Aspiring Artists Should Not Take Lessons From Bucket of Blood

One day several months ago, my parents and I returned home to find my brother Nathan's head on the porch. We had scarcely recovered from our shock when we encountered Nathan's head again, this time attached to his shoulders, as he explained that this eerily lifelike bust was a school project he'd finally toted home from college. Over the next few months, he painted it and left it out on the deck to be weathered by the elements, creating a rugged representation of himself that took first place in the sculpture division of Panorama, an annual Erie art show.

Nathan is a sculptor. Walter, the main character in cheesy 1959 horror flick A Bucket of Blood, is not.

The film, written by Charles B. Griffith and directed by Roger Corman, stars Dick Miller as a nondescript waiter who's tired of feeling like a nobody. When he accidentally kills his landlady's cat, it seems like one more stroke of bad luck for a guy who can't catch a break. Then, something unexpected happens. Some bohemians from the café where he works spy the cat which he has encased in plaster as a cover-up and deem him a great artist. He begins receiving accolades - and demands for a follow-up piece.

The low production values and absurd premise help make this movie too silly to be scary, which is the only way I can stomach horror. Walter is actually a sympathetic protagonist, at least at first, but his lust for acceptance and acclaim brings out the worst in him. The movie also seems to critique the pretentiousness artsy types sometimes possess. Here, they all latch onto this hip new artist with his hyper-realistic sculptures, and one gets the impression that most of them think his work is cool simply because the others do.

While most of the beatniks are presented in a shallow light, Carla (Barboura Morris) has more depth, and she relates to Walter as a friend rather than a commodity - or an oddity. While she may be one of Walter's most ardent supporters, she is also one of the first to realize that something about this "artist" is amiss. Unfortunately, by that time, he has set his sights on her, and he has grown used to getting what he wants. Is her sweet spirit about to be rewarded with a taste of terror?

The story and main characters are engaging, and I also love the wry spoof of the contemporary counter-culture, particularly through the out-there Maxwell (Julian Burton). As a Glenn Yarbrough fan, I was tickled to hear a folk song performed by a man with a remarkably similar style; a bit of research informed me that he was Alex Hassilev - and he'd been in a band, the Limeliters, with Yarbrough.

If I could stomach this movie, I reckon most squeamish folks wouldn't have a problem with it. It's more goofy than grotesque, and it may make you appreciate the true artists in your life all the more.

A Phony Person Causes Real Problems in Paper Man

My dad is a college computer science professor, and this year he thought it might be fun to incorporate some computer-related movies into one of his classes. While he ended up deciding against showing it to his students, one of the first movies he thought of was Paper Man, a 1971 TV movie that also had a brief run in theaters. In this odd techno-thriller, a group of college students entreats eccentric computer whiz Avery (Dean Stockwell) to help them create a record of a fake person so that they can use his identity to make credit card purchases. It’s all a grand game at first, but when one of their number dies as a result of a computer error, they begin to wonder if their toying with the system has unleashed something sinister.

Before we started watching the movie, my dad explained what it was about. If he hadn’t, I’m not sure I would have picked up that quickly on exactly what these students were doing and why, though that may be in part because of the poor quality of our copy of the video. The picture was fuzzy and the sound was muffled, but I suspect that the movie is normally of a higher quality than that. Still, it takes a while for the plot to really get interesting.

Stockwell, who I know best as savvy hologram Al from Quantum Leap, plays the central character and gives the only really memorable performance in the film. Unsettlingly quiet and intense under a ball of frizzy hair that would make Art Garfunkel proud, Avery spends his days dabbling in computer code and interacting little with those around him. After Joel (Elliott Street), a goofy, glasses-wearing geek trying to turn the computer into a chess champion, lets word of their charade slip to Art (James Olson), an older man who works in the lab with them, Avery tries to bow out, but that isn’t so easy.

