Review: Under the Bed (2012)

Pretty disappointing. They spend so much time at the beginning with the kid hesitating to go into the house that it's almost comical, and it gets incredibly boring waiting for the monster to show up. The first scene is a long exchange in a car between father and son that seems to last forever. I read an interview with the director where he talked about using practical FX, and there is a guy in a suit for the monster, but then they did a lot of CG effects on top of it to make him move quickly. It really doesn't look very good at all. The real problem is the monster doesn't do anything until the end of the movie, and the dad is another asshole who puts his kids in harm's way to make them face their fears, but it's going way too far. Plus, early on, you get a scene with the step mom in a washer room that ends so abruptly I didn't understand how she got away or what happened. It's just a mess. I liked the gore at the conclusion, but it was such a huge change from the rest of the film, and when they're in the monster's world, the fact it's low budget becomes horribly obvious since the set is way too cheap and small.

Review: The Dark Lurking aka Alien Undead (2009)

The special effects are outstanding in this Australian indie, but the acting is abysmal, and the shaky cam close-ups ruin everything (just watch the scene below). They had so much potential for an amazing Aliens-type action film (and the monsters really do rip off Giger's design as you can tell from the poster although they have some other different plague-like creatures too), but they screw it up. All the guys try to talk like badasses, but it's obviously ADR and sounds horribly fake. You've also got some extremely annoying characters that do nothing but whine and instead of dying immediately, they stick around to drive you nuts. In the US, this movie was released as The Dark Lurking, but in the UK, they put it out under the title Alien Undead. Either way, it sucks unfortunately. I thought for sure I'd at least be able to enjoy the practical FX, but with the fuckin shaky cam, it's impossible. Why the hell do filmmakers do that? Don't they understand how awful it is?

Review: Dark Skies (2013)

Great atmosphere at the beginning, but it definitely loses itself in the end by showing way too much. J.K. Simmons turns in a fantastic supporting role as a guy who has spent his life running from the grays. Sadly, he's not in it much (if he was the main character, that would've been really interesting and different from what we've seen before). All the actors did a good job, but the writing makes the father seem like a jerk sometimes, and it's hard to understand why the hell he's acting like that. Plus, the whole setup reminds me a lot of Insidious, which makes sense because it's by the same producers, but it's almost like the same movie with a family dealing with aliens instead of ghosts. There are some good scary moments though, and I got sucked into it while I was watching. It's a shame it drops the ball in the third act. They use CGI, and it looks like shit. I hated the last shot, because it just leaves things wide open for a sequel, and I'd rather they resolve the story. Overall, it was ok for an alien abduction movie. I like Fire in the Sky a lot more. If you've never seen that one, watch it instead.

Review: ChromeSkull: Laid to Rest 2 (2011)

I wasn't very impressed by the first film. A ton of practical gore, which is nice, but you need a good story and characters too like John Carpenter's The Thing. Of course, I know very few movies will ever come close to that, and Laid to Rest was just a small indie, but still, they could've done more. This sequel doesn't improve much. I cared even less about the characters, and ChromeSkull sat around watching for most of the running time with an imitator doing the dirty work. You'd think a movie with the title of its killer would actually feature said character racking up a huge body count, but that's not the case here. I like seeing Danielle Harris in just about anything, but she also doesn't have much to do except try to win ChromeSkull's affection. You see more of his organization, but it still doesn't make much sense. Obviously, they have to be rich, but how do they get their money? Why does ChromeSkull record everything? Who is behind it all? Is it entertainment for some sick wealthy group of psychos or what? The problem with a film like this is if you're not invested in the characters, it's just boring.

Review: Watchers (1988)

Michael Ironside really makes this movie for me. Hell, he's the reason Highlander II is a guilty pleasure of mine, because "train wreck" is the only way to classify that cinematic disaster. I've always been curious about Watchers and its sequels, but I never figured they'd be any good. Turns out of course, they're based on a book, which was poorly adapted but came out well enough to where it's not a bad way to spend a couple hours if you can see it for free (thank you, Netflix). The story seems kinda goofy now since if you're going to send a dog in to make friends with the enemies, I don't think that'd work so well in the Middle East (obviously, this was made long before current events), but the idea of a super smart dog is pretty fun. I guess some people like to beat up Corey Haim, but I think he's fine in this, and the poor guy is dead now so give him a break. It does suck that his character was changed from a much older man in the book to a kid in the film, but that's Hollywood for you, and they love to do stupid shit like that. Aside from Ironside, the real star of the film is the dog, and he's perfect. Best actor ever.

How about the monster? You don't get a good look at it for the most part until the end, and I'd say that's a smart decision, because the design isn't the greatest. In fact, it looks pretty shitty when you finally see it (it ain't no Predator that's for damn sure). I was surprised to get quite a few kills in the movie, and every time that happens, the monster claws out the eyes of its victims, which was a nice gory trademark. I keep going back to Ironside though. He really makes everything he's in so much better except maybe Terminator Salvation, but he was barely in that. So again, it wasn't the greatest, but super low expectations, a certain affection for man-in-suit 80s monster movies and the awesome Michael Ironside made it pretty enjoyable for me.

Review: Deep Space (1988)

Doesn't take place in space, and it sure as hell doesn't take place in deep space. It's all on crappy ole Earth. The monster looks like the Queen from Aliens but not nearly as awesome. You'll recognize Charles Napier from Rambo II (he played the evil asshole in charge aka Murdock). He's pretty good in this too even if the movie is mediocre at best. At least, the creature is all practical. The script is a mess though with cop film cliches (these guys are out of control! suspend them!) and the alien being a super weapon made by a government experiment. You also get a dumb psychic subplot to tell the lead where the critter is (so much for good writing). Someone loved Ridley Scott and James Cameron a little too much, but they had no idea why those two made such phenomenal films. If only this was as good as the poster. You do get a chainsaw near the end, which is always appreciated, but I'd only watch this if you're really bored and really, really love weak '80s ripoff movies. It is available on Netflix if you're curious.

Here are a couple more pictures so you can see the monster. Not bad from the right angle although obviously stolen from Aliens. Still Napier looks pretty badass here.

Review: Malevolence (2004)

Boring slasher flick. You've seen it all before and done a million times better. Just rewatch Halloween or a Friday the 13th film. I didn't care about any of the characters. Not one. Didn't like the killer. He doesn't have a cool mask or costume. No amazing new weapons. Nothing to make him memorable. He's probably the most boring part. Every cliche is present and accounted for. Psycho standing in the background but no one notices? Yep. Picking off idiots one by one? Yep. Slow moving murderer who always gets back up? Yep. Is it scary? No. Is it exciting? No. Is it even remotely good? No. The beginning is a little different, but then it grinds to a halt, and you see a cruddy remake of Carpenter's classic without the talents of Donald Pleasence, Jamie Lee Curtis, etc. It was painful to sit through. Avoid. The fact this has a 5.0 rating on IMDb is ridiculous. Don't be fooled by it.