Forensic Science Movie Reviews

Well I just saw this movie recently and it has not aged well.
Even the Harryhausen effects can not salvage what was a bad idea to start with. It's all in the casting. It's terrible. Wayne is wooden as Sinbad, and Seymore is terrible as the love interest.
What really made these movies special was when Bernard Herrmann scored the music and they put more effort into the screenplay and casting. That combined with the effects, made for a good movie. But this movie showed what happened when the effects did not have a good story, cast, or music score to work with. End result. A bad movie pure and simple.

As a huge Ray Harryhousen fan I find this very difficult to say; This film stinks! Now I expect a lot of negetive reaction to this (If anyone reads it!) but I don't believe in sugar-coating things. I tell it like it is, and as a complete film endeaver(acting, camera work, etc.)this is far bellow typical R.H. standards. The DVD leaves something to be desired also. Following is a list of reasons why I feal this way...

THE FILM

-As much as I admire R.H.'s work, some of the animation in SATIOT appeared tired and rehashed. The 3 demons were a prime example. They moved so slow that I doubt they could produce enough velocity to break skin. It was a pale stepchild to the "Jason and the Argonauts" Skeleton battle.
-At release, much was made of R.H.'s efforts to control extranious hair movement during animation. In recent viewing, I'd have to say he still had a way to go. The baboon model has some enormous fir "jumps".
-The Smilodon had a very toy-like appearance. This is unusual for a R.H. film.
-There are so many matt shots it gets rediculous. They even used them in scenes that they had the opportunity to do shots on location without any monsters.
-The story was more shallow than usual. The evil scoreress's behavior is often inexplicable. Why did'nt she just sink Sinbads boat? Because there were some nifty models that still needed animating! She wants her son to be Califf. so why then does she tell him to attack 4 well armed men all by himself? That's just silly!
-The acting was... the acting... The actors were there to fight monsters. Nuff said.
-The Minoton(?) was one of the better creatures in this film and is written out of the film by "a falling block?" He never enguages in battle. NOT ONCE!
-The Troglodite was this films saving grace. An extremely sympathetic character who is animated brilliantly. His integration into the live action is unsurpassed.
-The music was passable. I especially enjoyed the droning rythems mirroring the Minoton's tireless rowing.

THE DVD

-Picture Quality is Bright and has good color, but the print used was dirty and scratched.
-Sound was bellow average. Did they really still produce mono films in the late 70s?
-Extras are quite good. "The Harryhausen Chronicles" has a lot of great vintage R.H. footage and sketches. Also very insightful concerning the "whys" and "why-nots".
-Trailers are awesome. The picture and sound quality of the trailers was actually better than the main feature.
-Packaging is a typical plastic keepcase with a nice "menu" insert.

After reading all this you would probably think I hate this film. On the contrary!! I always enjoy watching Harryhausen films. This one just falls short of it's predecessors. That does not mean it is not enjoyable. Just remember, I'm a BIG R.H. fan!! But I think I enjoy his early "B" movies with "Monster-scafold" scripts and brilliant black & white more than this "what the heck, let's make a movie" production. I'm still dissapointed that Columbia/Tristar won't generate clean copies with good sound for all of the "Classic" Harryhausen efforts.

As in all the Sinbad movies with Harryhausen effects I loved it. I love Ray Harryhausen's work in the special effects. Wish he would have made more movies. Sure there was cheese but I enjoyed this movie.

Having a monster movie filmed in a huge underwater mining lab is kinda silly at first, but gets pretty cool after a while. I've seen several Peter Weller movies, and this is his second best sci-fi movie he's done (right next to "RoboCop"). For people who haven't seen this movie yet, it's about a group of
wise-cracking underwater miners (led by Weller) who's being terrorized by a giant human-fishlike creature that was spawned from a genetic experiment gone haywire. The special effects was pretty cool, although they could have done a little more, but it's still an enjoyable movie to watch. Oscar winning composer Jerry Goldsmith (winner of the Best musical Score Oscar for 1976's "The Omen") does an excellect job conducting action & scary music sequences throughout the entire picture.

