Mabel Munoz
Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?
sworl-181-82257
Smith finds himself the odd man out in one of the last research bunkers, manned by a team of three scientists, in a destroyed irradiated Earth. Searching for a way for plant life to flourish again in a dead and dying world, Smith finds himself mystically drawn to expose himself to the elements and walk about the surface. Thus begins the dystopian tale based on Ray Bradbury's story.I enjoyed the play of personalities, superstitious fear warring with scientific inquiry, and a cracking good SciFi story. The movie has a somewhat leisurely pace, and if you're looking for massive special effects you may be disappointed; however, if you're a fan of ideas and Gaea taking care of her own, then this it quite an entertaining little flick.
satyrmage
Ran across this in the video store, and picked it up on a whim. Boy am I pleased that I did that. Definitely going to find a copy of my own.If you have a chance to see this on DVD, please watch the film FIRST, then watch the extras (mini-featurettes on various aspects of the making of the film), then go back and listen to the commentary (which I have a gripe about, more later!) Basically, this film is a faithful adaptation of the 1946 short story that originally appeared in Amazing Stories, and finally made it into book form in the 1966 collection "S is for Space." Contrary to modern film-making, in the bulk of the footage of the film, there are NO green screens, NO CGI, just good, authentic looking sets, giving the entire film a gritty, realistic feel. It's obvious the actors were getting "into their roles" just from the atmosphere they had to work in. (FYI, the only green screen filming was used during production of some of those news reports on TV.)Character development is exactly as one would expect from Ray Bradbury, who was, in fact, consulted frequently during the production, and gave his personal endorsement of the film at film festivals. Note: this means that this film is about CHARACTERS, not special effects.The special effects, also (such as they are) are handled old-school as well, and mostly VERY effectively. >>Watch those mini-features to figure out what was a live person, and what wasn't! I failed!<< But this was the intention of the film makers, who wanted this to feel like a 1950's film, not a modern-day computer-generated effectaganza. It even features a couple of 1950's-style cheesy-bits... but even those are done so low key, and you're so absorbed into the interpersonal drama, that you probably won't get distracted by them.Now for the gripe: The audio editing (especially volume) for the commentary track was awful. Period. No contest. At some points, the film volume was so high, you could barely hear the comments. The bits of the conversation with Roger Lay (I think it was... but not sure!) and Ray Bradbury were obviously prerecorded, and spliced in, though content-wise, it was such a pleasure to hear from the inestimable RB himself, you almost don't care -- until the film volume drowns them both out. Also, during that separate recording session, you can tell that RB is talking LOUDLY and CLEARLY (as clear as a 90+ yo gentleman can be, anyway) into the mike, making the conversation a little jarring. The content is good -- mostly -- if you can get past the volume level mismatches.Final note, and no it's not really a spoiler... If you expect this film to go out with a bang (explosions, gaudy spectacles, lots of death-and-dismemberment), you're not much of a Ray Bradbury fan, are you?All in all, this is a keeper, not a renter. Highly recommended!
shawnmack
Really super bad acting, boring dragged out.... Has a cheap TV movie feel to it.. Did I mention that acting is horrendous .....I am truly grateful I didn't pay any money to see this turkey. This thing belongs on rotten tomatoes. How can you take an excellent story from Bradbury and ruin it like this. These people should be shot. The movie has all the good post apocalyptic trappings but falls really short of quality. I think this would have made a better play. The acting is so bad that the movie truly suffers, I would expect something like this for the homemade movies you see at the video store every once in a while. I am sure the budget was less than $10,000 (if it wasn't ...some one got ripped off)
Wilfred Bernardo
Just saw this last night at the Shriekfest film fest in Los Angeles. I'm not a big Bradbury fan myself (more of a Harlan Ellison fan) but I must say this is a really good piece of work. It's sad to see some of the things that are considered Science Fiction films these days, but this is the real deal. The movie is based on a Ray Bradbury short story and pretty much deals with mankind's attempt at survival after the planet has been messed up pretty badly. We see some of that damage early on in the film but then quickly the film introduces us to an isolated group of scientists who are going about trying to figure out a way to undo some of the damage to the environment, specifically to plant life. This is where it gets real interesting since one of them begins to mutate and develops a Chrysalis that covers his body. No one really knows what could come out of that thing. What works so well is how invested you are in the struggle between all the characters, each with their very unique perspective on how to deal with the crisis. The actors are really good at keeping you invested in the proceedings. You can tell the film is truly an homage to those classic science fiction stories to come out of the pulp magazines during the golden age. The FX are really well done, everything looks organic and as far as I could tell no CG. Should be coming out soon. Lets hope this gets more exposure than Bradbury's last effort A SOUND OF THUNDER. This one deserves to be seen. I'm starting to feel real positive about Sci-Fi cinema again with MAN FROM EARTH last year and now CHRYSALIS.
