Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: After being sent to prison for no less then 10 nor more then 40 years for being busted with drugs and refusing to give up her accomplishes, Jackie (Erica Gavin of Russ Meyer's "Vixen" and "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls", in her last film role) has to get accustomed to life in the big 'doll' house, or at least try to, in this early film by Jonathan Demme. Due to it's tawdry nature and sheer watchability, I would also rank this as one of his best films, right below "Silence of the Lambs" and "Stop Making Sense", but so far above any of his other movies. This minor classic is just campy, sleazy, and fun enough to be an amazingly good guilty pleasure and thankfully never once goes overboard into all out parody of the Women In Prison genre. It ALMOST washed out the rancid bad taste of the ludicrously preachy "Philidelphia" from my mouth. However, the film is not without it's downfalls (the 'un'talent show is a HUGE chore to sit through and goes on far too long, Barbera Steele is sadly wasted, among other small things) But don't let those gripes stop you from watching an otherwise enjoyable movie.

My Grade: B-

DVD Extras: 5 minute Roger Corman interview; Cast & crew Bios; Original Trailer; and Trailers for "Candy Stripe Nurses" (with nudity), "Big Bad Mama 2", "Big Doll House" (with nudity), & "Crazy Mama"

Eye Candy: Juanita Brown, Cheryl "Rainbeaux" Smith, Erica Gavin, Roberta Collins, Ella Reid, Lynda Gold, and some others all show skin

Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Tyrannosaurus Azteca is set during the sixteenth century where famous Spanish explorer Hernando Cortes (Ian Ziering) has landed in Mexico with six of his best men including Lieutenant Rios (Marco Sanchez), they intend to claim the land in the name of the Spanish & maybe steal some gold too if the opportunity arises. Within minutes they have their first sight of local Aztec savages, within minutes after that Cortes & his men are captured & held prisoner. If that wasn't bad enough it turns out that a couple of Tyrannosaurus Rex live there & like to eat the locals, in an effort to win their lives the Spanish offer to help the locals get rid of their monster problem but with various hidden agendas & ulterior motives it's not just the dinosaurs they have to watch out for...

Directed by Brian Trenchard-Smith (who, coincidently, made one of my all time favourite exploitations films Turkey Shoot (1982) which I throughly recommend to one & all) & also more commonly known under the spoof sounding title of Aztec Rex (the title was changed by the Sci-Fi Channel when they aired it maybe as the original title Tyrannosaurus Azteca sounds like it might be a foreign film) this is yet another idiotic & cheap looking Sci-Fi Channel 'Creature Feature' & that's all you need to know really. Based on & around the real Spanish Conquistador Cortes during his expedition to Mexico the film definitely doesn't strive for historic accuracy although I will admit that the story tries to do something slightly different here but ultimately Tyrannosaurus Azteca is still just a 'Creature Feature' with a bunch of people running from some poor CGI computer graphic of a monster despite it's period setting. Not too sure what else I can say, despite being set centuries ago the usual cliches are here, the character's are the usual cardboard cutouts, make stupid decisions & the selfish one, the heroic one, the backstabbing one, the faceless victim who exists just to get eaten & the pretty woman are all here & easy to spot. The film is predictable, silly, dull & doesn't really entertain on any level although it does move along at a decent pace & there's one or two half decent moments of gore if that sort of thing interests you. The story isn't that good & has plenty of holes too, this is also the sort of film that you will have completely forgotten about within a few days.

Now I have seen & commented on plenty of Sci-Fi Channel 'Creature Features' & usually the CGI computer effects are terrible & while Tyrannosaurus Azteca doesn't exactly buck the trend I will admit there are a few effects shots which look alright but then they are usually ruined by an absolutely awful effects shot straight afterwards. There's a few decent gore effects here too, there's a cut out heart, a guy's leg is bitten off, there's some blood splatter, a cool shot of a guy left holding his own intestines after he has been attacked by the dinosaur, there's a few dead bodies seen & someone is stabbed with a spear. The T-Rex gets to eat a couple of people too. The production values are really cheap, the Aztec set looks like one of those theme park attractions made from Styrofoam & those Spanish men must have been imprisoned in the worst enclosure in cinematic history with the fence supposedly keeping them in lower than a mans waist, they could have simply stepped out of it & run away it was so low.