Leviathan unlike the Abyss was one of numerous underwater thrillers that had good special effects but needed more work on the script. Peter Weller played a good part but should've stuck to playing Robocop and Richard Crenna who played Doc has never been the same since First Blood in 1982. But all in all A great film.

As a rip-off of Alien and The Thing set underwater, Leviathan is actually quite a fun sci-fi/horror flick. It has no pretensions to be anything else but gory shocker. Heck, it actually starts out it a rather interesting fashion. Once the icky things start happening, it becomes a non-stop ride of thrills and shocks. It's certainly better than DeepStar Six and Endless Descent, two other underwater thrillers made in the same time period.

...these two movies are distinctly different, and only Arrival I is PG13. Arrival II, however, is rated R and contains an unecessary and EXPLICIT SEX scene with full frontal nudity during and after. This had nothing to do with the movie plot and since it was already an enormous flop from the first one, only tended to degrade it worse. If these were separate movies, I'd keep one and trash the other. As it is, I'm stuck for having bought them as a dual dvd. Don't waste your money.

Yes, it is movies about alien invasion. The original, while not out of this world film-making, is enjoyable in it's own right. Not overly done, and pretty simple storyline which is just enough to hold your attention. Hence, the follow up should have never been made. Nothing but bad acting, bad lines for lifeless, unemotional actors and special effects carried over from the first movie. All in all, I would say these two movies will surely be the drive-in B grade movies of this generation. No advice on buying, this one you will have to decide on, while I do suggest renting before you decide.

(warning: review will give spoilers for the original The Arrival, a great sci-fi thriller that I enthusiastically recommend)

The Arrival II is an unnecessary follow-up to the original, an inventive and suspenseful sci-fi thriller. Of course, unnecessary follow-ups are a rule of thumb, so a sequel to The Arrival seemed pretty inevitable, especially when you consider its ending. Too bad this "continuation" lacks all the qualities of its predecessors, namely in good writing, acting, and inspired direction. I actually purchased the Arrival II on DVD...as it was a double feature with the original. Before I even popped the film in, I was expecting ...from the first minute, so the best thing I can say is that the movie turned out to be a bit more watchable than I expected.

The Arrival II is set in Montreal, two months after the events of the original. Radio astronomer Zane Zaminski has died of an apparent heart attack, but he did manage to send out info of the alien invasion to his most trusted colleagues, as well as to his stepbrother, Jack Addison (Patrick Muldoon), and a news reporter (Jane Sibbett, Ross' lesbian ex-wife from Friends). This group becomes the targets of the aliens, until the only survivors are Muldoon and Sibbett, who go on the run together and try to expose the aliens' nefarious plans.

The Arrival II suffers distinctly from a lack of freshness, which is much needed in a sequel that's meant to continue a running story. All the material we have here is pretty much repeat. Basically, we know there are aliens out there disguised as human beings and they're whole goal is to terraform the Earth and mold it into an environment suitable for their own colonization. Oh, and let's not forget that spherical object with a strong vacuum pull.

Like the original, we've got our "intelligent" protagonist (we find this out because everyone keeps telling him he's smarter than he thinks) and blonde chick that plays as love interest. Problem is, these two are played by Patrick Muldoon and Jane Sibbett, neither of whom I've seen in anything on film or TV that suggests they can act. Muldoon is mostly expressionless, though occasionally has that "whoa, dude" act that would give Freddie Prinze, Jr. a run for his money. Sibbett is simply dreadful as the reporter. Let's put it this way, those who found Courtney Cox unconvincing as Gail Weathers in the Scream series will be shouting "Come back! All is forgiven!" The other performances aren't worth noting, except maybe Catherine Blythe, who gives the movie its sole bit of very gratuitous nudity.

The script has little to none of the intelligence of the original and it often mistakes scientific mumbo-jumbo as smart screenwriting. The plot's got a lot of twists and turns, mostly involving a guessing game of who's human and who's not. None of these little revelations are the slightest bit surprising, and they might even induce a few scoffs here and there.

The special effects on display range from pretty bad to hilariously awful, the worst bit probably being when one of the aliens reveals its true identity. There are a lot of other clunkers, such as the cheesy-looking holographic displays and the destruction of a power plant in the film's conclusion. Yeah, visual effects themselves usually don't determine a movie's quality, but they sure don't help the film here.

