"Strange Nature" - It has been Prophesied

In the very early 80s a young me saw the movie "Prophecy" on late night television and it shaped my idea of monster movies forever.  That big mutant monster, which had a real motivation and a terrifying backstory left an impression on me that may explain why lately I've been making (albeit goofier) monster movies that are environmentally driven, like "Jack vs Lanterns".

So, when "Strange Nature" showed  up in my suggested movie list I figured an environmental thriller monster movie was worth the watch.  And it was, eventually.

The film opens by introducing us to the lead characters, Kim Sweet (Lisa Sheridan) and her son, Brody (Jonah Beres) who are on their way to her old home town to spend time with Kim's father, Chuck (Bruce Bohne) to help him while he fights cancer.  The acting for this set-up was top notch and most of the cinematography made good use of the location to set the town up as a "character", but the chroma-key work in the car was 1990s sitcom quality and a bit distracting.  The opening music also annoyed me to the point of taking me out of the film. (A song with lyrics during a conversation has never seemed like a good idea to me.)

Once we're in town and the characters establish their backstories a bit, we find the deformed frogs.  News stories mention disappearances and we do get to sort of witness a monster attack when hiker and photographer Tina Stevens (Tiffany Shepis-Tretta) wanders into the woods alone.  I won't describe what happens in detail, but I will say that I wish Tina Stevens had a bit more set-up.  If she had not been played by a recognizable actress I wouldn't have had any reason to connect with the character before the action started.

Instead of becoming a full blown monster fest, the movie tries to work at some scientific exploration, with the local biology teacher explaining mutations in frogs and snails as things progress and with Kim trying to find out why this all going on near her sick Dad's property.  Is it the water, the local pesticide company (it's always those dang corporations like "Genbetter")and does the Mayor know or is he really concerned and trying to help solve the puzzle?  These mysteries seem to unfold, but not much comes of them.  The sad thing is, that's a pretty realistic reflection of how things like this pan out.  We don't get answers to questions like this in a few months.


At this point, not a lot of monster action happening.  Instead our conflict comes from roadblocks to Kim's investigation and a deformed father and daughter who live on the lake being accused of somehow poisoning the town's water supply.  I felt like I was watching "Erin Brockovich".  But, it kept my interest.  Also, the most awkward of romances tries to develop between Kim and the Biology teacher.

Then the disturbing scenes start happening. SPOILER: Highlight to read. Dog Lovers beware.  Things do not go well for the family pooch.  I had to fast forward a bit here.

Mutations move past forest life and start showing up in people and pets.  At this point we're still dealing with a psychological and environmental thriller, but by the end of the third act a full blown monster movie runs out of the woods and grabs you by the throat.  (Well, it grabs someone.) More blood, guts, screams and carnage happen in the following ten minutes than you can fire an untold number of bullets at.  If you're a practical F/X monster fan, this sequence makes the preceding movie worth watching.  It's a slow, methodical build to a lightning fast finale (before a 1970s style epilogue).  Would I have preferred more of this sort of monster action spread throughout?  Of course!  I love monsters.  But the slow, building pace makes the final confrontation all the more gripping (pun intended).

If you pay attention to the quiet times in the movie, you'll find that when the action comes, very little was wasted.  It's all leading to something and the payoff, in my eyes, is worth it.  "Strange Nature" does walk a lot of the same ground as movies that came before it, like "Prophecy", but it's different enough that fans of that movie can enjoy it as an addition to the environmental monster genre instead of just a remake.  And the "Erin Brockovick" moments aren't all that bad.

The Terror Within and The Terror Within II - Watch, Rinse, Repeat

Both The Terror Within and The Terror Within II are available on Amazon Prime (as of this writing).  Both star Andrew Stevens.  Both involve mutant monsters chasing isolated people around enclosed places.  And both involve those monsters having a strong desire to mate with human women. (Maybe only male mutants survived? I don't think that's ever explained.

I love a good monster movie.  And even some bad ones.  These fall somewhere in the middle.  The first is definitely the superior movie, even though the second expands the post apocalyptic world a good deal and is a worthy sequel.  These are late 80s and early 90s features with no CGI for the creature F/X.


The "Gargoyle" mutant in the first film is a pretty obvious suit, but the design is fairly original and it does come across as menacing.  The beasts in the sequel range from this look to much more human looking monstrosities  with less of a "mask" look and one of them walks around the whole time looking as if it is covered in blood.


"The Terror Within" has a much more claustrophobic feel, mostly because only the very beginning takes place outside.  Once the creature finds a way into the compound the chase is on in dark corridors, hidden corners and ducts.  There's always ducts big enough to  hold monsters in sci-fi horror from the 80s.

"The Terror Within II" has many more outdoor scenes, a human settlement, a side story with female sacrifices, more characters to act as monster happy meals and yet somehow, eventually manages to repeat almost all of the first movie.  The only reason this REALLY bothered me is that David (Andrew Stevens ) makes all of the mistakes he should have learned from the first time around and the results are very predictable.

The first film had a killer cast with George Kennedy, Andres Stevens and Terri Treas all turning in expectedly good performances.  The real stand out for me, however, was Butch (Stevens).  I tend to watch dogs in films pretty closely and this one really did look to David (his handler in the movie) for his cues.  This is not usual with low budget fare.  It takes a lot of time and work to train a dog NOT to look to his (or her ) trainer off camera for cues.  We got lucky in "Savaged" that my dog, Valkrie, was so in love in Debbie Rochon.  She rarely took her eyes off her, although it is noticeable in one early scene when Debbie is walking Lotus (Valkrie) away from the camera, which I'm standing behind.
I suspect, with Butch's last name being "Stevens", that this interaction is because they used his actual dog.

Most of the acting in the second film is also adequate.  Considering this was Andres Stevens directorial debut and he starred and co-wrote the movie, it is really is a solid little piece of horror home cinema.  There are some low budget moments that stand out, perhaps most of the all the horrible "machine gun" action.  The sound F/X and shaking of actor Chick Vennera clearly indicate that he is supposed to be firing a machine gun, but no blanks were used, no smoke leaves the barrel and this was before the days of adding muzzle flashes in post.  The result is completely unconvincing and looks like kids playing cops and robbers.

I definitely suggest "The Terror Within" for anyone who is a monster in a maze fan and if you enjoy the first so much that you wish it was longer, watch the sequel.  You'll mostly get more of the same and you'll see the final act coming from a mile or so away, but you'll get more monsters and guts.