Redwarmin This movie is the proof that the world is becoming a sick and dumb place

Bardlerx Strictly average movie

Phonearl Good start, but then it gets ruined

Joanna Mccarty Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

Boba_Fett1138 Problem with this movie is that it's being a quite boring one to watch. It picks a totally serious approach, while the story is just far from interesting or well written. There is hardly anything spectacular happening in it and as a science-fiction/horror or post-apocalyptic movie, it's a severely lacking one.It's funny how this movie is supposed to be a post-apocalyptic movie. Once the movie starts off there is nothing to indicate that this movie is supposed to be set in a near future, in which the entire world has supposedly gone to waste, due to some kind of atomic war, presumably. But the movie simply looks like an 1982 movie set in 1982. There are only some lasers featured in it, to indicate that this movie is not being set at present time.But to be frank, there are far more movies like that out there, that are still not being half as bad as this one though. Problem really is that this movie takes itself far too serious and tries to be more of a realistic movie, though the story has absolutely nothing clever or original in it to justify this approach. The movie really doesn't work out too well because of this. It instead makes this movie work out as a boring one, also since it doesn't have any redeeming characters or some fun or good tense horror-like moments in it.It's actually quite amazing how bland and totally uninteresting the movie its story is, while its concept itself doesn't sound that bad at all. Seriously, this is all they could come up with? I'm surprised that a person green-lighted this project at the first place.The characters absolutely don't work out at all, also due to its poorly and unimaginative written story. The actors also come across as bad ones because of this, since the movie features some real poor dialog as well. Doubtful that this is a movie Demi Moore is still very proud off. This movie was one of the very first ones she ever appeared in and to be honest, she was absolutely horrible in this, which is, as I said, more due to the writing and perhaps directing as well, than her actual acting skills. But to name a good thing about this movie; it has some quite confusing looking effects and special effects make-up. No big surprise though, once you see that Stan Winston's name is attached to this.This movie is too much of a bore and there is no reason to recommend it to anyone.4/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

lost-in-limbo Good times, you'll think. One of my friends lent the DVD to me and expressed they didn't understand the hate towards the film. I've had my chances to grab it, but the not-so-flattering comments left me to pass it up, but after hearing it wasn't that bad (and I seem to share the same thoughts about particular horror films with this friend). I dived right in to it. As it stands it wasn't great, but nonetheless it was entertainingly simple b-grade fun in a post-apocalyptic backdrop. Charles Brand in only his third feature paves the way for outrageously ham-fisted splatter effects and make-up artist Stan Winston formulates a nasty, icky looking slug-like parasite with a mean looking grin. The criticism against his design is unfair… sure it isn't first-rate but with budget associated (as this is truly low-rent feature produced by Embassy Pictures) it's an acceptable effort. Trying to be different around that time was adding a new gimmick that it would be in 3D for movie-going audiences. Sadly the DVD doesn't come with the 3D version. Anyhow it didn't destroy the mood in any way. What can really hurt it though, was that the script is slipshod and it never truly gets in any sort of groove and comes up being a little too sparse and repetitive in its actions. The atmosphere remains non-existent and tension doesn't come by easily, but Brand (unintentional or not) engraves a grimy edge to it all (with Mac Ahlberg's well-executed panning of the camera) and throws about some graphic diversions. It's hard to forget Broadway siren Vivian Blaine's encounter with a parasite and some slow-motion passages are rather funny. Richard Band's shivering score feels like it's on a loop, but seems to suit it.There are earnest performances from the likes of Robert Glaudini, Luca Bercovici, Al Fann, James Davidson, Cherrie Currie and a quick show-in by Cheryl Smith. Demi Moore in her first on-screen role doesn't make much of a dent, but it's far from awful.In the end it's immensely forgettable, but lately watching these modern (and sometimes leaden) Sci-fi original TV features is making me appreciate this schlock far more.