Directed by Kevin S. Tenney, the same guy who gave us the fun Night of the Demons, but has yet to have helmed anything worth seeing since then. For some reason, though, The Arrival II is still somewhat watchable (meaning you won't want to stab yourself in the eye), probably because the concept of aliens disguised as humans is intriguing enough on its own. Too bad this suspenseless and absurd sequel can't capitalize on the original's unique ideas.
* 1/2 out of *****

...these two movies are distinctly different, and only Arrival I is PG13. Arrival II, however, is rated R and contains an unecessary and EXPLICIT SEX scene with full frontal nudity during and after. This had nothing to do with the movie plot and since it was already an enormous flop from the first one, only tended to degrade it worse. If these were separate movies, I'd keep one and trash the other. As it is, I'm stuck for having bought them as a dual dvd. Don't waste your money.

Yes, it is movies about alien invasion. The original, while not out of this world film-making, is enjoyable in it's own right. Not overly done, and pretty simple storyline which is just enough to hold your attention. Hence, the follow up should have never been made. Nothing but bad acting, bad lines for lifeless, unemotional actors and special effects carried over from the first movie. All in all, I would say these two movies will surely be the drive-in B grade movies of this generation. No advice on buying, this one you will have to decide on, while I do suggest renting before you decide.

(warning: review will give spoilers for the original The Arrival, a great sci-fi thriller that I enthusiastically recommend)

The Arrival II is an unnecessary follow-up to the original, an inventive and suspenseful sci-fi thriller. Of course, unnecessary follow-ups are a rule of thumb, so a sequel to The Arrival seemed pretty inevitable, especially when you consider its ending. Too bad this "continuation" lacks all the qualities of its predecessors, namely in good writing, acting, and inspired direction. I actually purchased the Arrival II on DVD...as it was a double feature with the original. Before I even popped the film in, I was expecting ...from the first minute, so the best thing I can say is that the movie turned out to be a bit more watchable than I expected.

The Arrival II is set in Montreal, two months after the events of the original. Radio astronomer Zane Zaminski has died of an apparent heart attack, but he did manage to send out info of the alien invasion to his most trusted colleagues, as well as to his stepbrother, Jack Addison (Patrick Muldoon), and a news reporter (Jane Sibbett, Ross' lesbian ex-wife from Friends). This group becomes the targets of the aliens, until the only survivors are Muldoon and Sibbett, who go on the run together and try to expose the aliens' nefarious plans.

The Arrival II suffers distinctly from a lack of freshness, which is much needed in a sequel that's meant to continue a running story. All the material we have here is pretty much repeat. Basically, we know there are aliens out there disguised as human beings and they're whole goal is to terraform the Earth and mold it into an environment suitable for their own colonization. Oh, and let's not forget that spherical object with a strong vacuum pull.

Like the original, we've got our "intelligent" protagonist (we find this out because everyone keeps telling him he's smarter than he thinks) and blonde chick that plays as love interest. Problem is, these two are played by Patrick Muldoon and Jane Sibbett, neither of whom I've seen in anything on film or TV that suggests they can act. Muldoon is mostly expressionless, though occasionally has that "whoa, dude" act that would give Freddie Prinze, Jr. a run for his money. Sibbett is simply dreadful as the reporter. Let's put it this way, those who found Courtney Cox unconvincing as Gail Weathers in the Scream series will be shouting "Come back! All is forgiven!" The other performances aren't worth noting, except maybe Catherine Blythe, who gives the movie its sole bit of very gratuitous nudity.

The script has little to none of the intelligence of the original and it often mistakes scientific mumbo-jumbo as smart screenwriting. The plot's got a lot of twists and turns, mostly involving a guessing game of who's human and who's not. None of these little revelations are the slightest bit surprising, and they might even induce a few scoffs here and there.

The special effects on display range from pretty bad to hilariously awful, the worst bit probably being when one of the aliens reveals its true identity. There are a lot of other clunkers, such as the cheesy-looking holographic displays and the destruction of a power plant in the film's conclusion. Yeah, visual effects themselves usually don't determine a movie's quality, but they sure don't help the film here.

