Actuarial Science Movie Reviews

Joss Whedon was so upset with the way things were going on the set of the movie, for which he wrote the screenplay but over which he exercised no artistic control, that he walked off the set. Indeed, this is a very hard movie to watch today after the TV series. I did, in fact, moderately enjoy the movie when it first came out. I actually appreciated and enjoyed the absurd tension contained in the title, an airhead bimbo cheerleader called upon to be her generation's vampire slayer. But viewed today, the movie isn't terribly successful, and is in fact made much worse by the genius of the television series. It isn't just a question of Sarah Michelle Gellar being more appealing in the title role than Kristy Swanson (though SMG's much smaller stature increases the paradox of a tiny girl beating up large, supernaturally strong vampires) or the movie missing all the familiar characters of the show; the movie is almost completely devoid of its own style, look, and feel. Although the TV series started off on a tiny budget, it instantly had a compelling look and visual style that the movie completely lacks. Furthermore, on TV they managed a coolness and hipness that the movie never comes close to. Unfortunately, the series has pretty much reduced the movie to a curio.

Many talk of the movie falling short of Joss Whedon's vision in writing the original script. Actually, overall the plot isn't too terribly different. Buffy doesn't burn down the gym at the end in the movie as Whedon wrote, but while there are many stylistic differences, many of the main plot elements were retained. I find the main difference between the movie and the series to be in the "how" they tell the story rather than the "what" in the story. Cleverness and intelligence permeates the TV show; the movie is nearly entirely devoid of those qualities. Take the death of vampires. In the movie, they get staked and simply fall down. In the TV series, they explode, which is not merely a spectacular special effect used to great purpose, but, as Joss Whedon mentions on the DVD commentary, leaves less clean up as there are not bodies. Also, in the movie, there isn't anywhere near the emotional depth that one finds in the series.

Another part of the problem with the movie is the casting. Kristy Swanson isn't bad except when compared to Gellar, but Donald Sutherland is just dreadful. He plays his part as if he were a cartoon character, with a degree of camp that subtracts considerably from his humanity. In fact, the performances are almost uniformly awful. Not just Sutherland, but Rutger Hauer (someone I have loved in many other movies, especially in his Dutch films) and Paul Reubens create one almost unwatchable scene after another. David Arquette is at his worst here as well. In fact, the vampires are both poorly conceived and horribly executed, in contrast to the TV series. Many have noted the number of performers in supporting roles who later became well known, such as Ben Affleck, Natasha Gregson Wagner, and Hillary Swank (not to mention Stephen Root, who memorably played Milton the stapler guy in OFFICE SPACE)

On top of all this, the thing that set the TV show apart from most other forms of popular entertainment was the degree to which it allowed for deep interaction among the various character, something made virtually impossible by the short format of a film (and something that in the long run should prove to be television's innate superiority over film, if it can ever overcome the resistance of television network execs to produce art rather than vehicles for selling airtime for commercials--my fear is that BUFFY could be an exception rather than a harbinger of things to come).

In short, while not an awful movie, the movie version of BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER is not the masterpiece the television series is.

This movie is based differently then the tv series, but one thing that I must say, is look for Ben Afflec as player 7 on the opposing team.

its not my favorite movie and it has some cheesy one liners and character holes but you gotta love the Buffy. Sarah Michelle Gellar is better in the TV series, but everyone knows that. Kristy Swanson is perfect as the bouncy blonde from Cali and Donald Sutherland plays Merrick well. Ruter Hauer is gay as The Master and Paul Reubens(PeeWee Herman) is hilarious. Luke Perry is great as Pike too. its playful and witty and full of sashy girls and some messed up vampires. It was written by Joss Whedon but he should of directed it and it would of been a whole lot better. lots of celebs you didnt know where in here pop up, like Ben Affleck(look quick for him as a baskeball player) also look quick for Ricki Lake. David Arquette, Thomas Jane, Stephen Root, Hilary Swank, Candy Clark and Natasha Gregson Wagner. if you look on the back of the box you'll see a redhaired kid vampire with glasses and a jockey, thats Seth Green, hes not in the movie and that part was supposed to bein there but they cut it out

There's an old slogan, often seen on license plates, "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven."

