Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Blogs | Writers | Paid | My Orble | Login
 
Picking the rare gems out of a sea of crap.... so you don't have to!

Screamers: The Hunting

October 9th 2009 10:13


Premise: Following on from the original Screamers, a group of army-type people must return to Sirius 6B to investigate a distress beacon. They get there and start dying. cough *Aliens* cough.

To be honest, I haven't seen the original Screamers in many years, but from memory it is one of the most frightening experiences of my life. Well, it might have something to do with the fact that it was one of the first horror movies I ever saw, or the fact I have been intentionally avoiding it for fear of ruining a cherished childhood memory... So, the sequel could not possibly live up to my unreasonable expectations.


Needless to say, it didn't.

However, don't let me put you off. For a straight-to-DVD affair, this movie is surprisingly good.

Acting: While nothing spectacular, is not as abysmal as I expected. Lance Henriksen, always a pleasure to watch, is fun to watch for the 5 minutes he is in the film. No terrible performances come to mind, which is a heck of a lot better than I was expecting.

Effects: The highlight of the movie. The CGI'd screamers leaping out of the ground and getting shot down got a little repetitive in parts, but other than that the CGI was quite good. The best part of the movie though was the make-up, from released entrails to spikes exploding out of chests. There were some deliciously juicy kills, and my thirst for blood was definitely sated.

Script: Easily the worst part of this movie... there was not one single original thought, from start to finish. The Hunting borrows heavily from Aliens, and what it doesn't steal from Cameron it steals from elsewhere. Even the mandatory cliched plot-twist ending is ridiculously predictable, and although I won't reveal it here, you will see it coming from at least half and hour away. And don't even get me started on the plot holes... eugh...


Direction: Even though I haven't seen the original for well over a decade, I can distinctly remember the sense of paranoia that it was soaked in. While not as effective as The Thing (but seriously, what is?), it was good. That entire aspect of the movie is ditched in the sequel, in favour of straight out sci-fi carnage. Think Aliens compared to Alien, just less good (but seriously, what is?).

Overall... really, I might make it sound bad, but this movie is actually pretty damn good for a straight-to-DVD project. Personally, I thought the make-up effects made the movie worth watching, but I'm a sucker for that stuff. If you want mindless futuristic carnage and some excellent gore that requires very little thought, this is the movie for you.
43
Vote
   


Part 2 of the Sci-Fi Channel Crock of Shit Double Feature Extravaganza!



Premise: A group of voracious snakehead fish decimate the fish population of a lake before the lake is poisoned, supposedly killing them off. A few years later, the snakeheads are back, only this time they're huge, and start eating everyone. Oh and they can walk on land. Oh, and one of them is the size of a whale. Yeah, it's that kind of movie.

This, alone, couldn't have killed 'Sy-Fi' (that will now on be referred to as Sci-Fi, because the whole rebranding is mind-numbingly stupid) for me. I have fond memories of the channel... going over to a friends house who had cable and catching the latest Battlestar Gallactica episodes (which is quite possibly the best sci-fi series ever, right up alongside Firefly, Stargate SG-1 and even The X-Files. And a ways back I reviewed Altered, which I thoroughly enjoyed.

Unfortunately, it seems that the fun ended along with Battlestar. I've seen a number of Sci-Fi channel movies in the recent past, and they have pretty much been the same story over and over again, with a little twist in each one. Start with a flashback to the beginnings/Last attack of (insert bad-guy here). Introduce supporting character, who knows details of the plot, usually someone knowledgeable in the field of (bad-guy). Often Supporting Character is related to one member of the main duo, be it as father/brother/friend/etc. Then introduce hapless victims, mixed gender, usually teenagers. They come across some evidence of (bad guy), but don't realize exactly what is happening. Main duo (guy/girl) will get some indication of what's going on, and while they are investigating it their friends will start dying. They realize, and start trying to stop (bad guy). They come up with a plan; which subsequently fails. Supporting character will then sacrifice themselves to stop/slow down (Bad Guy), allowing main duo to finish the job, and live happily ever after.... until there is some invariably stupid twist allowing Bad Guy/Spawn of Bad Guy to survive and star in the sequels!

