Scott LeBrun "The Terror Within" is adequate sci-fi / horror, no more and no less. Still, it's about as good as a low budget Roger Corman knockoff could be; it's reasonably well produced (by Corman himself) and directed if mostly predictable and routine stuff.It takes place in a future world where most of humanity has been decimated by a chemical experiment that got out of control. But the people of the deep underground scientific base Mojave Station were able to administer themselves an antidote, and now they spend their time foraging for supplies and looking for other survivors. When members of their team encounter a crazed young woman (Yvonne Saa), they find that she's pregnant - but not with any human child. The resulting "gargoyle" that emerges when they try to abort it then proceeds to slaughter the hapless crew one schmuck at a time.To Cormans' credit, the sets look decent, and also giving the look of the movie some degree of quality is the work of cinematographer Rohn Schmidt, who's gone on to big things such as the feature film "The Mist" and the TV series 'The Walking Dead'. Rick Conrads' music is actually quite good while the creature effects by Dean Jones prove to be adequate. (In an interesting development, the monsters have super sensitive hearing, akin to that of dogs). However, the movie does so much cloning of "Alien" as to be somewhat groan inducing, right down to its creation of two comic relief characters (played by John Lafayette and Tommy Hinkley) clearly patterned after Parker and Brett from the '79 film. It manages to create some suspense, and come up with a somewhat cathartic finale.A committed B movie cast plays this as well as they can, with Oscar winner George Kennedy lending some credibility to the proceedings. Andrew Stevens (who went on to direct "The Terror Within II") is likable enough, as are lovely ladies Starr Andreeff and Terri Treas. Lafayette and Hinkley are able to generate some laughs, while both Saa and Andreeff supply any eye candy the viewer could want.If you can't get enough of this kind of thing, "The Terror Within" is certainly watchable if not inspired. As has already been said in other reviews, yes, you can do better, but you can also definitely do worse.Six out of 10.

gavin6942 It is the post-apocalyptic age, and the world has been changed by "the accident," a chemical warfare experiment gone awry...Why is George Kennedy in this? As the only "name" actor, did he lend some sort of publicity to this film? Or was he just that washed up that he had to start doing cheesy horror and science fiction flicks? This could hardly be called the highlight of his career.Lots of horror films exist about a post-apocalyptic future (though today they all seem to have zombies) and lots of horror films exist about a strange pregnancy. Not many combine the two themes. This one does. Now, you could say it is a science fiction film more than a horror film (and you could make a good argument). You may even argue that this is heavily influenced by "Alien". On that, you would have to argue a little more (but maybe not a lot, as they even name-drop the film).Overall, an okay picture... some really cheesy effects at times (the pregnant belly looks pretty bad), but maybe you like cheese. I like cheese. Heck, I live in Wisconsin -- half my diet is cheese.

Coventry Okay, you've heard about "so-bad-it's-good" movies before, but this demented little thing plays in an entirely different league. "The Terror Within" is so bad it's ….really, truly freaking abysmally bad! It's a cheesy and minimally plotted 80's earthbound "Alien" imitation and it's produced by Roger Corman, so that ought to give you an immediate idea about the overall quality of this production. You may prepare yourself for the worst, and then still "The Terror Within" will surpass your most cautious expectations. This is one of them films that gives you absolutely no feedback or background about anything that happens before, during and after the main events in the plot. The script even fails to inform what year the events take place in, what kind of company the 6 protagonists work for or how the breed of gargoyles developed itself so rapidly. All we know is that some kind of "accident" wiped out 99% of the earth's population and that the few remaining survivors on the surface are continuously threatened by gargoyle-creatures. Six people in a subterranean laboratory, led by the poor & desperate-for-work George Kennedy, attempt to save what's left of humanity, but they clearly don't have a clue what they're up against. Unaware of the fact that the gargoyles mate with regular females, they take a pregnant girl into their lair and numbly observe how she gives birth (in a sequence shamelessly copied from Ridley Scott's milestone) to a ravenous and fast-growing monster. Now they're all trapped underneath the earth, with two remaining female employees as potential monster-mommies. Admittedly, the plot description for "The Terror Within" doesn't sound half as bad as initially feared, but honestly the film is stuffed with plot-holes the size of the Grand Canyon, laughably inane dialogs, poor acting performances and tiny stupid oddities that are almost too amusing for words. Here's a brief listing of all the crazy stuff occurring in this film (extra spoiler warning). 1)The gargoyles may be tall and strong, but apparently they're quite terrible in the sack. The monster only was a few nanoseconds alone with the girl, but it clearly was more than enough to impregnate her. 2)Actually, the monsters look a bit like an over-sized version of Duckman. 3)The hero (Andrew Stevens) is obviously more upset when his dog gets injured than when his black colleague and even his girlfriend get torn to pieces. 4) Presumably the film is set in the future, but technology appears to have taken a huge step backwards. The characters operate the largest walkie-talkies you've ever seen and the only exit out the subterranean lab is through a ramshackle shed. 5) At a certain point, the remaining survivors try to attack the creature by blowing on a dog whistle. I guess their next move would have been to throw a banana peel in front of its feet. 6)The film probably just took a few days to shoot; still I think George Kennedy had other, more urgent places to go to. Halfway the story his character just vanishes after an idiotic kamikaze run into the creature. Still, you don't actually see him die so you expect him to return at some point. Guess again. Strangely enough, and despite the rather cheesy & tacky monster designs, the killings are pleasingly gruesome and blood-soaked. The aforementioned birth-sequence may be very unoriginal; at least it's suitably repulsive and even mildly shocking. The finale is effective as well, since the gargoyle meets his death in a rather nasty fashion. As if you couldn't guess yourself, "The Terror Within" is an awfully crappy 80's cheeseball, definitely worthy of the Roger Corman label. It could be considered "entertaining", but you'd have to be in the right mood.

tfrizzell Stupid thing-that-would-not-die mess has George Kennedy (no idea why he is in this) leading a group of humans who live underground in a post-apocalyptic future. Biological warfare has all but destroyed most all the human race and gargoyle-styled monsters roam all over the Earth's surface. Soon Kennedy and his crew have to come up to get food and rescue a frightened young girl who seems to be on the brink of death. Naturally they take her underground, but what they don't know is that she is carrying the child of one of the monsters who raped her. What do you suppose will happen when she gives birth? Another crazed picture from the sci-fi/horror genre of the 1980s never did do much business at the box office and made no real impression with the very few that sat through this yawner. Typical jack-in-the-box scares are not near enough to save so much unwanted dead time. Turkey (0 stars out of 5).