Forget the misleading trailers that suggest we have another ‘Species’ on our hands. Vincenzo Natali’s new thriller Splice has more in common with Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein or the body horror of David Cronenberg. Instead of a throwback monster movie or a tautly wound science fiction thriller, Splice delves into a morally chilling, psychologically twisted tale of two scientists and their conflicted relationship with their creation; a biologically morphing animal called Dren that starts life as a phallic baby and quickly evolves into French hottie  Delphine Chanéac.

Despite early promise, and a relatively strong cast and haunting visual effects, Splice quickly derails, delivering a limp and ineffective final third. Like the monster at the heart of it, this Splice is a mixed up menace that chatters away but can’t muster much of its own humanity.

Things start out well enough. Adrien Brody and Sarah Polley play a pair of scientists who not only share a common scientific goal, but also a bed. Clive (Brody) and Elsa (Polley) are looking for a way to replicate proteins in order to create medical drugs for use with cattle, and in their quest they bring to life ‘Fred’ and Ginger’, two animals that most closely resemble chicken mcnuggets by way of Lovecraft’s Cthulhu. As the project is threatened, Elsa foolishly mixes some of her own DNA into the already successful creature cocktail and the resulting product is an animal more agile, intelligent and scientifically compelling than the original prototypes.

With a strained personal relationship between them (it’s hinted that Elsa had a difficult childhood and doesn’t want children) , Elsa and Clive become a kind of surrogate parents to their rapidly growing ‘child’, who leaps and climbs around the lab and pushes scrabble tiles around in an attempt to communicate. When it begins racing through a cruel parody of human development, Elsa and Clive move their operation to the a country farmhouse; it is revealed this was Elsa’s childhood home. The very alien Dren (it’s nerd spelled backwards, which is the acronym of the company Elsa and Clive work for) keeps developing until it’s no longer just cgi, but Delphine Chaneac. a French actress whose haunting soulful eyes have been augmented by speciall effects so they sit at far opposite sides of one another. Bald, winged and potentially carrying the capability to change gender, Dren doesn’t appear mentally or emotionally capable to completely understand her/its situation.

She isn’t a sexy seductress like Syl from the Species films, and certainly not the tortured, questioning creation from Frankenstein. For the purposes of the film, Natali keeps Dren essentially an animal. Yes, she’s an animal with a healthy curiosity and the ability to replicate and mime human behavior, but the film keeps reminding us both visually and thematically that she is far from human. With a pair of wings, a barbed and deadly tail, and legs that would make the aliens from The Arrival jealous, Dren is a creepy and disturbing chimera. At first, the film relegates her to the role of an out-and-out mutant, and for a time that works. When she’s finally being played by Delphine, there’s an attempt to give a dark allure and mine the film for sexual unease. It’s here that Splice unravels.

As I mentioned before, this isn’t a monster movie in the sense that the creature takes center stage. Natali seems so afraid of having the movie been seen as such, that he shrinks Dren and her role in the movie to a catalyst for the emotional unveiling of Elsa and Clive’s own interior natures. Splice wants to be a dark and disturbing cerebral exploration of how each of us categorize and understand our concept of humanity, and how we sometimes impose our notions of morality and intelligence on scenarios where doing so might be dangerous or negligent. Dren is made to be a sympathetic innocent initially, and watching Polley exploit her, despite the fact they share DNA, is difficult to watch. Later, when Clive actually gets physically intimate with Dren, presumably because he’s reacting to those flashes of Elsa he sees, the film collapses like a poorly made house of cards.

The reason for this is that Natali fails to connect all of the dots, and his ambition for the picture is of a higher caliber than the actual writing. There are plot threads that go nowhere, and at first Clive and Elsa are written like the usual devil-may-care edgy scientists in  a horror movie. That would be fine, except Splice wants us to relate and empathize with them, and despite fine performances from Brody and Polley (it’s not her fault Elsa is so implausibly written) it never fleshes them out at the start and then makes them so wholly unsympathetic due to their relationships with Dren. Elsa’s unexplained childhood, Dren’s mysterious nature, and no plausible explanation for why Brody would bang the experiment aren’t just minor plot holes, they are also thematic minefields.

