Chupacabra vs. the Alamo

While its far from the worst movies, this one is both boring and not that enjoyable. There barely any story to be found in this movie with it being a pack of Chupacabra attacking a city. The movie try to have a explanation on why they are there, but its brief and not that interesting. I don't remember that much in the movie other than the CGI Chupacabra that looks awful and looks like it belongs in a PlayStation 2 game. Most of the action is characters shooting at them and they are easily taken down with one shot which show that these aren't a greatest threat unless you have a long range weapon. Also, they are strong for some reason which the movie doesn't explained that part. The acting is both stiff and pretty bad on how it deliver. Other parts like the characters, the special effects, and the side plot aren't that interesting to talk about.

Chupacabra vs. The Alamo is a movie that is best avoid and forgotten.

RELEASED TO TV IN 2013 and directed by Terry Ingram, the curiously titled "Chupacabra vs. the Alamo" details events in the San Antonio, TX, area when DEA agents (Erik Estrada, Julia Benson & Vanesa Tomasino) team-up with Hispanic outlaws in order to wipeout packs of rabid chupacabras. Jorge Vargas plays the estranged gang-oriented son of the head DEA agent (Estrada).

'Chupacabra' is a Spanish word, which literally means "goat-sucker" (from chupar "to suck" and cabra "goat"). There are two varieties of the cryptozoological beast: (1.) a reptile-like creature with leathery/scaly greenish-gray skin and sharp spines or quills running down its back; and (2.) a hairless form of canine with a pronounced spinal ridge and prominent eye sockets, fangs, and claws. This movie features the second version.

This is basically Hispanic TV horror with CGI chupacabras getting wiped out en masse. The movie starts serious, but becomes increasingly humorous as it moves along, particularly the second half. The first half is more engaging due to the human interest, which segues into the dynamic, but less interesting second half where there's an explosive (Surprise!) showdown at the Alamo.

Estrada is in perfect shape at 63 years-of-age during filming (looking almost 20 years younger) and is stalwart as the hero. Benson is reminiscent of Sean Young when she was younger and has a marvel-inducing face & full head of brunette hair, but she needs to gain like 15-20 lbs. Nicole Muñoz & Anja Savcic as the Estrada character's daughter and her bestie are cute. Tomasino is adorable in her own unique way as well.

THE MOVIE RUNS 88 minutes and was shot in San Antonio, Texas. WRITERS: Peter Sullivan & Jeffrey Schenck.

GRADE: B-/C+

Those of us that know the SyFy channel movie formula could all see this little treat coming down the road. It has all the elements of traditional SyFy movies; 2nd/3rd rate CGI and actors, thoroughly unappealing characters, inane dialog, and perhaps, a has-been actor thrown in for nostalgia.

And, of course, the title. At this point, I'm convinced that they just brain-storm the most ridiculous movie titles they can think of and make a movie around that title. Chupacabra vs. the Alamo is certainly a winner in that regard. The story is silly, naturally, but I thought the CGI was pretty good, in SyFy movie terms.

Erik Estrada is the curiosity doing the "has-been" duty here, and he's seen better days. The former CHiPs star is in his mid 60's now, and has packed on some tonnage, but he gives this nonsense his best shot and plays his part with gusto. All these movies are made for fun, of course, in the best "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" tradition. Everybody is in on the joke here, except for a few viewers who actually take these things seriously.

It's not giving anything away to say the characters fight the mythical beasts at the Alamo. Guess who wins. About average for a SyFy movie. If you watch it, you'll get exactly what you would expect from the title.

This film was never going to win any awards. It doesn't possess any of the redeeming qualities that a half-decent movie might have, like memorable or relatable characters, a coherent plot, some kind of theme or even some cheap scares. If that's what you were hoping for, then I have to wonder what lapse in judgement led you to seek out a movie like this.

What it does have is something that I think straddles the boundary between kitsch and camp. The ridiculous nature of everything that happens here is almost, maybe, intentional: from the "release the hounds" and "there's a bunch of chupacabras up in here", to the ultimate battle at the Alamo which seems to satirize the absurdity of that historical event.

If you don't think about the Taco Bell Chihuahua for just a second while watching this movie, you probably won't truly enjoy it. It's a terrible film without any pretense of artistic merit. If you can go into it with that in mind, I hope you can enjoy it as well as I have.

... Besides, doesn't some part of you want to know who wins?

First, there is no "State Patrol" in Texas. The state police force is The Texas Department of Public Safety, aka The Texas Rangers. And as far as blowing up the Alamo, Texans would rather see the entire state infested with chupacabras than blow up the Alamo, the so-called Cradle of Texas Liberty. Rather than liberty, the rebels at the Alamo were fighting for the "freedom" to own slaves, which was illegal in Mexico--of which San Antonio was a part.

Still, it was nice to see still shots of the places my friends and I used to smoke marijuana back in 1968. Anyway, a great fun movie despite the historical mistakes.