There's an old adage about movies. Sequels aren't as good as the originals.

Both are true for this movie.

"Meddigo: The Omega Code 2" is supposed to be a sequel to the "Omega Code," I guess. It delves deeply into the background of the Antichrist Stone Alexander, played by Michael York, but it skips around the ending of the first movie. It's given as an alternative, with the Antichrist coming to power, the abandoning the world come to revere him.

While it's a great concept, it's flawed in the execution, especially the climax. The climax is almost ludicrous. The actions of the heroes seem improbable. The Antichrist's minions reminded me of the Crimson Guard from the old GI Joe cartoon series. And the computer-generated Satan had me just shaking my head.

I enjoy seeing honest attempts at making movies that are spiritually based and entertaining, but honesty dictates I call a bad movie when I see one.

This movie is worth a rental, but to be honest I think you should save your money and buy something else you may enjoy better. The effects are good in this movie, that's the only reason why I gave it 2 stars. SOME of the acting is good, but its not that great. It really isn't a sequel. To me a sequel means the continuation of a story. This is anything but. The whole story line is different. It strays quite a bit from the 1st movie, even completely re-telling the story, different in every way, from the 1st movie.
I really thought this movie was horrible. The story just was not that good. I don't know how anyone thinks this could be even close to what is told in the Bible. Its got a very miniscule amount of a Biblical base to it, but it strays so far out there that its unrecognizable from anything you'd find in the Bible. Personally, I don't care about that, a movie is just a story to me. I just want people who might care about Biblical accuracy to know that this movie will not be anything they would care for.

Personally, I liked the first Omega Code better. The acting was good in it. Not great, but it wasn't horrible either. It was decent, and I liked the storyline alot better. That one is buyable, but this 2nd Omega Code movie is not worth the money to buy.

Megiddo, the superb follow-up to The Omega Code, is by without a doubt one of the best Christian end-times film I have ever seen. It is better than the first one in every way that counts, especially in the area of character development. Megiddo provides a greater perspective on the character of Stone Alexander, the young boy who is destined to become the future Antichrist, ruler of the world in the last days. We also meet Stone Alexander's younger brother, David, who is destined to become the one who exposes his brother for who he really is.

This film also shows in a greater light Stone Alexander's rise to power, showing how he came to be the world-ruling Antichrist, indwelt and empowered by Satan himself. David Alexander's character is greatly developed as well. We see how David comes to be a follower of God and how he is thrown in direct conflict with his evil brother.

Megiddo climaxes with the war of Armageddon, the final war of mankind's history. It vividly portrays the battle between good and evil, and the victory that good has over evil. Satan, portrayed in this movie as being a hideous dragon-like creature, is thrown into the bottomless pit as a result of the arrival of Christ Himself to the Earth to establish His millenial reign, transforming the devastated Earth into a paradise.

In concluding this review, I would like to take this opportunity to highly reccomend this film to anyone who enjoys a thrilling end-times thriller that depicts with uncanny accuracy God's plan for the ages as put forth in the Bible. 5 stars. Rated PG-13 for strong thematic elements, graphic violence, and disturbing images.

If you are not a fan, STAY AWAY! This feels more like "The Scorpion King" than Highlander....YUCK!
But its on my shelf of DVD's, 'cause I am a fan!

I remember seeing the trailer for this film, absolutely certain that it couldn't be much worse than the second sequel.

Isn't it just like Hollywood to surprise at will?

Not only was it worse than "The Quickening", it insulted most die-hard fans by the blatant re-scripting of the first film, and the uninspired casting of Mario Van Peeples as the main villain. There's a difference between over-the-top and conducting a seminar on hammy acting, and his performance fits the latter in this case.

The high points, if any, are the ... uh... naughty scenes involving the incredibly beautiful Deboragh Kara Unger, but the rest of the film is a bore. You'd do better to skip this and check out "Highlander:Endgame" if you're in need of a Highlander fix.

While this is certainly not the best of the movies, it's not THAT bad. At least they didn't hack this one apart and screw up the storyline like they did with that awful space garbage. Any Highlander selection is worth watching again and again, even if "There Can Be Only One..."