Directed by Kevin S. Tenney, the same guy who gave us the fun Night of the Demons, but has yet to have helmed anything worth seeing since then. For some reason, though, The Arrival II is still somewhat watchable (meaning you won't want to stab yourself in the eye), probably because the concept of aliens disguised as humans is intriguing enough on its own. Too bad this suspenseless and absurd sequel can't capitalize on the original's unique ideas.
* 1/2 out of *****

I always liked the original Blob with Steve McQueen, so I was curious about this movie. This movie is just one big schlockorama. From the pathetic plot, the lousy acting, the crummy directing, to the cheesy music, it was pretty painful viewing throughout. I do realize this was sort of a comedy homage to the original, but knowing that didn't help much. I will say that the special effects were okay, the blob oozing here and there, consuming everything in it's path. By halfway through the movie, I was rooting for the blob to eat everyone, including those responsible for making the movie. Some parts were fun, and I liked the guy who owned the bowling alley, as he was such a square and had some funny moments. I also liked the guy at the beginning of the movie. He had a few funny parts, like when he was drinking beer, a lot of beer, and decided to make use of a common household object to assist him in consuming mass quantities of beer. These brief moments of mirth couldn't really carry the movie, though. Everything about this movie seemed thrown together, and then it was thrown at the unsuspecting public. As bad as this movie was, it was also sort of fun and hokey. And maybe I missed it, but I didn't see what happened to Dick Van Patten....he played a really annoying scoutmaster of a boyscout troop, and we did find out later in the movie that he got consumed by the blob at some point, but I didn't see it. I was sorry I missed that, but I am afraid to watch the movie again to look for that part. Too much cheese can be a bad thing. So, when watching this movie, just sit back and try not to think too much. Just let it ooze over you.

This camp horror schlock is a heck of a lot of fun to watch (think Saturday night drive in) once you learn that it was Larry Hagman's low budget "home movie" attempt at cashing in on the Blob-ularity of the original. All the celebs on board (Cindy Williams, gorgeous Carol Lynley, Dick Van Patten, Godfrey Cambridge, etc etc) are all appearing because they were Hagman's Malibu neighbors and he said, "Hey! Let's make a movie!" The rest is runny, red history!

When Larry Hagman came back from acting purgatory to become a superstar as J.R. Ewing on "Dallas," most folks saw this as being a big step up from being on "I Dream of Jeanine." But Hagman's most pathetic moment really game with this 1972 film that he directed. "Beware! The Blob" (a.k.a. "Son of the Blob") is both a sequel to and a spoof of the 1958 Science Fiction Drive-In class "The Blob," starring Steve McQueen. He is long gone, and this time it is Robert Walker, Jr. (Charlie X on "Star Trek") who gets the responsibility of fight the big bad blob. The plot is essentially the same as the original. An unsuspecting guy brings back a sample of frozen goo from Alaska, where he was working on the pipeline. The goo thaws, starts with a fly, works through a cat, and then an entire family. The devouring is witnessed which means the heroine, Lisa (Gwynne Gilford) and her boyfriend, Bobby (Walker) spend time trying to convince the local sheriff that a giant red blob thing is eating people. Meanwhile the giant red blob thing is eating everybody, which pretty much means a complete cross-section of Seventies stereotypes.

Hagman must have called in a lot of I.O.U.'s because Burgess Meredith, Dick Van Patten, Godfrey Cambridge, and Shelly Berman all show up to be consumed by the red goo (watch for Hagman's cameo as a bum). If there was ever an attempt to actually make a serious horror film here, then it must have been abandoned early on in the production. Very few of the actors seem to be taking this thing seriously and Walker just does not have the heft to be the manly hero. As a horror film "Beware! The Blob" is not scary and as a spoof it is not funny beyond the sophomoric level of the decidedly lame. The death scenes are not particularly creative, although the special effects are really not that inept, but you get the feeling some of these victims are happily throwing themselves into the giant red blob thing.

This movie is *bad*. The "plot" makes no sense, and the ending even less. It is stupid, slow, insipid, and utterny nonsensical. I wish that MST3K had gotten ahold of this film; only they could have mocked it the way it so desperately deserves to be mocked. This movie is *that bad*.

