Doc-172

No, just kidding. It was God-awful.

I was watching my local Sci-fi station last night, which plays movies, every night, within a monthly theme. This month it's "Space Turkeys, Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bombs". Movies so bad, they should never have been made. This was a good selection.

Everything about this movie is thoroughly horrible with two exceptions, the gore make-up (which showed potential) and the editing (which slightly out did the rest of the movie, in terms of being horrible). The acting is horrible all around, the dialog is horrible, the script, the direction. It's not a good movie.

It consists of two forms of special effects, gore and stock footage of space. I'll focus on the gore. Watching this movie, I thought to myself, "What WAS the motivation behind the making of this movie?" People like making stuff, sure, but I was hesitant to think anything good could have come of it for anyone involved. I came to the conclusion that this movie was made as a means to increase the Make-up Effects guy's Demo Reel. He (Rick Baker) actually went on to a pretty nice career, he's worked on STAR WARS (1977), KING KONG (1976), MEN IN BLACK (1996), and even THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING WOMAN (1981), plus a number of other notable flicks. Other than that, I can't say I've ever actually SEEN a real, live melting man - incredible, or otherwise - but I'd have to say this seemed to be a fair representation of one.

Now, when I think of bad editing, I usually think of maybe a scene where someone's talking on the phone and then, in the middle of the scene, the phone jumps down to his shoulder, or something to that effect. This movie really serves to highlighted the fact that bad editing can take many forms. Specifically, over-long and utterly useless scenes. Just about every scene dragged on longer than it should have, from a little bit of dead air to that crazy-long screaming scene with Cleaver Girl. And that severed head in the river, the head gets thrown into a river (in slow motion), the movie carries on for a couple minutes, and then we cut back to the floating head and watch it fall down a waterfall. While I'm sure they were all very proud of their severed head, WHAT THE HELL??

Lastly, I'll mention the running fat lady/slow motion scene right near the beginning. The jerky slow motion tells me that they didn't shoot the scene in slow motion originally but later decided that it "wasn't working like that" and then slowed it down. Oy vey. In any event, if you should ever see another movie in which a hysterical fat woman runs down a hall and then directly through a closed, glass door - all in slow motion, mind you - remember THE INCREDIBLE MELTING MAN, for *this* is where it all started.

Movies like this are best viewed at home with a bunch of friends. This one's a little slow most of the time but that's just all the more time to come up with your own one-liners. It's not the worst of the worst but it's pretty freaking bad.

This is a fairly good movie. It's got your interesting story, nice cinematography and reputable actors; unfortunately it's also snagged some-not-so impressive half-man/half-beast costumes and a varying level of success from said actors.

In many cases Dr. Moreau's creations were bulked up too much and didn't move with as much agility as their computer animated counterparts would have you believe they possess. The effects crew would have been better off to tone down the muscles mass and concentrate on giving Moreau's creations more character. I enjoyed the wise goat-man get-up; although, how they passed up the idea of an owl-man with a graduation cap for that part, I'll never know.

As for the acting, David Thewlis was great and provides an excellent lead character. He's an incredible actor and is currently holds my nomination for the position of Coolest British Accent.

Marlon Brando joins us from his own far off island where his Big Mac funds were no doubt running low. I know that sounds cruel and Marlon, God knows I love ya, but this was far from a crowning achievement. His performance was okay but you'll forgive me if I expect more from freaking Marlon Brando. C'est la vie.

Now, onto Val Kilmer. I'm not a big fan of Mr. Kilmer. His huge ego shows through in all of his work. I've enjoyed him in movies in which his character is *supposed* to be a tad on the egomaniacal side - specifically, "Tombstone" and "Willow" - and while his character, here, is supposed to have a fair-sized ego, this could well be one of his worst performances. He seems to spend the entire movie trying to impress Marlon Brando. You see, Brando has a tendency to improvise small things into his movies that really work; for example, in "Last Tango in Paris" with the gum on the balcony, or in "On the Waterfront" when he puts on the glove that his lady friend dropped. Here, Kilmer's varied improvisations tended to lean more towards the pointless and irritating side. Twirling the flower around in his mouth, balancing a radio component on his head. What's up with that? Oh, your character is supposed to be a little crazy too, huh, Val? That's great. Smack this upside the head for me, will ya, Mar? Thanks.

This movie had the potential to be a excellent film but fell short. It's still an entertaining picture and worth watching but as far as stunning films with political and/or social statements go, Hollywood wouldn't be my first stop.

There's a reason I watched this movie. As a child I went on vacation abouts of Disney World and MGM Studios. At one of those I saw none other than our very own Swamp Thing in the flesh, or should I say, in the vegetation? *titter* Anyways, there was a film crew there and a crowd had gathered. The part I enjoyed was that director had to frequently tell the crowd - via his megaphone - to be quiet; I imagine he had to do this all day as it was pretty busy at the theme park in question. Poor shmoe. I thought this might be the movie that I had witnessed. That, at least, would have been neat. I was wrong. Apparently, there was a Swamp Thing TV show, which is what I must have seen.

As it stands, there are only two good things about this movie: one, if you can sit through the entire thing, they play CCR through the end credits; two, the name of the guy who plays the Swamp Thing is Dick Durock. Now, should I ever need one, I've got myself a good porn name.

Aside from that, this movie is bad. They seem to have spent their entire budget on explosives and monster costumes. Unfortunately, once they got them, they didn't know what to do with them. Don't get me wrong, the costumes and explosions still looked fake and ill-timed but there WERE a lot of them. The acting, of course, was horrible, as was the comic relief. The action scenes lacked any blood or gore, which lead me to believe this was a children's film, except for the blatant sexual innuendoes:

"May we have sex now, Swamp Thing?"

"No, I'm a monster."

"Oh, come on. Pleeease?"

"Oh, okay. Take this." [He then proceed to rip a piece of celery off his body and hand it to the girl]

That's not an exact quoting but you get the idea. Do you parents of the 80s get some kind of kick out of raunchy aspects of children's films that are above the heads of your kids? What's the matter with you people?

This movie is void of entertainment value. If you ever feel the need to rent a movie about a large, green, muscular, good-hearted man with a Clark Gable-isque voice, go rent the original (unintentionally campy) or, better yet, The Toxic Avenger (intentionally cheesy).