C.H.U.D.

Seen for the second time in November 2012.

"C.H.U.D." was on cable television during the day time when I was a kid. I must've tried watching it a dozen times during the lazy days of summer vacation. It could never hold my attention though. In the intervening years it's become a sort of iconic cult classic. People bring up the movie, spit out the acronym and giggle. Truth is though, there's nothing particularly special about this movie.

Its merits are as follows: Daniel Stern, a ridiculous pandering explosion at the very end, John Goodman in a bit part, and what appears to me to be some actual serious effort by all involved. The problem is that it's boring. C.H.U.D. bores me in pretty much the exact same way that "Jaws" bores me. These movies have very different reputations, but I think there's some kind of structural similarity.

Frankly, also, I think C.H.U.D. may be too serious. It lacks the humor of the "Toxic Avenger" or the outright incompetence of "Troll II" or the charisma of the Evil Dead films. It could almost be played straight as a studio sci-fi horror release, but for a few amateur moments, like the confrontation between Bosch and the bad guy at the end. This isn't to its credit. I think it's better to be great camp than a poorly done and boring genre flick.

Ultimately it just feels like a bad idea that's been well executed, rather than a good idea that's been well but amateurishly executed (Or like "Troll II," a terrible but strange idea that's been incompetently but earnestly executed.) I do wonder why this is the only film under its director's belt. It doesn't seem poorly directed, and it made money. You would think he'd have the opportunity to keep working. I guess this is too good to be so bad it's good and not funny or thrilling enough to actually be a good movie. Grade B-.