And it's *boring*, too. Kristoferson and Ladd have absolutely ZERO chemistry. No, in fact, they have NEGATIVE chemistry. Kristoferson couldn't act is way out of this script, and Ladd ... well, jeez, what could one expect from an ex-Charlie's Angel?

It's also *ugly*. The costumes, set designs, and special effects would have been bad in 1989, and haven't aged well. Post-apocolyptic futures can look cool (ROAD WARRIOR) or even funky (12 MONKEYS), but here, it's just lame. And the first "effect" in the film--where two planes collide--is a sad effort of blue-screening that my high-school film club could have outdone.

Avoid at all costs. Waste no money. If your boyfriend or girlfriend owns it, break up with them; it will be less painful.

I have to go sanitize my home theatre now.

How many movies do you know that replay the same scenes and can still hold the interest of the viewer? Not many, if any. However, the creators of Millennium decided that about one third of the movie should be the same scenes. Total failure. This is a case where the makers of the film underestimated the intelligence of the viewers, thinking that going through the movie twice was the only way viewers could keep track of the incredibly difficult concept of time travel.

Then again, if this was truly a good movie than we shouldn't be disappointed in seeing the scenes twice, since we could then enjoy good acting etc. Not so in Millennium. Kris Kristofferson looks grizzly with a heavy beard and has the skin tone of beef jerky. Cheryl Ladd plays opposite of Kristofferson as the time traveling tough women from the future who happens to know nothing about time traveling, she needs a personal robot to explain "the obvious" to her on many occasions. Maybe she forgot to read the script.

In this movie, the future is a place of rust, the present is a place of ignorance, and the viewer is left insulted.

I saw this movie years ago,and it's an ok 'B movie',the only thing that was unique was when the passenger cabin inside the airliner explodes and you can see the pilots cabin being ripped away first and the carnage just slowly traveling up the passengers cabin. The special effects was definitely mind boggling and unique in that specific scene. The rest of the movie plot is a bad 'Charlie's angel' (D- movie) nightmare.......

This movie is *bad*. The "plot" makes no sense, and the ending even less. It is stupid, slow, insipid, and utterny nonsensical. I wish that MST3K had gotten ahold of this film; only they could have mocked it the way it so desperately deserves to be mocked. This movie is *that bad*.

And it's *boring*, too. Kristoferson and Ladd have absolutely ZERO chemistry. No, in fact, they have NEGATIVE chemistry. Kristoferson couldn't act is way out of this script, and Ladd ... well, jeez, what could one expect from an ex-Charlie's Angel?

It's also *ugly*. The costumes, set designs, and special effects would have been bad in 1989, and haven't aged well. Post-apocolyptic futures can look cool (ROAD WARRIOR) or even funky (12 MONKEYS), but here, it's just lame. And the first "effect" in the film--where two planes collide--is a sad effort of blue-screening that my high-school film club could have outdone.

Avoid at all costs. Waste no money. If your boyfriend or girlfriend owns it, break up with them; it will be less painful.

I have to go sanitize my home theatre now.

How many movies do you know that replay the same scenes and can still hold the interest of the viewer? Not many, if any. However, the creators of Millennium decided that about one third of the movie should be the same scenes. Total failure. This is a case where the makers of the film underestimated the intelligence of the viewers, thinking that going through the movie twice was the only way viewers could keep track of the incredibly difficult concept of time travel.

Then again, if this was truly a good movie than we shouldn't be disappointed in seeing the scenes twice, since we could then enjoy good acting etc. Not so in Millennium. Kris Kristofferson looks grizzly with a heavy beard and has the skin tone of beef jerky. Cheryl Ladd plays opposite of Kristofferson as the time traveling tough women from the future who happens to know nothing about time traveling, she needs a personal robot to explain "the obvious" to her on many occasions. Maybe she forgot to read the script.

In this movie, the future is a place of rust, the present is a place of ignorance, and the viewer is left insulted.

I saw this movie years ago,and it's an ok 'B movie',the only thing that was unique was when the passenger cabin inside the airliner explodes and you can see the pilots cabin being ripped away first and the carnage just slowly traveling up the passengers cabin. The special effects was definitely mind boggling and unique in that specific scene. The rest of the movie plot is a bad 'Charlie's angel' (D- movie) nightmare.......