Not only do mysterious – and deadly – events begin occurring in apparent connection with the fictitious Henry Norman, one of the students in on the plot is the alluring Karen (Stefanie Powers), upon whom Avery seems to have a crush. Even though she’s officially dating macho jerk Jerry (James Stacy), she finds Avery intriguing, but his lack of emotion and shadowy history unsettle her. As computer-related mishaps strike other members of their close-knit group, she begins to wonder whether the man she thought was sweet and misunderstood could actually be behind all the trouble.

For the first half an hour or so, this movie is frankly pretty dull. Street provides a couple of laughs with his over-the-top antics, but I could never decide whether he was likable underneath his obnoxious demeanor. Still, he is certainly the most animated of the bunch, while fellow computer nerd Lisa (Tina Chen) is lifeless until the scene when she realizes just how dangerous a game she has entered into. Stockwell’s face remains impassive throughout the film, but it’s apparent that there’s a lot of thought locked behind those averted eyes, and by the time the action really starts, he becomes the clear focal point even though little of the unfolding drama seems to directly involve him.

I’m not sure how to classify the movie, though I’m inclined to go with techno-thriller. It’s one of those movies that make you think twice about the degree to which computers have become integrated into our lives. There’s also an element of mystery about it as the students left standing after increasingly ghoulish tragedies befall their friends try to figure out if these deaths were orchestrated and by whom. By the time the gore of the second death sent me diving into my pillow, I was pretty invested in the plot. The climax is both satisfying and vaguely unnerving, which fits the tone of this film that starts slow but raises interesting questions about the ties between man and machine.

The Box Presents a Muddled But Intriguing Social Experiment

I avoid horror movies as a general rule. However, I was killing time with my cousin during a visit to my grandparents’, and the 2009 Richard Kelly thriller The Box came on after Date Night, the comedy we’d been watching, so we decided to stick it out even though my uncle warned us it was “freaky”. I figured with a PG-13 rating, it couldn’t be too traumatizing. And really, it wasn’t, though I still was a little nervous about going to sleep that night for fear a nightmare might creep in…

Cameron Diaz is Norma Lewis, a sweet, pretty Southern schoolteacher with a mangled foot. She and her husband Arthur (James Marsden), who works for NASA, enjoy a comfortable, if rather fiscally shaky, life with their pre-teen son Walter (Sam Oz Stone). Christmas is on the horizon when a mysterious package arrives on the porch. Inside the plain brown box is a contraption and a calling card. The Lewises are about to receive a visit from the enigmatic Arlington Steward (Frank Langella), a polite but ominous man with a deformed face. His task is to inform them of the “financial opportunity” presented by the box that they have been given. If they press the button, someone they don’t know will die, and they will receive a million dollars. They can’t tell anyone else about the offer or the deal is off. They have a day to decide.

Norma and Arthur are decent, salt-of-the-earth people, and it’s a little hard to believe that they would seriously consider this long-distance homicide. But a combination of disbelief that it will actually work and a sudden downturn in their fortunes making the money seem particularly palatable pushes them to accept the deal. And then the trouble really begins.

This is a mostly psychological thriller that asks its audience to consider whether they would accept such an offer and what the ramifications might be of a society filled with people who would do such a thing. It’s not an especially violent movie; we hear rumblings of a string of homicides but don’t really see much. It reminded me a bit of Stephen King’s Needful Things, only here, the temptation is far less personalized, and most of the terrible things that happen are a result of people being forced to make a difficult decision. It’s a sick experiment, and whoever is pulling the strings has incredible power.

Langella gives the most compelling performance as the serene but incredibly creepy courier. Is he behind all of this, or is he too caught up in something bigger than himself? While he is the one continually setting events into motion, it is difficult to determine whether he is truly a villain. Diaz and Marsden also deliver solid performances and are very believable as a couple. The Lewises are flawed but likable, and it’s disturbing to watch them descend into near-madness in the aftermath of their fateful decision.

Aside from the main three, I was most interested in Arthur’s colleague Norm Cahill (James Rebhorn) and the eerie family babysitter. I wasn’t too impressed with Stone’s performance, but he wasn’t really in the movie all that much. More than the side characters, the pop culture references caught my attention. The movie includes several clips of shows from the 1970s, which roots us in a very particular time, and the search for alien life is a major thread throughout the film. In some ways, I was also reminded of The Day the Earth Stood Still, as I got the impression that some sort of advanced civilization was observing humanity and unsure of whether it deserved to remain in existence.