There are some small variations. Supporting Character doesn't always die, and on rare occasions there isn't a twist. Oh, an interesting fact for y'all, the name of Bad Guy, More often than not, the name of Bad Guy can be found in the title. Locusts had locusts, Snakehead has the snakeheads, Pumpkinhead has... well, you get the idea.

Plot: About as hole-y as you would expect from a movie of this title. I'm only going to point out some choice plot holes, as describing all of them would ruin the movie for you... ha. Lets start with the snakeheads. They can walk on land, but who am I to say that the fish can't do that. They grow to enormous size... because someone is dumping human growth hormone in the lake. Like I mentioned, one is whale sized... because a lake would totally have enough food for an animal to reach that size.... other than that, totally plausible, although surprisingly none of the others seem to be longer than 10 feet.

Next... SPOILER!... well, sort of, this movie really sort of spoils itself.

They kill the snakeheads by electrocuting the lake. They cut a power line that's feeding a town, and drop it into a lake. It then sends an electric pulse through the lake, killing all the snakeheads. Mightily convenient that all the fish happened to be in the lake, seeing as they had been roaming around the land right up until then. I'm no physicist, but wouldn't a power line dropped in a lake do very little? It's a lot of water....

What's that, I hear you cry? Horror movies require a little suspension of belief? It would appear in the act of being suspended, belief got tangled up and hung itself.

The acting is terrible. Nothing worth mentioning.

The effects are typical sci-fi... better than some, but pretty terrible. I laughed at them.

Gore is pretty tame. Again, nothing worth mentioning.

Overall... Avoid it. Please, for the love of god, avoid it. I have lost all hope of seeing anything resembling quality being produced by Sci-Fi, and the dumb-ass rebranding just makes it that much easier... Sci-Fi holds some fond memories for me... Sy-Fy can suck my nuts.

64
Vote
   




Part 1 of the Sci-Fi Crock-Of-Shit Double Whammy!

Premise: A company genetically engineers locusts that are carnivores, trying to make them eat bugs off crops as an alternative to pesticides. Predictably, they escape captivity, and start eating people.

First up, sorry for the hiatus. I have been having some internet issues, but the reviewing machine that is Evil Pleasures is in full swing. I have a fresh batch of godawful movies for your twisted entertainment, beginning with some trash offerings from the Sci-Fi channel.

I blame my tolerance of Sci-Fi on Altered (Which I review here). Altered was a decent flick... however, Locusts is not, for a number of reasons.

The acting ranges from wooden to terrible, without a single decent performance over the whole movie. I really, honestly wanted the locusts just to eat everyone after the first 5 minutes so that the movie could be over and done with... but they managed to drag it out for another hour and a half, much to my dismay.

Likewise, the script is terrible. The dialogue is horrible, and combined with the horrible delivery is in some scenes laughable. The writer also wasn't bothered with that whole 'plausibility' thing, so they didn't bother to include it. For example, the locusts are attracted to pesticide, and only kill people because of the residual pesticide in their bodies (I know, right?). Also, the locusts seem to have this magical ability to fly straight through people... some of the silliest scenes in the movie are seeing a person get hit by a locust and having the bug explode out of their back. Also, from what I know about locusts, they eat everything and leave nothing behind. Well not these locusts, oh no! For some reason they like leaving behind half-eaten corpses.... for no reason at all. Oh, and my personal favourite: The locust swarm is comprised entirely of drones, which cannot breed. However, the swarm somehow manages to breed... somehow, which is never explained. It's these kind of stupid plot holes that are the result of nothing more than lazy writing that really ruin the movie, although there wasn't alot there to ruin...

In what seems to be a running thing with Sci-Fi Channel movies, the effects are almost all CGI, and terrible. Totally unconvincing. There are a few crappy bug props, but these too are just... well... crappy.