Instead of recovering and drawing the pieces together, Splice becomes the very thing it’s trying to avoid in the final section; a big, goofy creature feature. There are chases, special effects, people screaming in the dark waving flashlights, and tragic comeuppance for the whole trio. All of it ends with one of the more daffy and inexplicable endings I’ve seen in awhile.

As I mentioned early on, Splice feels like it wants to be Cronenberg, but I believe Natali is too literal minded to make his film work in the same way the Canadian director brings together his strange odes to body horror. Cronenberg dives into the dark current of human subconscious and desire, and he can bring frightening metaphors about man’s relationship to himself and his society to life without needing them to reflect pure reality. It explains why we can watch something as bizarre as Videodrome and not question or balk at every odd thing that happens. Here, though, Natali doesn’t get beyond the surface leve of events. We aren’t seeing a grand and elegant allusion to the destruction and conquest of the natural world through science when Brody decides to get it on with Dren. No, we are watching an unpleasant and repellent scene of a man committing bestiality.

The difference is an important, one and despite its best efforts to do so, Splice is nowhere near as sophisticated enough to carry the   burden it sets up for itself. Like the alien curiosity at its heart, this is one weird mix and mash that, in the end, never should have been.

Rating: ★★☆☆☆ 

“Cloverfield”, the high-profile monster movie produced by Master of Mystery J.J. Abrahms, has been on DVD for a few months now.  And if you were one of the many who caught the film in theaters back at the beginning of the year, then more likely it’s already in your DVD library.  However, for those of you who haven’t caught it on home video yet, then here’s the rundown on how the film itself looks on the small screen and how good the extras are.

The film takes place over the course of one terrifying night, when Manhattan is abruptly attacked by an enormous creature that looks like a cross between a praying mantis and a spider.  We follow a group of twenty-somethings who happened to be throwing a “Going Away” party for their best friend Rob as they embark upon a rescue mission to save Rob’s true love, Beth.  Of course, everybody knows that the movie was filmed in a unique way, namely from the perspective of the viewfinder of an extremely jiggly video camera, one being manned by Hud.  It’s obvious that this idea was inspired by “The Blair Witch Project”, which was another revolutionary thriller during its time because it too employed the use of of the shaky cam.

There were many complaints from people who saw “Cloverfield” during its theatrical run about how the film’s constant camera movements caused uneasiness where their stomachs were concerned, but I personally didn’t have that problem, so I can’t really say if watching the movie on a regular T.V. screen makes a difference where that issue is concerned.  “Cloverfield” is presented in its original theatrical exhibition of the 1.85:1 widescreen aspect ratio, and the transfer is pretty well-handled.  However, I’ll be the first to admit that I’m not a guy who pays attention to the sharpness of a movie’s digital transfer, so suffice it to say that for the most part the picture looks good.

The extras on the disc include a feature commentary by director Matt Reeves, deleted scenes and alternate endings, multiple “making of” featurettes, and looks into how the film’s visual effects were done.  The deleted scenes aren’t really that special; just extra fluff that easily leant itself to editing.  The two alternate endings aren’t any better, as they just include the same ending in terms of what happens to the characters, but here the very last scene before the credits is changed.  However, the making of features are particularly interesting, as they show exactly how the monster was conceived and constructed, in addition to how the movie itself was filmed.  Believe it or not, the filmmakers actually let the actor portraying Hud hold the camera as they filmed everything.  Also included is a link to a website called www.cloverfieldfiles.com, which contains some extra secrets about the film.

All in all, I’d say the “Cloverfield” DVD is definitely worth buying for those who liked the movie.  It’s certainly interesting to see how such a unique monster movie was pieced together, and the glimpse of all the behind-the-scenes magic makes you appreciate just how creative this chilling film really is.

