Q: I haven't seen the first two - only this one which is called Primal Species in England. I don't think I'll be bothering to look them out though.

This is an awful film. Terrible acting, bad dialogue, cheap rubber monsters. Everything about it is so nasty. The most sympathetic characters die really quickly and leave you with the annoying ones, especially one called Polchak, who is an incredible jerk. No-one like that would survive 5 minutes in the army. He lasted for ages but I was pleased when he finally got his head got chewed off - I was having nightmares he was going to survive. The Colonel was rubbish too - all moody pouts and clueless shouting. And the specky Doctor looked and acted like she was out of a porno. I was waiting for her to take her glasses off, shake her hair and turn into a vamp, but she didn't. Pity that, as it would've livened the film up no end.

Didn't Roger Corman used to make half decent films once? OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: In the hands of a more skilled director, this film would have been considered a horror masterpiece. Despite Michael "Death Wish" Winner's merely passable direction, the movie is interesting, original and more than a little scary.

The script bucks more than one horror cliche off its back (several it can't shake) including Chris Sarandon as the heroine's boyfriend who actually listens to her as she insists that eerie things are going down. Burgess Meredith is delightful as the lovably insane neighbor. Eva Gardner is haunting with a young Beverly D'Angelo as her mute and disturbed lesbian lover. John Carradine does a heck-of-a job sitting in a chair. And watch out for a brief cameo from an unknown-at-the-time Chris Walken! This movie is creepy and creative. The plot twists are lovely, if a tad predictable. The climax, of which I will give no detail, is disturbing and quite impressive. Again a better director could have done more with it, nonetheless it is quite satisfying - at least to those with the sensibilities of seventies horror.

If you like modern overproduced body-counting torture-fantasy, you won't like this. There is almost no gore. The direction is quite spartan. The effects are few, although there's some delightful makeup near the end - most of which actually isn't makeup...but perhaps I've said too much already.

I've rated this a little higher than its quality may justify, but I enjoyed it as much as any "8" film that I've seen. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: This low-grade Universal chiller has just been announced as an upcoming DVD release but, intended as part of a collection of similar movies that I already had in my possession, I decided to acquire it from other channels rather than wait for that legitimate release. Which is just as well, since the end result was not anything particularly special (if decently atmospheric at that): for starters, the plot is pretty weak even though in a way it anticipates the Vincent Price vehicle THEATRE OF BLOOD (1973)albeit without any of that film's campy gusto. What we have here, in fact, is a penniless sculptor (Martin Kosleck) whom we even see sharing his measly plate of cheese with his pet cat! who, upon finding himself on the receiving end of art critic Alan Napier's vitriolic pen one time too many, decides to end it all by hurling himself into the nearby river. However, while contemplating just that action, he is anticipated by Rondo Hatton's escaped killer dubbed "The Creeper" and, naturally enough, saves the poor guy's life with the intention of having the latter do all the dirty work for him in gratitude! Although it is supposedly set in the art circles of New York, all we really see at work is Kosleck and commercial painter Robert Lowery (who keeps painting the same statuesque blonde girl Joan Shawlee over and over in banal poses how is that for art?) who, conveniently enough, is engaged to a rival art critic (Virginia Grey) of Napier's! Before long, the latter is discovered with his spine broken and Lowery is suspected; but then investigating detective Bill Goodwin gets the bright idea of engaging another critic to publish a scathing review of Lowery's work (I did not know that publicity sketches got reviewed!!) so as to gauge how violent his reaction is going to be! In the meantime, Kosleck deludes himself into thinking that he is creating his masterpiece by sculpting Hatton's uniquely craggy and recognizable visage which, needless to say, attracts the attention of the constantly visiting Grey (we are led to believe that she lacks material for her weekly column)much to the chagrin of both artist and model. Bafflingly, although The Creeper is fully aware of how Grey looks (thanks to her aforementioned haunting of Kosleck's flea-bitten pad), he bumps off Shawlee who had by then become Goodwin's girl! in Lowery's apartment and, overhearing Kosleck talking to (you guessed it) Grey about his intention to dump him as the fall guy for the police, sends the slow-witted giant off his deep endeven down to destroying his own now-completed stony image. Curiously enough, although this was Hatton's penultimate film, his name in the credits is preceded by the epithet "introducing"! OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: Ritchie's first two films were snappy, stylish entertainment. Here, he raids two recent classics 'The Usual Suspects' and 'Fight Club' and still comes out empty-handed.

Despite parading itself as a con-mystery (with the sub-'Usual Suspects' twaddle "the greatest con he ever pulled was convincing you that he was you" or whatever it was...) and attempting a 'Fight-Club' twist about which characters are real and which are internal manifestations, the film struggles to maintain interest in its second half. By the last third, you know you're being lead down a blind alley, and tediously slowly at that.

Cons, chess and game theory are all great subjects, but Ritchie delves into them too superficially and too repetitively to make much use of the material.

The only thing that keeps the movie (almost) watchable is Ritchie's bold way with with a scene and Maurice-Jones's dynamic camera. If Ritchie stuck to a more satisfying plot, and succumbed to tighter editing, there's no reason why he couldn't have made another enjoyable gangster caper.

As it is, Revolver is a waste of your time. Incomprehensibility does not equal profundity. If you want to see a great film that doesn't make logical sense but makes a virtue of it (and, incidentally, which also involves an inexplicable escape from solitary confinement) watch 'Lost Highway'. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative