oscar-35 *Spoiler/plot- 2005, Rather mad scientist movie. Near an isolated Californian beach, in a laboratory of horror, three renegade scientists have resurrected Frankenstein's long dead monster. The legendary indestructible corpse comes back to life again. At the same time, these scientists have biogenetically engineered a half-man half-fish abomination intending to use both brutes as weapons against worldwide terrorism. However, disaster strikes when the chemical brainwashing used to control these beasts fails. Instead of stopping terror these beings create terror in the beach community. The terror starts when the fish beast kills a gorgeous model while shooting a glamorous photo shoot. The scientists take the photo crew hostage. These crew survivors must find a way to escape both their mad captors and the rampaging monsters and warn the world of this danger spreading.*Special Stars- Larry Butler, Bill Winkler, Dezzi Ascalon, Cory J. Marshal, Gary Canavello, Alison Lees-Taylor, and Lawrence Furbish. Dir: William Winckler.*Theme- Scientists are always causing problems in society.*Based on- Frankenstein myths and 50's Drive-in movie genres.*Trivia/location/goofs- Shot entirely in black and white in Southern California. There is some superfluous female nudity and mediocre bloody violence at the beach. Look for the obvious cheap 'stock shots' from local aquariums to supply the underwater ocean scenes. This film is a weak attempt to reproduce a loving tribute to those classic horror and atomic age monster movies from the classic drive-in movie era.*Emotion- A somewhat forgettable film from a small independent Southern California producer with his wife and his group of industry friends that supply all the writing, acting, makeup, and just about everything else needed for this film to be made. However novel this approach is to filmmaking, unfortunately the film fails in its pacing, direction, action scenes and believability. This means the film suffers and causes a premature demise of viewer's attention for this film's audience. I found myself fast-forwarding through this video to possibly get to better scenes. There were not any and that is death for a scifi video of any sort. This is a shame to see.

bobwildhorror Every once in a while I stumble upon an independent movie that succeeds on sheer bravado and love of its inspirations. The horribly named FRANKENSTEIN VS THE MONSTER FROM BLOOD COVE is one of those. In the tradition of Universal monster mash-ups like THE HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN comes this story of a mad scientist who is endeavoring to create a race of super-monsters to fight terrorism. Or some such nonsense. Despite any delusions the filmmakers might have had about topicality, the framework is just an excuse to hang as many creatures as possible on the story.And creatures there are. Not content with Frankenstein's monster and the Monster From Blood Cove (an endearing Creature From the Black Lagoon type beast), Writer/Director William Winckler introduces a slew of loosely related beasts. A werewolf shows up for no apparent reason, only to be gunned down within minutes. The ghost of Dr. Frankenstein even drops by to choke(?) several victims.As if that weren't enough, this black and white tribute throws in every stock supporting character/location from the Universal classics. There are Gothic looking exteriors. There's the mysterious gypsy woman who issues cryptic warnings. There's the disfigured/conflicted lab assistant, played by monster designer Chris Knight.And if this weren't enough, there are also nods to the films of Ed Wood (the obviously cornball dialog, the lawn chair/lab table the monster lies on, etc.).But this isn't Mel Brooks, people. This is low-budget film-making. It may be sincere and creative, but those looking for sophistication would do well to pass on this. The acting is universally bad, even by the standards of these films. There are some intrusive nude photo sessions/stripper performances that seem to have been randomly added to titillate adolescent boys and pad the running time (girls strip, dance, and then get killed). And there is an offensive gay stereotype that is repeatedly played for "comic" effect.But all this is secondary to the creatures. Rubber-looking they might be, but they're retro-cool and well executed…and they are what lift this production to a noteworthy level. Their battles might be a letdown – more Godzilla than Universal – but perfectly in keeping with the limited intent. This is definitely a deserving entry in the low-budget monster sweepstakes.

bcndahous So it is Halloween evening, and I am cruising channels on my TV set late at night. I even flip through the stations that are public access, i.e., homemade productions given to local people. I noticed on a particular station that the program on seemed to be of MUCH higher quality than the typical fodder on these stations. Granted, it was still low budget, but blew the usual crap out of the water. So my interest was piqued. I remained tuned in.To my surprise, there was plenty of "adult" language and pretty girls without their tops. My interest was again piqued. This is usually taboo content for my local basic cable channels.Then I noticed a loose plot developing. Three members of a photography school are chased by a sea monster to a hidden lab (not so hidden in a house at the top of a hill) where the sea monster was originally created, along with the resurrection of Frankenstein's monster. The lab people are evil. Poorly acted (except for the lead scientist, he was actually pretty good). One of them is busty and later topless.Nudity is inter-spliced periodically throughout for what appears to be an attempt to keep the audience's attention. It's almost as if the director/writer knew that the feature being put together here was obviously campy and overwhelmingly low budget and needed some "spice" to act as the glue for this jigsaw puzzle lacking all its pieces. Acting is not commendable, monster make-up is sub-par, editing jumps around with missing time & events periodically.... there are many flaws in this one. My main critique is that much of the low-budget quality of the make-up and monsters' costumes could have been disguised with more shadows in the cinematography -- and at the same time the shadows would have added to the dark elements of the film. Much of the 1930s-50s monster films relied on heavy light/dark contrasts, which added to the mood. This film was mostly shot in light (understandable since much was shot at the beach).Yet somehow I was still drawn to this piece. What was mentioned earlier by another reviewer is the obvious admiration by Bill Winckler for old monster movies of Hollywood from long ago. I will agree with this statement, and anytime another person shows this admiration on film it is always interesting how the person treats the object of their affection. Winckler's treatment is the highpoint of the film; the monsters are indestructible and never made fun of or made the comedic relief. They are the respectable part of this film.The DVD supposedly has extras. Seems interesting, maybe I'll pick it up. Not just for the extras, either. This movie grew on me for some reason. I'm not sure what connection Chad Byers has to the production, but he had a Svengoolie/Elvira skit show between various parts/intermissions of the version I saw of the film. Nice touch, provided more comedic relief.Rating: 5/10 Not for everyone, but once you ignore the crappy elements there is a bright spot or two.

twanurit The DVD's director stated that he wanted to pay respect to the black and white Universal classics of the 1930s through 1950s, but did those films have topless babes at the beach and a slinky nightclub stripper? That's just part of the problem of this poorly scripted (by the director), inanely scored, and mostly indifferently acted piece. The leading lady (the director's wife) at least shows some personality through the shoddy proceedings. A mad scientist creates an amphibian man and secures Frankenstein's original monster to "conquer terrorism" (huh?), but they break loose, wreak havoc, and fight each other (a disappointing shoving match). Beast costumes are stiff and low-budget, with Creature faring better, and the Monster resembling the 1925 Phantom of the Opera (his nostrils) and a zombie-hippie, both poorly mimed by stunt men. Even the lead (also writer-director) also states at the end "Frankenstein is dead!", which refers to the creator, not the monster. There's also a flamboyant gay character for comedy relief, yet this feature conjures no suspense or terror, or even laughs, murder scenes are badly lensed. Other than some good monochrome cinematography, skip it.