Starship Invasions (1977)

aka Project Genocide, aka Alien Encounter, aka War of the Aliens

How bad is it? Silly campy nonsense.
Should you see it? Sure.

The stories behind this film are better than the film itself: Christopher Lee and Robert Vaughn both claim that they were duped into making this, being told it would be a serious "Star Wars"-type film, rather than the camp it is; the Canadian film (the first SF film from Canada since... well, ever) may have been made as a tax shelter or it may have been hastily assembled to beat "Close Encounters" to the screen and it may have been either a serious homage to 1930's serials and 1950's sci-fi or it may have just failed. Beside Helen Shaver, there are no other names in the cast. Aliens decide to colonize Earth and use a suicide ray, leading to fun scenes of people strangling themselves; they also take a sperm sample from an Elmer Fudd wannabee. There's bizarre - and in one case rather sexy - costumes, robots that look like they found the top of "Robot Monster," special effects that range from excellent to "my Gawd that's lame," aliens that are telepathic just to cut down on dialogue and more references to the Bermuda Triangle and pyramids than in "Chariots of the Gods" (which clearly inspired the makers). It's slapdash, it's puerile, it's worth checking out.

Starship (1984)

aka 2084, aka Lorca and the Outlaws

How bad is it? Generic cheap science fiction.
Should you see it? No.

Someone must've thought the original title "Lorca and the Outlaws" didn't sound like science fiction, so they re-titled this; there's really not a spaceship involved. There's a mining colony and a plan to replace the miners with robots, so they fight back. The film looks good, mostly because of the location shooting in Australia in a mining operation, where you get to see things like the giant trucks, which probably looked futuristic to many people in 1984. If you're from a mining area today, the trucks look antique and dinky! There's no plot, characterization, energy, blah blah blah - a generic review of a generic film seems appropriate.

Star Hunter (1996)

How bad is it? It's the worst "Predator" rip-off and I've seen dozens (maybe hundreds).
Should you see it? No.

Produced by Roger Corman and directed by Fred Olen Ray, I knew this would be god-awful tripe, but it has Roddy McDowall and Stella Stevens in the cast, so I gave it a watch. Three high school football players and two cheerleaders, plus their assistant principal (Stevens) seek refuge after a bus breakdown, only to be taken in by a blind man who turns out to be an alien hunter (MacDowall), who unleashes a robot to collect their heads, while they are stuck inside a forcefield and have to improvise weapons. That sounds better than it is. It's padded heavily and it drags.

Star Crystal (1986)

How bad is it? Cheap SF that manages to rip off both "Alien" and "E.T."
Should you see it? Yes, it's just bizarre enough to recommend.

Five people on a spacecraft pick up a lifeform imbedded in a rock crystal from Mars, but don't have enough food or energy to get back home. Those problems become secondary when they start getting attacked by a tentacled alien. Several bad actors say lines like "She's got slime all over her!" and "All that emptiness makes you crazy after a while" before getting dispatched, leaving a cast of two. There's a chase scene shown as dots on a monitor, like a 1980's video game, but other effects are decent and the sets are good. In a bizarre and baffling twist, making you wonder if a major re-write happened during shooting, the creature taps into the computer, reads the Holy Bible!, gets converted!, apologizes for its behavior! and becomes an "E.T."-like alien that helps them get home.

Splatter University (1984)

How bad is it? Great title, but poor film.
Should you see it? If you're into regional 80's slashers, maybe.

This was a regional film (New York City) with a largely amateur (and quite unattractive) cast. Three years after a psycho escapes an asylum, women are getting knifed at a school. The students wear the same clothes to school every day, one person shows bloodstains before they're attacked, people nonchalantly go back to sex and beer after someone close to them dies and a dead body moves, but some of the laughs are intentional - there's a priest who has porn mags and peeps through windows, which provide some amusement. The killer is supposed to be a surprise, but is obvious to anyone who watches a lot of these kinds of film. There's no nudity, surprisingly, and the soundtrack appears to be one song by a group into The Cars.

Spine (1986)

How bad is it? It's pretty bad, indeed.
Should you see it? It's really hard to find and isn't worth that much effort.

This was reportedly made by porn producers who wanted to cross over into mainstream via horror. A guy released from a mental institution attacks nurses, hog-tying them and slicing their backs open to revel their spines (but you don't get the gore shots you'd expect). It has the flaws you'd expect in a shot-on-video slasher of the time: both overacting and underacting, a confused plot, some nudity (including an uncomfortable rape scene that doesn't fit the rest of the film) and some gaffes (it appears some lines had to be re-dubbed and they don't sync at all). It might appeal to aficionados of the genre.

Spawn of the Slithis (1978)

aka Slithis

How bad is it? Typical rubber-suit monster film hampered by a low budget.
Should you see it? If it shows up, sure, but don't go out of your way to find it.

The makers of this were obviously big fans of the monster movies of a generation earlier; they even used some of the same advertising gimmicks. Unfortunately, no one was asking for yet another "monster created from nuclear waste" film with a guy in a rubber monster suit. The suit looks like it took up most of the small budget - the script has some laughable dialogue, which is delivered by some very poor actors, the effects aren't great and everything has a cheap feel to it. It's not a terrible film.