The movie does get pretty weird toward the end, and there are at least a couple of sequences that seem confusing and out of place. At times it seemed to me as though it was trying to be two different movies. Ultimately, though, it’s an interesting rumination on human nature. The particulars of the experiment don’t always make a lot of sense, but the general idea behind it is compelling. It’s a make-you-think kind of movie, and if nothing else, I expect that those who watch it may think twice the next time they are tempted to do something that would benefit themselves and hurt someone else.

Demonic Carnies Expose Desires and Fears in Something Wicked This Way Comes

In the days leading up to Halloween, I was in the mood to watch something a little spooky, but not so creepy that it would give me nightmares. I recalled having seen this movie years ago while babysitting, and I had a hunch that it would fit the bill perfectly, so I put it at the top of my Netflix queue. Something Wicked This Way Comes, the 1983 Disney movie that introduced me to Jason Robards, is set in a small New England town in the mid-1900s. The countryside is aflame with autumn leaves as the story begins, and cinematographer Stephen H. Burum is to be commended for so effectively capturing the beauty of that landscape. Before long, however, the visuals take a much darker turn...

Based on a story by Ray Bradbury, who also adapted it for the screen, Something Wicked This Way Comes is an eerie tale whose focus is the old adage, “Be careful what you wish for.” There are many stories in this vein; I found myself most reminded of Bill Brittain’s Newbery Honor-winning The Wish Giver, in which an insidious carnival owner offers three children a wish, only to grant each one in a cruelly twisted manner. I also thought of Stephen King’s Needful Things, in which a demonic entity in a gentlemanly guise uses his knowledge of townspeople’s deepest desires and fears to turn them against each other.

The main character is Will Halloway (Vidal Peterson), a scrawny, bespectacled boy who, along with his best buddy, Jim Nightshade (Shawn Carson), stumbles upon an ominous secret regarding the carnival that has just pulled in for the weekend. Arthur Hill narrates the movie as an adult Will, who speaks of his small-town childhood with affection. Robards plays Will’s aged father, who is feeling the pinch of mortality and is wracked with guilt because of an occasion several years ago upon which he was unable to rescue Will from a life-threatening situation. A librarian and scholar, Mr. Halloway is a potent ally to the boys once they realize that they have a demon on their tail, but his own insecurities threaten to incapacitate him.

This is a PG-rated Disney movie from the 1980s, so there’s nothing too terribly intense here. Nonetheless, I would definitely classify it as creepy. Most of the images that we see in association with the carnival itself are quite unnerving, from the delirious laughter of the robust local barber whose lust is satisfied by an eerie troupe of exotic dancers to the mysterious disappearance of a jittery lifelong lottery player overjoyed to finally win a significant monetary prize. One by one, the townspeople receive the fulfillment of their fondest wishes but then are forced to pay a steep penalty.

Jonathan Pryce is suavely malicious as the debonair Mr. Dark, whose seductive charms are matched by his even creepier female associate. His performance is the more compelling, however, as it is more deeply menacing and simultaneously charming. He looks a fair bit like Doc Terminus from Pete’s Dragon, with his snazzy suit and top hat and facial hair, but he has none of his bluster. No, this is a man who has the uncanny ability to gaze into someone’s soul and expose his most intimate thoughts, and Pryce is mesmerizing.

Of the boys, Peterson is the better actor by far, filling his role with sensitivity and courage. Carson, by contrast, gives a pretty flat performance. Meanwhile, Robards brings gravitas and compassion to his part, and of all the characters, Mr. Halloway undergoes the deepest psychological turmoil. While there are a few grotesque images in the movie - including a moment to rival the one in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets when it comes to terrifying arachnophobes - this inner turmoil is really what the movie is all about, and ultimately, though it prominently features two children and is pretty tame as thrillers go, I would classify it as more suited to adult viewers, who will better appreciate that profound connection between desire and fear.