Movie Rating: 3.5 stars

DVD Rating: 3 stars

Well, it’s finally here kiddies. Months of anticipation, meted out through a now infamous viral campaign, and what do we have to show for it? A big fucking monster movie. That’s pretty much exactly what I wanted. Were all of our questions answered? No. Like, what the bleeding hell is Slusho, and why should I give a shit? If you followed the viral marketing at all you are no doubt all too familiar with Slusho. Give it up, it’s nothing but a t-shirt. That’s all it has to do with the movie, some tool in a Slusho t-shirt for 2 seconds. I’m very glad I never wasted my time following the “clues” on all the random viral sites. Now that all that nasty viral talk is out of the way, I can get onto the actual movie.

Between a gigantic monster and heavy artillery, one place you do not want to be.

What happens when a catastrophe of Godzilla proportions hits a “real world” New York city? Director Matt Reeves takes us on a shoddy runaway mine-cart of a ride and tries to show us. What we get for our money is real destruction, real violence and real victims. There are no buildings blowing up with a zero casualty rate. We feel very clearly that people are dying, left and right, and there is nothing anyone can do about it – but run. I made a note to myself before going in not to dwell on the camera work, well that is impossible. The whole story is told through the camera work, moreso I think than the actors. Reeves clearly wanted this to be an intimate experience so he went the “Blair Witch” meets “Godzilla” route. I think it was a great idea and it paid off. We get the experience of a monster movie, not a big flashy F/X extravaganza that feels like a bunch of people running from a tennis ball on a stick. That’s not to say we don’t get special effects, we do, and plenty of them. The monster makes plenty of appearances, and he gets his close-ups in. But more importantly we get to see what it would look like and feel like if we were the hopeless souls stuck in this nightmare. A word of caution however, if you have any issues with motion sickness you might want to sit this one out, or hit the Dramamine. I was getting a little queasy a few times and I have a stomach of steel. This style did enable them to get some crazy, original and effective camera angles and techniques though. The night vision scene was one of my favorite parts of the film.

Rob (Michael Stahl-David) is moving to Japan. His friends throw him a going away party and wouldn’t you know it, it’s the same night this Beasty Behemoth decides to make his presence known. Since Rob’s best friend, Hud (T.J. Miller), was video taping the party he decides to bring the camera with him and document the event as they try to escape from New York. (Snake Plissken wouldn’t have ran from that thing.) Throw in an odd love story between Rob and his friend Beth (Odette Yustman). Basically, they’ve known each other forever, they eventually have sex, Rob is a prick and doesn’t call her for a month because he is moving to Japan. After the attack Rob gets a call from her on his cell phone that she is trapped in her apartment and seriously hurt. So now, rather than getting the hell off the island Rob has Hud and a couple of ladies trekking across Manhattan with him to find Beth. Also, the videotape that they are filming the carnage on was the one that Rob and Beth recorded their perfect “day after” date on, so those images keep cutting in and out through the film. Really, I could have done without the love story. Rob acted like an ass to her so I didn’t care about them as a couple. It did give the characters a good reason to traverse the city under the insanity of this attack, but that was it. I just never felt it from them. Of all the actors in the film the only one that really stood out at all for me was T.J. Miller. Since he is the one filming we hardly ever even see him, but his commentary kept things moving along and gave us laughs at just the right moments. Even without seeing his face he felt more human and real than anyone else to me.

We’ve been going about this all wrong. This Cloverfield monster is okay. He’s a sailor, he’s in New York, we get this guy laid we won’t have any trouble.

So we’ve got our crew going all over Manhattan, from the subway tunnels to skyscraper rooftops in one harrowing ordeal after the other. But what about the monster? Does he deliver? I certainly thought so. Don’t expect a ton of grand shots of a towering beast trampling triumphantly through the city. This is not that kind of movie. He seems more out of place than evil. He clearly doesn’t belong here, and he really isn’t too crazy about all these things blowing up on him. And can you blame him? We see him (or maybe her, but for our purposes here him) plenty, but it’s not shot like a typical monster movie. I’m not going to go into great detail here about how he looks. See it for yourself. I liked it, it was somehow both unique and familiar. He also has some pets (well, probably parasites, but who are we to speculate on their relationship?) in the form of some wicked-ass demon-crab-scarab-dog things that are pretty scary themselves. The whole film is done strictly from the perspective of the people we are following. We know only what they know, and they don’t know shit. We never learn where the monster came from, what it is or… well, you’ll just have to see it.