This movie is *bad*. The "plot" makes no sense, and the ending even less. It is stupid, slow, insipid, and utterny nonsensical. I wish that MST3K had gotten ahold of this film; only they could have mocked it the way it so desperately deserves to be mocked. This movie is *that bad*.

And it's *boring*, too. Kristoferson and Ladd have absolutely ZERO chemistry. No, in fact, they have NEGATIVE chemistry. Kristoferson couldn't act is way out of this script, and Ladd ... well, jeez, what could one expect from an ex-Charlie's Angel?

It's also *ugly*. The costumes, set designs, and special effects would have been bad in 1989, and haven't aged well. Post-apocolyptic futures can look cool (ROAD WARRIOR) or even funky (12 MONKEYS), but here, it's just lame. And the first "effect" in the film--where two planes collide--is a sad effort of blue-screening that my high-school film club could have outdone.

Avoid at all costs. Waste no money. If your boyfriend or girlfriend owns it, break up with them; it will be less painful.

I have to go sanitize my home theatre now.

How many movies do you know that replay the same scenes and can still hold the interest of the viewer? Not many, if any. However, the creators of Millennium decided that about one third of the movie should be the same scenes. Total failure. This is a case where the makers of the film underestimated the intelligence of the viewers, thinking that going through the movie twice was the only way viewers could keep track of the incredibly difficult concept of time travel.

Then again, if this was truly a good movie than we shouldn't be disappointed in seeing the scenes twice, since we could then enjoy good acting etc. Not so in Millennium. Kris Kristofferson looks grizzly with a heavy beard and has the skin tone of beef jerky. Cheryl Ladd plays opposite of Kristofferson as the time traveling tough women from the future who happens to know nothing about time traveling, she needs a personal robot to explain "the obvious" to her on many occasions. Maybe she forgot to read the script.

In this movie, the future is a place of rust, the present is a place of ignorance, and the viewer is left insulted.

I saw this movie years ago,and it's an ok 'B movie',the only thing that was unique was when the passenger cabin inside the airliner explodes and you can see the pilots cabin being ripped away first and the carnage just slowly traveling up the passengers cabin. The special effects was definitely mind boggling and unique in that specific scene. The rest of the movie plot is a bad 'Charlie's angel' (D- movie) nightmare.......

This movie was terrible. Jimbob was the worst actor I have ever seen. He didn't know what he was doing, or how to act. For example, the scene where he is in the submarine, and the flying turtle blasts his head off, he looks like he is having fun. Wow. Can you believe it? I can't.

i like star kid. i want a star kid suit myself to play with. he can fight bullies and look scary but star kid is really just a boy. my best part of the show was star kids special effects. it looked much realer than power rangers. they are grown ups, and star kid is a kid. the suit makes him look bigger and feel happier. if i get lonesome i ask to watch star kid and i pretend to be star kid after the movie. i like star kid!

This is a great movie about a kid named Spencer Griffith. He is a pretty normal 12-year-old who gets bullied around a lot. He's into comic books. He wants to be friends with a certain girl in his class but whenever he tries to talk to her he goes mute.

One day while he was sitting in his room alone he sees something fall from the sky and land in the local junkyard. He goes to investigate and finds an a capsule. He throws a rock at it. Nothing happens, so he touches it. It opens up to reveal an alien suit that asks him if he needs transport. He says yes and goes inside. Spencer then proceeds to go around town having fun in his suit and getting back at his bullies. But a bigger evil is lurking around and soon he needs to decide the fate of mankind.

This is an excellent movie, it is a bit cheesy at times but I like it. Joseph Mazzello is superb as Spencer. This is also the first movie where he was the biggest name. I give this great movie 5 stars. But I don't recommend it to anyone who is not a child at heart or you'll just shrug it off as a bad cheesy movie.

PS: Is it just me, or does every Joseph Mazzello movie have things thrown? Especially rocks. Jurassic Park, Radio Flyer, Simon Birch, Three Wishes, and The Cure all have things thrown. It's a Joseph Mazzello movie trademark.