Will’s story draws to a rather quiet and open-ended conclusion, leaving viewers to guess at the fates of several major characters. While I like the way the ending comes about, it feels a bit abrupt, and I would have preferred a better sense of the carnival’s lasting impact upon the town as a whole rather than just the narrator, his father and his best friend. Nonetheless, Something Wicked This Way Come is an intriguing film ideal for a scary-but-not-too-scary movie night.

Star Trek: The Next Generation - Genesis Is Completely Ridiculous, In a Good Way

So I was sitting in the living room, too tired to do anything productive, too awake to call it a night, and after one flatulence joke too many from Craig Ferguson, I grabbed the remote, whereupon I was reminded of that glorious, albeit inconveniently late, time slot during which Star Trek: The Next Generation is on WGN. So I settled in for Genesis, an episode I’d never seen before. It features one of my favorite minor players, jittery Lieutenant Barclay (Dwight Schulz), and it starts off with the promising scene of Data (Brent Spiner) undergoing a consultation regarding his pregnant cat, Spot.

Some of my favorite moments in the series involve this cat, including Data’s reading of his own poetic composition, An Ode to Spot, and his range of emotions concerning her fate in Star Trek: Generations, so I figured her appearance was a good sign. And who can resist the promise of kittens? Unfortunately, while Spot does play a key role in the plot, we see very little of her, and even less of her and Data together - and in one of those scenes, her appearance is decidedly different. In high school, I witnessed the taping of a commercial spoofing The Wizard of Oz that co-starred an iguana as Toto. The fact that it made no sense whatsoever added to the humor. It’s supposed to make sense that fluffy Spot transforms into an iguana before the episode is out, but it never really does. This is one weird episode. But it’s very entertaining.

I was surprised to see that Genesis originally aired in March. It definitely struck me as a Halloween episode, sort of Treehouse of Horror TNG-style. Beware the Ides, and beware the episode’s premise if you want to avoid scratching your head in confusion or shaking it in exasperation. The whole thing plays out like a spoof of cheesy horror movies as various members of the crew begin demonstrating strange behavior before undergoing startling changes to their physiology.

Deanna Troi (Marina Sirtis) becomes unbearably chilly; Will Riker (Jonathan Frakes) can’t hold onto his train of thought; hypochondriac Barclay becomes hyperactive. Most noticeably, Worf (Michael Dorn) becomes unaccountably surly, which is initially funny but grows worrisome as the episode wears on. Even Captain Picard (Patrick Stewart) is beginning to exhibit symptoms of paranoia. Data alone is unaffected, and it’s up to him to put on his Sherlock Holmes cap and figure out just what is going on.

Genesis goes in a much different direction than I anticipated. It’s one of the funniest TNG episodes I’ve seen, in a campier-than-the-original-series kind of way. I’m not sure it was supposed to be so silly, but really, once Deanna sprouts gills, it’s hard to take anything that happens in the episode too seriously. But boy, it sure made me chuckle...

Crispin Glover and His Furry Pals Crank Up the Creep Factor in Willard

I was hoping that this weekend I might finally catch Ratatouille at the dollar theater. Alas, I never managed to fit it in, but my brother Nathan came trotting home for the day with a most rat-tastic movie in tow, and now that I've seen it, I think it might be a while before I can embrace Remy and his fellow rodents with the proper amount of enthusiasm.

Glen Morgan's Willard is a 2003 remake of the 1971 film of the same name. When they realized what we were watching, Mom remarked that the original had given her nightmares, while Dad had avoided it altogether. Nathan had assured me, however, that while this version was certainly creepy, the gore was minimal, so I decided to chance it. After all, I've always found rats to be unfairly maligned creatures. I expected that when they showed up, I would find them lovable rather than disgusting, and I was right. For a while...

The focal point of the film is Willard Stiles (Crispin Glover), an extraordinarily awkward man who lives with his mean-tempered elderly mother (Jackie Burroughs) and works for the tyrannical Frank Martin (R. Lee Ermey) at the company his father founded. He remains friendless until he is moved to rescue a white rat from the adhesive trap his mother demanded he put up in the basement. He names the rat Socrates, and he is giddy with the thrill of finally having some companionship.

