I'm a fan of monster movies, but having read the description of the movie I'm hesitant to give it a try for 2 reasosns; 1. It's an old movie. I'm pretty spoiled due to the fact that I hardly watch anything older than an 80s flick and when I do watch an older movie it's only once in a blue moon. 2. It sounds rather uninteresting.
So I'm hoping that my fellow Paizonians can help me understand why I should move past these two issues and give it a try.
I'm a fan of monster movies, but having read the description of the movie I'm hesitant to give it a try for 2 reasosns; 1. It's an old movie. I'm pretty spoiled due to the fact that I hardly watch anything older than an 80s flick and when I do watch an older movie it's only once in a blue moon. 2. It sounds rather uninteresting.
So I'm hoping that my fellow Paizonians can help me understand why I should move past these two issues and give it a try.
I saw this movie maybe 10-15 years ago, so I don't remember a ton of details. The feeling I came away with was that, if you were bored and found it while channel surfing, you'd be entertained and wouldn't feel like you had wasted your time. On the other hand, I would not go out of my way to see it - it was remarkably cheesy in spots. It's not a "typical" monster movie, but I can't really tell you that it's much better or worse than one.
It's based on a novel by Brian Aldiss, one of SF's foremost writers. The original novel I think was a challenging SF and literary take on the Frankenstein/created life idea, with some interesting and complex ideas in play.
I haven't seen the movie, but, going by IMDB and other reviews, it appears that whilst the film is quite good for a Roger Corman flick, it doesn't capture the complexities of the book, and ends up being a bit campy, but watchable in a cheesy kind of way.
It does have an interesting twist ending though.
