And again, a movie chosen exclusively because of the title. I suppose this method hasn’t let me down that terribly in the past, so I figure nothing really that bad can be forced upon me for viewing.
Bad monster movies have always attracted a very strange cult following. at least, it’s strange to me. I don’t really know the reason behind it, I suppose. Do they like them because they’re so bad? Do they not know that these movies aren’t very well made? Are they appreciative of children’s artwork for the same reasons? I really don’t get it. I may have to confer with the Internet later for understanding.
If there are any fans of B-level horror flicks reading this, be sure to post on the comments section.
Fairly standard bad movie writing. It would be more watchable if it wasn’t dragged down by the overtly environmental undertones.
Everyone is pretty unlikable except for the Native American. The problem is that his name and job are stereotypical in that they are Johnny and none, respectively.
The sets are pretty good, with a lot of it being shot on location. The final “salmon pride fair” or whatever was actually a pretty good set piece, and was subsequently destroyed nicely.
The monster costumes were “good” in a bad way I suppose. I’m really having trouble grading a film like this one.
Yeah, I don’t know where this film really falls on the spectrum of “bad” movies. It is definitely superior to the other horror movie that I’ve watched recently with an environmentalist premise. Hint: It was Birdemic
Good for those of you who like stinkers I guess.