If it ended with this bright-eyed, philosophic rat that seems genuinely fond of the eccentric misfit, this might evolve into a touching story. Sadly, Socrates does not fly solo. Willard feeds him and his family, and every day more and more rats turn out for chow time. Initially, they do whatever he tells them to, taking their orders from Socrates, who evidently understands Willard's instructions. But how long can he maintain control over the ever-growing horde?

Back when this movie hit theaters, I saw an interview with Glover, who I knew as the nerdy, gutless George McFly in Back to the Future. I've seen plenty of strange interviews in my time; this one would have to rank in the top five. The guy just came across as a total oddball, almost as off-kilter as the character he was portraying. Now and then, I'll see a really offbeat interview with somebody like Johnny Depp or Viggo Mortensen and think, "Wow. He's so strange. I'd love to spend an afternoon chatting with him sometime." With Glover, I thought, "Wow. He's so strange. I wouldn't want to meet him in a dark alley."

Whether he consciously cultivates that image or he's genuinely that odd, Glover seems like the perfect choice to play the unhinged Willard, who swings between victim and villain, sympathetic and diabolical. His expressive face, which usually registers some combination of rage and fear or occasional maniacal glee, is almost ghostly pale. Every word spoken with his soft voice is impeccably pronounced. Watch for hyperventilation, beads of sweat and murderous gestures in response to the maddening behavior of his mom and boss.

Burroughs, heavily made up to look as grotesque as possible, is bone-chilling as Willard's mother, who hollers throatily at him from her room in the large house they share. Though she is dependent upon him for her well-being, she still calls the shots around the house, and she wants to be sure he knows it. She wins sympathy points for her medical condition and the loss of her husband, but her despicable treatment of Willard cancels out any automatic sense of goodwill we may have toward her. Ermey pours even more unpleasantness into his role; Mr. Martin seems about ready to have a coronary at any given moment, so eager is he to ream Willard out with an explosive temper tantrum. It's no wonder Rat Boy is so messed up when he's surrounded by people like this.

The only person who treats Willard with kindness is Cathryn (Laura Harring), the new girl at work who unknowingly displaces him when she arrives. Her first impression of him involves him getting berated by his boss, and she feels sorry for him, aghast that he is being treated so unfairly. She continues to extend her hand in friendship throughout the movie. But what will happen when she finds out about Willard's Pied Piper-like tendencies?

I like rats. And I found myself quite attached to Socrates, much as I did with Mr. Jingles, the mouse in The Green Mile. He's a terribly sweet little thing. But his friends are not, particularly when engaged in the mob mentality and when led by Ben, a defiant Rodent of Unusual Size. Not since Ratigan in The Great Mouse Detective have I come across such a vicious rat, and cinematographer Robert McLachlan does an impressive job of making him look distinctively ominous, while Shirley Walker's eerie score sends shivers in all the right places. As the crowd of a couple dozen rats swells to thousands and they stop obeying the restrictions Willard places upon them, the situation gets really hairy in more ways than one.

So while I found Nathan's assessment of the film pretty accurate - only two scenes are really grotesquely gory, while another two hint darkly at blood-curdling calamity - it wasn't exactly a comforting movie. It may be enough to leave me with the creepy crawlies all week, and if I catch myself jumping at small noises, especially from the general direction of the basement, I'll know why...

Hide Yourself from Hokey Horror

I rarely post negative reviews here on Epinions, so I figured I was about due to come up with a movie I can genuinely say deserves a low rating. I caught Hide and Seek on TV one night a while back just as it was starting. If there's one kind of movie I hate, it's horror, but there was nothing else on and my parents and I decided to leave it on for the time being. We wound up watching the whole thing, though I nearly gave up on it several times. Besides being grotesque, it is one of the most absurd movies I've ever seen.