It’s not a perfect movie, the characters didn’t do much for me. The thought of a guy being able to film all of this while surely losing control of his bodily functions was a bit of a stretch for me. One character in particular suffers a near fatal injury and yet makes what can only be described as a miraculous recovery in no time. I thought it started rather slow. We get it, people love him, it’s a party, gimme some chaos already! The camera work is tough to stomach at times. But the Big Ol’ Monster made up for all of that, and the action scenes were quick, intense and came at a steady pace throughout. I really enjoyed the lack of explanation as well. Most movies over explain things these days, taking all of the fun and fantasy out of it. Cloverfield just lets us enjoy the mayhem without having to analyze it. All in all, worth the price of admission for anyone looking for an exciting way to spend the evening.

RATING: 7.5/10

I told her to take the Dramamine.

The folks at /Film have gotten their paws on some production notes for Cloverfield wherein we gets us some more clues about the Big Bad Baby in Cloverfield. Really, it’s a baby. JJ says so himself. And the movie is a love story. A fucking love story? Please.

Reeves also skillfully interweaves an important storyline throughout the film, that of Rob and Beth’s (Odette Yustman) earlier relationship. Hud is unknowingly taping over an earlier recording Rob had made with the camera of intimate, quiet time spent with his mate. “You see their loving gaze. It’s this small love story,” says Reeves.

That Reeves would be director Matt Reeves. But you guys want to hear about the monster. Straight from JJ Abrams mouth (allegedly):

The concept for the monster (affectionately known simply as “Clover” in-house) is simple, says Abrams. “He’s a baby. He’s brand-new. He’s confused, disoriented and irritable. And he’s been down there in the water for thousands and thousands of years.”

And where is he from? “We don’t say – deliberately,” notes Goddard. “Our movie doesn’t have the scientist in the white lab coat who shows up and explains things like that. We don’t have that scene.”

Not only is the creature disoriented – he’s downright angry. “There are a bunch of smaller things – humans – that are annoying him and shooting at him like a swarm of bees,” observes Reeves. “None of these things are going to kill the monster, but they hurt it and it doesn’t understand. It’s this new environment that it finds frightening.”

Sooo… it’s a love story with a baby monster in it? Great. But wait, don’t forget the parasites! They’ve gotta be kick-ass right?

And because of that, the idea of the parasites was born. “They’re these horrifying, dog-sized creatures that just scatter around the city and add to the nightmare of the evening,” Abrams says.

Ok, so now it’s a love story complete with a lovable baby monster and it’s pets? Still no word on the Incredible Bloating Woman in the trailer. To read the whole article, which has a lot more info click that little pointer of yours riiiiight HERE.

For more production photos lick the screen HERE. Clicking might work too, give it a try.

Now, if only I could remember that release date…

Alright, so it’s only (reportedly) a picture of the toy version, but it should still be what the damn thing looks like (apparently). That fiendishly sexy site MovieWeb got this picture from some guy I guess and they also claim the image was created by the art director for the movie.

I guess I kind of dig it. At least he looks mean and agile, unlike the whale monster that was all over the net. But at the same time he looks a little too “Godzilla ’98″ for me. At least there is no way in hell this movie could ever be nearly as bad as that foul, foul atrocity (or anything else written and directed by Roland Emmerich). It definitely has an “other-worldly” feel to it, lending credence to the tag line “Something has found us.” Could this be an alien? Could there be more of them coming our way? Shit, that would suck.

What say y’all? Leave some comments. We’ll forward them to the producers. I promise.

***UPDATE***

According to Dark Horizons (who are way sexier and I like better than MovieWeb) this image is NOT the monster. Sonofabitch!

I’m disappointed that we still don’t know, yet I am hopeful that it will be better than that thing. On the other hand maybe it IS the monster and they (the movie people) are straight up lying to us yo! I guess we’ll know in ten days.