie in my life. The score is not particularly rousing and has nothing that leaps out as memorable. It doesn't distract from what's going on as such but it just doesn't add anything either, it's just there and fails to make much of an impact. The script doesn't work either, nor does the story. The dialogue is stodgy, cheesy and overly-talky, while the story- not doing much with a decent if rather silly concept- apart from some inventive gory scenes is stripped of suspense, scenes that should scare can be unintentionally funny instead, the romantic plot line is mawkish and slows things down in the middle and the prehistoric rampage antics do get predictable quickly. The characters read of every cliché the writers could find and are poorly developed, no scratch that, the movie certainly knows what it tries to be which is good but while it does strive for some fun and scares(though not really succeeding) the characters are almost completely forgotten in the process. Of the acting only Ladd makes any kind of impression, the rest just sleepwalk through their roles and don't seem to care less about their characters' situations. Overall, could have been worse, especially considering what I'd read, but not a good movie. I recommend it partially for those who want a bit of silly fun without having to think too much, but for those who does know what to expect but still want to see some kind of quality put into it they may want to look elsewhere. 4/10 Bethany Cox

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

My all time 2nd worst movie that I've seen ( the 1st being freddy got fingered) I couldn't even get through this movie it was so bad. The death scenes with the dinos. The special effects made me blind for life. Then when you thought the movie from going from AWFUL TO EXTREMELY AWFUL, it goes a little bit further to HORRIBLY WRONG I'M DAMAGED FOR LIFE AWFUL, with a stupid sub-plot about a deadly virus. NO NO NO NO NO, I can't believe my eyes.

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.

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.