The film stars the usually gorgeous Daryl Hannah as Anne, a most unfortunate woman who spends most of the film looking - and feeling - half-dead and utterly wretched. This is with good reason, as she is kidnapped at the beginning of the film by Frank (Vincent Gallo), a quiet surgeon with a sadistic streak and a fierce fear-driven loyalty to his wife Helen (Jennifer Tilly). Having rendered Helen unable to give birth after a botched abortion, Frank selects Anne to be an unwilling surrogate, intending to keep her chained in the basement until she gives birth.

Though at first Frank seems the movie's villain, it becomes increasingly clear that Helen is the one to watch out for. When she flies at Frank in a rage and bashes him to death with a baseball bat, it seems like a fortunate turn of events for Anne, but in reality Helen is much harder to handle alone than when Frank is there to keep her somewhat grounded.

Watching the film, I was quickly reminded of Misery, though I think that movie was done much better. Hide and Seek is uncomfortable to watch, focusing as it does on one extremely bedraggled woman desperately fighting to stay alive and another who is nothing short of psychopathic. Moreover, she seems to be indestructible and conveniently surrounded by people who are either to stupid or too scared to put an end to her reign of terror. As her hysteria increases and she pursues Anne out of her home to a desolate truck stop and a hospital, the scenarios become more and more absurd. It is Tilly who carries the film, leaving the audience aghast at her freakish antics.

This does not strike me as the type of movie that would have appeared in theaters. It plays like a low-grade made-for-TV movie, complete with gaping plot holes, especially toward the end. While not as patently ludicrous as Critters 3, it is just over-the-top enough that it's never really scary. Seek this movie out for Tilly's psychotic performance, then hide it away where no one will ever see it.

The Scariest Thing About Critters 3 is That it Was Ever Made

A few weeks ago, my little brother and I were searching for a movie in order to remove from our immediate memories a few lingering nightmare-inducing remnants of a rather unsettling movie. Why, then, in order to wash out the taste of serial murder, did we allow our channel-surfing to lead us to a film involving a species of aliens with very large teeth who decide to mutilate the unsuspecting residents of an apartment complex? Because it was bad. Very bad. Bad enough that we erupted into sudden bursts of riotous laughter induced by the cheesy cinematography or the gag-me-with-a-spoon dialogue. Bad enough that it now ranks with The Swans on my hierarchy of bad movies. Doesn't sound convincing enough for you? Read my review of The Swans. It's that bad.

Okay, okay. So I think I've made my opinion regarding the quality of this movie rather clear. But what's really scary is that it is the third -- and, might I add, not the final -- film in a series. If Critters 3 is in any way indicative of the quality of its predecessors and successors, I can't believe the captains of this ill-fated ship didn't bail out early on. Speaking of ships, Critters 3 harbors a familiar face. Leonardo DiCaprio, whose role in Titanic briefly made him one of the most recognizable names in Hollywood, stars as a troubled pre-teen who hates his step-father. That is, until about half an hour into the movie, when his step-father is torn to shreds by the hairy new tenants of the apartment complex he owns. Then, little Leo's character is overwhelmed with guilt, but he doesn't have much time to think about it since he's too busy trying to avoid becoming fodder for the insatiable critters.

Throw into the mix another troubled pre-teen, this one a girl desperate for her absentee father's attention, and her brother, a tiny tot with a magic object given to him by an eccentric man he met in the woods. "When it glows green," he tells the boy, "that's the time to watch out for yourself." Then there's the elderly gentleman who believes in the stories that aliens landed nearby several years ago and the portly, spaced-out woman who narrowly escapes a brush with the "nasty things," which she alternately describes as beavers and porcupines.

I'll admit that I did throw the covers over my eyes whenever those malevolent tumbleweeds sunk their cast-iron choppers into some poor victim's flesh, but as I averted my eyes I giggled. The attacks had all the authenticity of that of the killer rabbit in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, but this time, they weren't meant to be funny. They were. And the descriptions of the assailants were equally amusing -- particularly the manner in which they were delivered. The acting in this movie is most abhorrent. It ought to be shown to a beginner's drama class as an example of what not to do.

