The Inhabited Island

2008
5.1| 1h55m| en
Details

On the threshold of 22nd century, furrowing the space, protagonist from the Free Search Group makes emergency landing on an unknown planet where he must stay. People who are living on this planet have remained at the stone level of the 20th century, with its social problems, miserable ecology and shaky world..

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

Stream on any device, 30-day free trial Watch Now

Trailers & Clips

Reviews

BroadcastChic Excellent, a Must See
Melanie Bouvet The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.
Neive Bellamy Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.
Tyreece Hulme One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.
mixoptical I have read and enjoyed the book and decided to watch this movie. First let me point out that I was really excited about it so perhaps my expectations were a bit high.This movie is based on a great (in my opinion) novel. The story is captivating and original. This movie keeps close to the the book with minor differences, which sadly affect the experience very dramatically.The creators absolutely discarded the atmosphere of the book. The gray apocalyptic setting of the novel was transformed into circus-like colorful (yellow and blue) scene. The world, on which the main character finds himself stranded seems more like it came from a funny cartoon rather than unbelievably horrible, hopeless and altogether dark "end of days" scenario, as it is described in the book. The main aspect became the special effects that are there just for the sake of showing off the computer graphics abilities, and are seen with no connection to what is going on in the movie.The acting is terrible, it seems as though they picked random people from the street and asked them to act. There are no visible emotions, besides anger, and the anger itself seems just like a crazy person making a "scary face" as it performed by most of the actors.To summarize, the movie suits someone with mental level of a five year old, although i wouldn't show that much violence to a five year old...
hmsgroop Those who have watched the film may remember the following episode – Guy and Rada are sitting in front of TV during the Entertainment Hour and goggling happily. What is entertainment on Saraksh is visions and dreams of ‘psychotic’ individuals. It struck me that ALL the film industry the way we know it is projecting nothing but visions and dreams of certain individuals, too(and sometimes these visions and images are no better than those shown in ‘Obitaemyy ostrov’). And book fiction is the same. So what’s the difference between Earth and Saraksh in terms of culture then? And the towers are here, too. Look around – here are the TV towers and radio towers. They project these visions and dreams to the same effect as on Saraksh. Scary, isn’t it? Where are we?On the other hand, where would the world be without this day-dreaming and wool-gathering? Do culture and a sort of hypnotic suggestion go hand in hand? How free in our minds are we really? Sad smile.
donche_ru Can't understand all this negative hysteria. Most of which is actually about nothing ("crap! oh, such a crap! totally crap!" often mentioning that Bondarchuk is a bad director). Well, I can partly understand those who admired the original book (which is really worth reading) as they may have imagined everything in different manner (this is particularly true for sci-fi adaptations). But very often I read comments of people who seemed to be negatively oriented even before they really watched the film. The movie is not piece of art. It really takes a lot from classic sci-fi movies (from costumes designs to city views). And directing sometimes is confusing. But the film has one strong point - the plot, original story that authors reflected rather well. Special effects are good (they were performed by American specialists), acting is not bad (dramatic acting usually is not required in sci-fi action movies). In essence, the movie is good and worth seeing. Don't take negative comments for granted.BTW as far as I know Boris Strugaztsky (the one of two brothers who is still alive) liked the adaptation.
Mokaeff It doesn't help you much that you might have a great novel at your hands if you can’t render it in comprehensive and clear-cut screenplay. Yesterday I watched Inhibited Island (thereafter Island) and could not find the story. It took me half the way through the movie to catch dizzy glimpses of what was happening there. Though, there are many great films where you keep looking for answers even after final credits. Island is, certainly, not one of them.The plot is weak at all points. The characters are cut-outs, one dimensional, lacking any insight. Their actions and motives are not clear, and this is obviously director’s fault and miscalculation. This movie has no suspense. Neither does it any plot twists nor unanticipated revelations. Acting is ludicrous, to say the least. It is very disheartening to watch many good actors drifting towards the borders of emptiness under a great direction of Fedor Bondarchuk. Andrei Merzlikin, for instance, is capable of portraying much more interesting and vivid character. In Island he had to downsize himself to copy-cat Gary Oldman from The Fifth Element. It’s pathetic.It is a risky business to compete head-on with the Hollywood on their own turf. It came as no surprise as Island fell hard on its face when attempted to depict the whole Universe with the brushes which such artists, as George Lucas (Star Wars) and Luc Besson (The Fifth Element) had used up so successfully. Evidently, it is not enough to download Maya or 3D Max. You need to have something else to pull the magic.Second rated TV companies can justifiably claim to have produced much more elaborate and interesting shows in terms of production design, wardrobe, props, and film vehicles. Island has nothing fresh and original to offer. It is all that boring seen-half-million-times-before stuff we’re fed up with. This time it is cheaper and amateurish than ever. It felt phony everywhere.Action scenes. This is my opinion: If you can’t make them work the way in which their superiority stands for a mile, there is no reason to make them. All action scenes here are clumsy, cinematography is boring, editing followed the pattern. When after fist combat you start thinking, ‘Why the heck didn’t they simply shoot him’, It is a clear indication that something’s wrong.If the budget were about $M 3-5 I'd say it is kinda funny movie to watch and forget. With the budget they've had (estimated $M 36-40), I suppose people are to expect much more interesting, intelligent and entertaining show. I didn't read a book this movie is based on. Hence all my comments relate only to movie.