Dorathen
Better Late Then Never
InformationRap
This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.
Cissy Évelyne
It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.
Stephen Abell
It was Ray Bradbury's name that brought this movie to my attention. Just before Christmas and before I started reviewing I had watched, and enjoyed, the original. So there wasn't much choice but to view the sequel... even though it's not. This is actually a brought-up-to-date remake.However, even though it has Bradbury's name it wasn't as good as I hoped it would be. That is probably due to him not having his screenplay filmed. He actually had four screenplays for the movie and none of them was chosen, not for the original and not for this remake (Harry Essex scripted the original while Ken and Jim Wheat have written this one.) I've not read the Bradbury versions, though being a fan I can honestly believe they might be better than what we received here. Since he was still alive when this was filmed I would have asked him to update the script for the modern age. Had there been issues with the original, his gained experience from 1953 to '96 should have been able to smooth them out.That said, Ken and Jim Wheat don't do a bad job of bringing this film up to date. However, they're not too good at characterisation or flow. Though some of this could be down to the director Roger Duchowny. What this needed was an injection of excitement and relatable characters. Most of the people in the town are bleak and depressing; though this is believable, the way they are handled makes them more two-dimensional than possessing deep personalities and was a major cause of my boredom. Even the likes of Elizabeth Pena, Dean Norris, and Mickey Jones who are good actors and had a few decent scene's still couldn't inject life into the dullness.The other cause of my dissatisfaction is the slowness of the pace. This could have been used to create atmosphere and draw the viewer in. Sadly this wasn't the case and only added to the films dullness.The special effects are okay for the period and there are some nice ideas though due to the slow pace and the way they were shown their impact is dulled and not fully utilised. This is one of those films I would recommend to only the die-hard sci-fi fans and lovers of the original film. However, if you want to watch a decent film I'd say watch the original as it's much better on every count, especially if you've never seen it. There's a reason it's a classic and this one is seldom heard of.
junk-monkey
This is a pretty pointless remake. Starting with the opening title shots of the original was a real mistake as it reminds the viewer of what a great little period piece chiller that was. The new version that follows is an exercise in redundancy.Brian Kerwin plays a 'city boy' photographer who returns to a semi-abandoned desert town populated by a scattering of underdeveloped clichéd stock characters: the lollipop sucking Daby-Doll Lolita, the 'ornery old coot prospector, the crippled vet and his Asian wife, etc...Kerwin's character witnesses the crashing of 'something' into a hillside and shortly after strange things start to happen as pieces of weird blue rock are scattered around. The temperature starts to rise, all the water in the area vanishes, people start to act weirdly, things explode. Kerwin's character gets in and out of his car more often than is humanly possible in one movie. The film develops no sense of place, no character development, no humour, no tension. Everything that made the Jack Arnold's original a creepy little Cold-war paranoia classic has been abandoned. It just runs through its minimal hoops and then just ends.The special effects aren't very special - the interior of the ship looks like bits of cling film wrapped round some ropes which were then dangled in front of the camera to frame some of the most uninspired and clumsy wire-work ever put onto the screen. The script is repetitive - everyone says everything at least twice, Kerwin gets to say "let's get out of here" at least three times during the movie, twice in one scene. Loads of things are left unexplained at the end - why do the aliens need all the heat and water for example? - not that anyone watching would care; if the film makers didn't care why should we?The acting is adequate - better than the script, which at times, has an under-rehearsed improvisational quality, deserves. Though often the actors look like they just want to get the thing over with as quickly as possible - a notable example of this is when Elizabeth Peña registers the briefest, token moment of "frustrated despair hands to face gesture" before following sulking son Stevie outside to watch him do "angry sulky teenager smashing something off a table" gesture. Continuity errors include the (GB) sticker on the back of Kerwin's jeep appearing and disappearing, a double action of the gas in the exploding car, a towns-person being in two places simultaneously - once in the Alien Stevie's POV shot then immediately afterwards in a reaction shot, Elizabeth Peña appearing to shut a car door twice... you can tell I was gripped can't you? The movie commits that greatest of errors. It's boring.
carflo
I've seen this movie more than once. It isn't the greatest scifi flick I've every seen, but it is not a bad movie. The acting is good and the characters are more "real" than most in low budget sci fi. (At least it isn't full of dumb bimbos like so many other low budget scifi.) I especially like Elizabeth Pena. She is a good actress and she does worried single mother as well as any and better than some.Don't let the nay sayers run you off. See it for yourself and judge it for yourself.
Bimbo_Boy
They've shown i twice in a very short time now here in Sweden and I am so very tired of it. The bad acting isn't enough... The story itself is so boring and the effects hardly exists. I love the original from 1953 so I recommend you to go and rent that one instead. Because this one is such a bore.