I think the problem here stems from the fact that Sci-Fi is, after all, a TV network. They make shows for TV, and I am renting/buying expecting something more. Locusts is mindless entertainment, exactly what you would expect to see on TV, with little thought or effort put into making quality cinema. Sci-Fi has adopted the quantity over quality approach, convinced that their audience would rather see endless crappy movies rather than repeats of fewer quality movies. While this may work on TV... it doesn't for stand-alone movies.

Take HBO, for instance. They make quality shows, but repeat them all the damn time. Back when I had cable, you could easily see the same movie 7 or 8 times in a week.

Overall... possibly worth watching if you are stuck at home on a rainy day with absolutely nothing else to do. Other than that, ignore it.
64
Vote
   


Movie Review: Alien Raiders

July 14th 2009 08:27


Premise: A group of militants take the staff of a grocery store hostage, killing several customers and employees in the process. However, they aren't really bandits, and some of the 'hostages' aren't what they appear to be


[ Click here to read more ]
49
Vote
   


Deep Rising

June 10th 2009 01:39


Premise: A captain and crew are hired for a no-questions-asked mission by a group of mean looking mercenaries, which it turns out are heading out to rob the most expensive cruise liner ever built. When they get there, however, the crew and passengers are all missing, and blood is everywhere. They then get attacked by monster, try to escape, yadda yadda yadda... it isn't exactly the most original storyline in the world


[ Click here to read more ]
49
Vote
   


Alien Apocalypse

June 4th 2009 09:45


There are some actors out there, and you will watch anything they are in. Everyone's list is different, but we all have them. These fall into 2 categories. Some of them, it's because they are always in good movies. Personally, I think Kevin Spacey falls into this category, I haven't seen him in a bad movie to date. And then there's that special breed of actors where, even if the movie stinks to high heaven, you can appreciate them


[ Click here to read more ]
49
Vote
   


Dying God

June 2nd 2009 14:27


Premise: Some kind of god/demon-type creature is dying, and for some reason this makes it necessary to rape anything that comes nearby. Not in a figurative sense, literally. Because, you know, what better than a little cancer to bring out the nympho in you


[ Click here to read more ]
59
Vote
   


Komodo Vs Cobra

May 24th 2009 21:38


There's something about 'vs'... The way I see it, having it in a title just means that means the movie will be disappointing. Friday the 13th was great, Nightmare on Elm street, great, Freddy vs. Jason... not so great. Alien, awesome, Predator, awesome, Alien vs Predator... not so awesome


[ Click here to read more ]
73
Vote
   


Blood Monkey

May 4th 2009 11:57


Premise: A bunch of students are enlisted by an eccentric scientist to help explore an as-yet-uncharted section of jungle, populated by undiscovered flaura and fauna. Little do the students know that the scientist has ulterior motives


[ Click here to read more ]
40
Vote
   


Altered

May 3rd 2009 06:09


I seem to be on a streak of picking decent horror movies, which is a change for me


[ Click here to read more ]
38
Vote
   


Lockjaw: Rise of the Kulev Serpent

April 19th 2009 10:50
I blame it on Anaconda.

Anaconda was a good movie, despite what all the nay-sayers say. The cast was, for the most part, good. Yes, there were exceptions. I don't like J-Lo in any of her movies, and Ice-Cube isn't the greatest actor on the planet, but I think Jon Voight is a superb actor, and Jonathan Hyde is always watchable. Anyways... Overall, the movie was good


[ Click here to read more ]
42
Vote
   


I'm going to say this right from the start: The chances are, if you watch this movie, you will hate it. For good reason too. This movie is utterly terrible. Bad acting, bad effects, bad editing, bad directing, everything about it is terrible.

That being said, I found this movie endlessly entertaining. The script, although generally poor, did have some good moments


[ Click here to read more ]
40
Vote
   


Moderated by Someone
Copyright © 2006 2007 2008 On Topic Media PTY LTD. All Rights Reserved. Design by Vimu.com.
On Topic Media ZPages: Sydney |  Melbourne |  Brisbane |  London |  Birmingham |  Leeds     [ Advertise ] [ Contact Us ] [ Privacy Policy ]