With a supposed budget of about $900,000 I can't see where the money went, shot in O'ahu in Hawaii in apparently fifteen days. The acting isn't great from no-one I have ever heard of.

Tyrannosaurus Azteca really isn't any better than any other cheap Sci-Fi Channel 'Creature Feature' despite an almost interesting & unusual premise, that basic statement should basically be enough for you to decide whether you will enjoy this or not (at a guess probably not).

Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
CREEPSHOW 2 is the ill-fated sequel to the George Romero's (overrated) original, CREEPSHOW. Any sequel following a Romero film that's not directed by Romero himself has got some large shoes to fill, mostly because of the Romero fans out there who think he's God. I didn't care much for the first film and funny enough, I didn't care much for the sequel. The film series had so much potential but it was short-lived because both films were less than stellar.

The biggest problem with CREEPSHOW 2 was that it only had three stories (excluding the in-between story), and because the first story sucked beyond belief, it only left the chance for almost half of the movie to be *really* good. I saw CS 2 at the movies and the first segment was a real groaner. Anything dramatic with George 'I can't act' Kennedy is automatically doomed and the Indian Statue story was too hokey and simply didn't belong in this sequel. So after a really trite and dull start, there were only two other stories left to reverse the fiasco of the aborted beginning and unfortunately the two other stories weren't great enough for me to forget the first story. THE RAFT and THE HITCHHIKER are moderately successful, moderately because though the two other segments have their moments, they still sorta fall flat. The two last stories are basically stretched out for too long. It's not that I wanted the stories to happen at a dizzying pace and end fast, but both good ideas found within those stories were sorta nullified by the fact that they were slow and padded and eventually fell flat when the segments needed to be more energized, more erratic and with punchier endings. Also, if the two last stories hadn't been stretched out to pad the movie or had all three segments been more brief with better editing and direction, they could have added a much needed fourth story to the bunch. Having only three padded segments made for a boring feast.

The acting and writing in both THE RAFT and THE HITCHHIKER segments are from awful to good. I like Lois Chiles in the last segment. It's probably her best moment on screen aside from her role as Bond Girl Holly Goodhead in MOONRAKER and in DEATH ON THE NILE. But even her role is difficult to understand at times because of the serviceable direction and the unfocused story. Are we supposed to hate her or sympathize with her? Are we supposed to sympathize with the annoying hitchhiker? If the hitchhiker's body was found by other people on the road, what was he when he attacked Chiles? Was he a ghost or a zombie or what? How did the body eventually left the presence of the other people who found him dead in order to attack Chiles? The whole thing is not very clear, even for a supernatural story. And the ending is rather dull and uneventful.

As for the infamous THE RAFT story, well, the acting is mostly on the awful side and none of the characters are sympathetic or interesting. The characters would have been more interesting had the actors played themselves. None of the actors are convincing in their specific roles. Paul Satterfield looks smarter than the dumb jock he's playing and the actress who plays his girlfriend is not very convincing as the typical bitchy slut. She seems too timid. The same could be said with the two others who play the "plain" teens. The idea of the killer oil slick is interesting and creepy but not well executed. There should have been a fifth character to the story, maybe a homeless man or a ranger who lurks around the lake and knows about the oil slick and could have been the watery monster's alter ego of sorts. As creepy as the oil slick is, it doesn't make for a compelling "character". And the way the story ends, everything seems pointless. No punch to it whatsoever.

Except for the few titillating aspects which always seems to make boring things worthwhile, seeing CREEPSHOW 2 at a theater was basically a waste of money and time. CS 2 is more rental material than something you pay to see on the big screen.