soulexpress THE GIANT CLAW contains damned near everything that makes bad '50s sci-fi so much fun: a goofy-looking monster; scenes of destruction with Styrofoam buildings, model cars, and HO-gauge trains; made-up science (my Google search of "masic atoms" turned up nothing); scientific equipment slapped together with whatever junk was handy; a female lead with a brilliant mind who nonetheless does all the "girl" things like serving coffee to the men; and the usual dollar-store acting.The story: a killer bird the size of a battleship (and with teeth) flies around the Earth on a swath of destruction. It is impervious to guns, bombs, and fighter jets, nor does it appear on radar screens. Scientific analysis of a discarded feather concludes that the bird emits a protective energy shield that makes it nearly invincible. Also, since the feather contains no elements known on the Earth, the bird must be an extraterrestrial from some anti-matter galaxy millions of light years away. (Don't you dare question it!) As the lady scientist deduces, the bird came here to build a nest and lay an egg. When the film's heroes shoot up the egg with rifles, it seriously pisses off the bird, which sets about trashing a cheap mock-up of New York City. (Did you know that buildings explode when a monster claws off a chunk of its top floors?)I watch films like THE GIANT CLAW for the same reason I listen to records by the Shaggs: they're fundamentally awful, but I can't help loving them.

JLRVancouver "The Giant Claw" is an adorably horrible monster movie featuring a silly plot, inept script, pedestrian acting, and the most endearingly ridiculous monster ever to threaten mankind. Stories abound about disappearing budgets, Mexican puppet makers, Jeff Morrow slinking out of the theatre when he first saw his feathered antagonist, etc., all of which elevate the movie to the rarified status of one of the "Worst Movies Ever". This is, of course, nonsense, as most people would not bother to finish the "Worst Movie Ever"; whereas, people watch "The Giant Claw" (and its ilk) over and over again. I'd bet in 50 years people will still be snickering over the anti-matter space buzzard when, for example, "Star Trek: Beyond" doesn't even make it into trivia contests. How do you rate a movie that is awful by any measure but yet makes the world a better, or at least a more whimsical, place simply by existing? Metaphorically, HAL would give it a 0, Dave would give it a 10, so I'll split the difference and give it a 5.

unbrokenmetal An unidentified flying object destroys planes while pilots at first just catch a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of their eye of a gigantic bird. It turns out to be an angry chicken with a bad haircut. Fighter pilots don't stand a chance against the unusual enemy, even rockets show no effect, 'like we hit a battleship with a slingshot', one says. Different theories are discussed about the bird's possible origin - they settle for 'it's from an antimatter galaxy millions of light years from the Earth', because it's the most convincing suggestion... Anyway... The bird spreads terror all over the country, people have no chance to survive unless they develop brilliant strategies like hiding under a tree. I just give up at this point. It's not all bad, actually - apart from the creature design, it's a fun trash movie starring Jeff Morrow ('This Island Earth') and Mara Corday ('Tarantula'). If you are in the mood for that kind of thing, worth trying.

junkof9-1 I'm a huge science fiction fan, constantly on the lookout for any film with a futuristic theme – everything from "Flash Gordon Conquers the Universe", to "Forbidden Planet", to "Pacific Rim". As a classic film buff as well, I know that, from film's earliest days, up until George Lucas redefined the box office potential with the megahit "Star Wars", science fiction movies were usually relegate to "B" status and assigned budgets accordingly. What is really amazing is just how much the special effects wizards (in the time before ILM) were able to accomplish on such skimpy budgets. Sometimes though, the budgets were so skimpy there was no possible way to make a believable monster – which brings me to "The Giant Claw". Before I ever saw the movie I had a negative impression because it seemed to top all the "worst movie ever" lists (e.g. The Golden Turkey Awards). However, when I finally got the opportunity to see the movie for myself, I was surprised how much better the script and acting were than what I had expected. I ended up enjoying "The Giant Claw" as much as more highly regarded '50s Sci-Fi such as "Them", "The Giant Mantis", or "It Came From Beneath the Sea". If "The Giant Claw" had substance as good as those movies though, where it fell flat was style. You can have the best acting, directing, cinematography, and sound; but, as the old saying goes – at some point the monster has to jump out and say "boo"; and that's where "The Giant Claw" falls flat. I mean, as one reviewed noted, the best way to describe the monster is looking like a half plucked Christmas turkey that escaped a Safeway freezer - 50 years ago. One could speculate how much better it would have seemed - even then - if an effects wizard such as Ray Harryhausen could have had the time and budget to make a more believable monster. However, it is what it is and "The Giant Claw" is great fun to watch; sometimes adding a bit of cheese make the best tasting popcorn.