DNA

the first species was a moderately-successful science fiction yarn that diverted audiences with some nifty special effects , a few well- paced action sequences , and frequent views of model-turned-actress natasha henstridge sans clothing . however , it was definitely not a movie that cried out for a sequel . and , considering the quality […]

note : some may consider portions of the following text to be spoilers . be forewarned . i was incredulous when i first heard that mgm was planning a sequel to their 1995 science-fiction flick species . squandering an intriguing premise , the original film turned out to be a dreadful mess , widely disliked

1992’s alien3 marked not only the death ( by suicide ) of its popular protagonist , ellen ripley ( sigourney weaver ) , but , in many ways , the alien franchise itself–box office receipts were anemic , thanks to poor audience word of mouth ; and the critics who rallied around the first two

you don’t need to have seen the original ” species ” to appreciate how utterly lousy ” species ii ” is . with few exceptions , sequels tend to be worse than the films that spawned them , but the fact that ” species ii ” is a follow-up isn’t the only reason it’s so

here is a film that is so unexpected , so scary , and so original that it caught me off guard and threw me for a loop . okay , it isn’t quite original , considering it is a sequel to the box office hit species , but it certainly is smart . most films

my son and i share a perverse predilection for bad movies . we are amused and entertained by the cheap thrills , the corny dialog , the ludicrous premises and the bad acting . since other family members aspire to higher forms of entertainment , we usually wind up indulging our proclivity together . i