Vomitron_G Calling PARASITE a good movie is as arguable as whether or not Paris Hilton has had a breast enlargement. It's no secret that I've always had a soft spot for Charles Band's pre-Full Moon stuff. And even though I've liked PARASITE ever since I saw it in my mid-teens, I think I'm not being biased if I say that watching this movie is a worthwhile effort and it's worthy of an honourable mention as an entry in B-movie horror history set in a post-apocalyptic future. Well, "future", is somewhat of a debatable topic here, since the movie is set in the year 1992 (while having been produced in 1982).PARASITE is noticeable for quite some aspects. One of them being that it was originally shot and released in theaters as a 3-D feature. While 3-Dimensional Photography was a popular phenomena in cinematic history during the 50's (CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON, anyone?), its popularity soon fizzled out by the decade's end. Fast forward to the early 80's and we encounter director/producer Charles Band as one of the people (in collaboration with 3-D specialist Randall Larsen) who revived 3-D for a short-lived period and brought it back to theaters. PARASITE was his contribution to the sudden but short wave of 3-D features to emerge around that time (FRIDAY THE 13th PART 3, AMITYVILLE 3-D and JAWS 3-D being the most famous ones). One year later Charles would make another 3-D feature, the sci-fi/adventure flick METALSTORM: THE DESTRUCTION OF JARED-SYN (another worthwhile watch, if you ask me). The use of the 3-D gimmick is integrated nicely with the rest of the movie (e.g. during a fist-fight you can see a snake lashing out at the camera; the titular parasite creature falling from the ceiling towards the camera positioned on the ground). The two most memorable scenes involving 3-D cinematography involve one killing (a guy gets impaled by an iron pipe; when the camera slowly closes in on the hollow pipe, blood starts dripping out of it) and the parasite-creature bursting out of the head of actress Viviane Blaine (well, not her real head, of course).The story itself is rather simplistic and sometimes moves at a slow pace, but there are a lot of enjoyable scenes to make up for that. A scientist, played by tormented-looking Robert Glaudini, flees from an oppressive paramilitary government, for which he created the flesh-eating parasite. He takes with him two specimens. One he keeps in a canister; the other creature… is growing inside his stomach. We don't get to see much of the futuristic paramilitary government, though. The only information we learn about it, is coming from the various characters our scientist meets when he's stranded in an isolated desert town (amongst them being a group of post-apocalyptic punks and a scarred-by-radiation black bartender). But... there is one black-suited (and laser-armed) villainous Government Agent (called "Wolf The Merchant" and sadistically played by James Davidson) on the hunt for him (it all leads to an enjoyable but short showdown near the end, of course). Children of the 80's will sure love the Lamborghini Countach Car he drives (complete with vertically opening doors). The acting even is fair enough for this type of movie, and another reason to watch this flick is that it stars no-one less than Demi Moore in her second motion picture role ever (although, indeed, one can clearly tell that Miss Moore was only just getting started with her acting career). She plays an all-American post-apocalyptic cutie (that even makes and sells lemonade), eventually teaming op with Robert Glaudini. A small role is also granted to Cherie Currie (Former lead singer of the Runaways).Another aspect of PARASITE worthwhile mentioning is the work of cinematographer Mac Ahlberg. For one thing, while around the same time (early 80's) his Italian colleagues were still obsessed with getting a spontaneous erection by touching the zoom-button on their camera's, Ahlberg prefers to use slow tracking shots every now and then while equipping his camera with wide-angled lenses. His images bring a dusty and desolate feeling to PARASITE. And then there's the contribution of Stan Winston, who designed the creature and did the make-up effects. While far from being his best work (hey, the man was just getting started too), most of the effects are quite grotesque, slimy and deliciously cheesy. I wouldn't want it any other way in a movie from the early 80's.I can understand that, to some, PARASITE might be considered a post-apocalyptic snooze-fest (with bad acting, bad special effects and whatever else they might find to nag about). But my love for it and the joy I got out of (re-)watching this slightly offbeat and rather obscure 80's gem, encourages me to be generous in my final rating. I can say one other thing too even: Once you've seen one of Charles Band's older movies and liked it, there's a big chance you'll like all his other stuff up until the early 90's too (whether he produced or directed it doesn't even matter). Reportedly, there were plans to produce an inevitable sequel back in the early 80's, simply titled PARASITE II. I think it's safe to say that, sadly, we can abandon all hope of that ever happening, in this year of writing, 2007.

DeanBitterman Overall, my first watch through Parasite left a bitter taste in my mouth. It came free with my Fright Pack: Man's Worst Friends, so I decided to sit through it. The plot is tired, and progresses very slowly. In fact an hour into the feature, I looked at the timer and wondered how it would wrap up in the next 30. One major problem was the lack of 3-D effects. As the tagline state "The first futuristic monster movie in 3-D". That being said some of the gore/jump scenes would have been very fun provided the 3-D effects were present. Monsters would pop out from dark spaces and laser beams would whiz over head in a spectacular Friday night movie shocker display. Expect some scenes of bloody violence which are actually pretty entertaining, and would satisfy the inner gore-hound. Seeing Demi Moore in her first ever movie role is fun. My suggestion is watching it as part of the fright pack set, otherwise spend your money elsewhere. Unless you love horrendous B-movies or a penchant to make your own MST3K movies, catch it on TV.