Don't let the reviews scare you away: this isn't just a movie about jiggling girls. There's a lot of beefcake for the guys to look at, too.

Good teenager Tommy Kirk, recently outed and evidently taking any role, no matter how feeble, is the putative star, trying to stop a group of evil teenagers from running rampant in his small fifties town. His job is made harder when they ingest something called "goo" that makes them grow to giant size.

Now comes the part of the movie that everyone fast-forwards to: the evil teens are naked at first and then they wear makeshift togas, the boys displaying beautiful, athletic bodies, as they dance in slow motion in the town square. The female teenagers are all but ignored as director Bert I. Gordon (who had a keen eye for beefcake) lingers on the gorgeous Beau Bridges and Tim Rooney (Mickey's son), who is not quite as gorgeous but makes you wish he had appeared in more movies (or at least a centerfold or two).

The boy on the giant breast that everyone keeps mentioning is teen idol Johnny Crawford, recently graduated from "The Rifleman" and soon to display a magnificent physique of his own in "The Naked Ape"; but he's not dancing or being hugged, he's attempting to destroy the giants by catapulting at them with the antidote to the "goo."

The writers should have created a more logical, suspenseful plotline, or else they should have eliminated all pretense at a story and just had Beau Bridges, Tim Rooney, Johnny Crawford, and Tommy Kirk pose in swimsuits for 90 minutes. But it's worthwhile reminding ourselves that directors were making movies for guys long before "Risky Business."

Most people would think that anything with a title like this, made in the 1960's and with the storyline that the movie follows, this would have to be a real horrible movie. Well it isn't something I would say should win an award but I would say for the price and type of movie this is, its really not so bad at all. In fact I actualy enjoy it every time.

The premise is simple enough. A young boy played by Ron Howard named Genius invents some substance that he names "Goo" . They don't realize it yet but soon enough after a cat accidently eats the stuff and then grows to the size of an elephant, they realize that this stuff makes anything that ingests it grow to huge proportions. They instantly see dollar signs before their eyes hoping to better man kind with such an invention. A few bullies though have some other ideas and steal the substance and all grow into huge 50 foot giants/giantesses and start to take over the town. Its up to Genius and Tommy Kirk to bring these titans back down to size.

Its full of many jokes that just aren't meant to be funny but come off as hysterical. It has a lot of bad effects. (Like two wooden legs in the middle of the street that are supposed to be one of the giants own legs. Cheap motorcycles that fall apart after they try to tie up one of the legs of the giant, giant animals that can't seem to move from the spot they are in due to the way they did the effect. Also the fact that they seem to be trapped inside a huge stage for most of the movie . How they ever got in though without breaking anything is beyond me. ) and not to mention the really bad acting (Talking really slow to make it seem like they are giants and the corny diologue througout). Then the best is the music. Its just so out there it really makes this movie perfect.

This was supposed to be one of those Teen explotation movies of the 60s and it pulls it off well. We have the teens not wanting to listen to the adults anymore because of their size and such things as playing with sex (one fo the giantesses gives a small boy a dance hugging him to her breasts) and ordering the cops around. It really is an interseting movie for what it is and the hidden messages in it. Really a fun movie though overall. You will laugh at the diolage and special effects but I think thats part of the charm of this movie. Not every movie has to be serious and ILM effects. This was just a fun , carefree, fantasy type of situation movie. It holds no punches and doesn't even take itself seriously so we the viewer of it shoudln't either. Defintely fun and a good movie to watch with friends just for the laughs .

I first saw this great campy film 20 years ago on TV and its got a great mixture of INTENTIONAL camp, the beginnings of a pre-hippy teen rebelliousness (1965), and some great music from Beau Brummels. The key to this film is not to take it seriously...the cast and crew didn't. "Genius" (Ron Howard) invents "GOO", a substance that turns rebel teens into giants who take over a village and the only hope is for Genius to find an antedote. He does just in time and it all works out in the end. But not before we get some giant ducks dancing to BBs live perfomance of "Woman" and other great pre-psychedelic background music. It's a trippy comedy of it's era. You can trash it, but then you miss the point.
Also don't miss those ...giant teen girls; when they grow their bikinis pop off. And when they shrink their clothes are not quite as big as you'd think.