And then there's the whole link to the other movies through the "expert" critter catcher, who is sort of a mix between Gomer Pyle and Steve Urkel. Through a series of bizarre and baffling flashbacks, apparently actual clips from previous movies, we learn near the beginning of the film that this freaky-looking fella who rises out of the ground to scare little children was abducted by aliens. At the end of the movie, while the credits are rolling, we watch the unexpected footage which freezes at the most inopportune moments and reveals that the aliens who have ordered him to annihilate the critters have now informed him that he cannot finish the job. It's illegal to destroy the last member of a species.

And so we are prepped for Critters 4. Will the anticipation never end? Will I spend my nights nervously nibbling my nails into stubs as I consider the prospects of a world inhabited by an infant critter? Will I ever learn not to be lured in by TBS' late-night B-rated movie? And where did that tumbleweed in the corner come from? I don't recall seeing it there befo....arghhhhhh!!!!!

We Come in Peace -- NOT!

I should warn you, before you read this review, that Species is not my type of movie. I knew before I saw it that it wasn't going to be my type of movie. But then again, I thought I knew before I saw The Sixth Sense that that wasn't going to be my kind of movie either, and I wound up loving it. So my initial impressions can sometimes be faulty. But this was most assuredly not the case in this film.

I watched Species last weekend with my brother, who would be going off to college in a few days (he's there now). I had no interest in seeing it, thinking that it was just an extraterrestrial horror movie, but I agreed to sit down and watch it with him. I really don't think my presence added much, though. I spent too much time with a blanket pressed firmly up against my eyes...

Species begins in a scientific laboratory, where a young girl encased in an airtight observing room is about to be gassed. I suspected that she was some sort of alien but wasn't sure until I saw her great escape, wherein she leaps through the glass, or plexiglass, or whatever like a dolphin and streaks out the door. And as I watched the terrified child run off into the night, I felt sorry for her, and I figured maybe this movie wouldn't be so awful. Maybe it would be kinda like a mix between The Fugitive and E.T.... But I soon discovered that the main character, played by Natasha Henstridge, is no one to be pitied.

As she flees to the west coast by train, a team is assembled by Dr. Fitch (Ben Kingsley) in order to track down the human-alien hybrid and kill her. Assisting him in his quest are an empath (Forrest Whittaker), a professional assassin, and a couple of scientists. Their quest leads them to LA, where they're going to have quite a mess on their hands because their little girl has grown up and they have no idea what she looks like.

They soon manage to sniff out her trail, but catching her is quite another matter. Meanwhile, she is wreaking havoc on the city as she tries to find a suitable candidate for a procreating partner. She winds up killing just about everybody who is nice to her, plus a couple other folks. Don't get too attached to anybody in this movie. A few do make it to the end, but be on your guard.

This is not a pleasant movie. There is some profanity in it, though not quite as much as I would have expected. But the violence and eroticism more than make up for the sometimes decent language (though decent dialogue rarely comes into play here). After the initial period of feeling sorry for the poor little girl, you quickly realize that there is nothing to like about the alien. She is almost mechanical in her actions and kills with extreme violence and without remorse. Ben Kingsley's character, who I expected to like, is almost as robotic as she is; when a single tear runs down his cheek during the gassing I half-expected sparks to start coming out of his head.

The assassin and the scientists are mildly interesting characters. I found the woman quite irritating, but the adorable socially inept British fellow won my favor and the assassin, played by the foster dad from Free Willy, comes off nicely as a jaded and rather self-involved person.

The only character I really was able to enjoy, the only one who kept me from walking out, was the empath, who was played with doe-eyed sincerity by Forrest Whittaker. Whittaker won my admiration for his role in Phenomenon, and he stands here as the shining star in a dark and dreary movie. Was it his Osment-esque expressions of terror and compassion or simply his skill as a supporting actor? Maybe both? At any rate, I was impressed enough with his performance to bump my rating up a notch. So if you're a sensitive soul like me, watch the movie for him, or don't bother watching it at all -- unless you want to spend half an hour with a blanket over your head.