>As you can see, it's easy to find faults with this film. What's harder is expressing what's so great about [it].

Three guesses why that is.

>Indeed, Soderbergh's *Solaris* is remarkably free of dialogue altogether, which I personally found refreshing.

It is also remarkably free of content. Do you find that "personally " refreshing as well?

Unfortunately, Soderbergh's adaptation "Solaris" is not COMPLETELY free of flashback dialogue (dialogue contrived especially for this adaptation not found in its source), for that dialogue is distinctly puerile and insipid.

Well done above for writing the biggest review of a film about one shot of a man's naked body ever.

Now, the film. It's biggest flaws seem to stem from the script, Soderbergh's own. After his recent, brilliantly scripted movies Out Of Sight, The Limey, Erin Brokovich and Ocean's 11, Soderbergh should take this latest offering as proof that Sex, Lies And Videotape was a one-off. Not only is the dialogue from the present day story vague, it's also very clumsy and banal. I can practically see Soderbergh struggling to write realistic dialogue but not finding the words. I can also see him struggling to fill the space inbetween Kelvin arriving on the station and his dead wife showing up. Somewhere around there should have been the mystery of what happened to the crew, but there's nothing. When Mrs Kelvin shows up, things perk up a bit - Soderbergh had obviously got to the bit he was interested in - but even then the terrific acting (check out the scene where Clooney first sees McElhone on the station, or the "You keep saying that" line - phew) is tested to the limit by the clumsy dialogue.

As you can see, it's easy to find faults with this film. What's harder is expressing what's so great about. Performances, asthetic beauty and haunting atmosphere aside, the highlights of the film are not in the main storyline but in the flashbacks. Here, several scenes showing the faulty relationship back on Earth are improvised, and so not hindered by Soderbergh's uninvolving, beat-around-the-bush nonsense. Particularly effective (and moving) is the scene where Kelvin finds out what his wife has done. The more typical Soderbergh cinematography comes into it's own, and the two central performances astound, especially McElhone.

All in all, it comes down to where you, the viewer, are coming from as to whether it is the film's pros or cons are most prominent. If the pros, then the film's great acting, visuals and tone will carry you through the mess. If the cons, then it's just a series of pretty pictures.

It's horrible that they pumped so much effort into the budget of this movie, hired a terrific cast, promoted it like crazy, and never thought to do something as little as write the script.

I've never seen a cast with so much talent be wasted so completely just because there was nothing for them to do. I remember watching a scene where Samuel L. Jackson was reading, I was so bored I was actually envious that he had something to flip through ...

Don't waste your time with this. If you really want to see it that bad, make sure you at least rent it first; and if you do, don't forget a magazine to keep you busy with.

I really enjoyed the first two-thirds of this movie, but the plot ended up going in a really weird, awkward direction that culminated in a disappointing dead end of a conclusion. Worst of all, many questions are just never answered, and a little hocus pocus at the end only adds to the unfulfilling experience. I have to question a good bit of the science found in Sphere as well, but I'm willing to overlook that kind of thing if the story really delivers, and this story does not really deliver at all. The cast is an impressive one, the special effects are cool if not always ultra-realistic, and the movie does engender a feeling of wonder followed by an increasing sense of suspense throughout the first hour and forty five minutes or so, so it seems clear to me that the source of my dissatisfaction is the plot.

Dr. Norman Johnson (Dustin Hoffman), a psychologist, thinks he is being taken to the site of a plane crash in order to work with the survivors of the trauma, but the truth of the matter, which he discovers only after his arrival, is that he is supposed to lead a science team beneath the ocean to study the submerged remains of a spaceship. His fellow scientists are a motley crew, all of them named with little forethought in a report Johnson wrote years earlier on the subject of hypothetical contact with alien creatures. His team consists of a mathematician (Samuel L. Jackson), an astrophysicist (Live Schreiber), a biologist (Sharon Stone), and a mysterious military type of team leader (Peter Coyote). I can't conceive of the government bringing together such a group of private citizens for such an unprecedented investigation, and I know the government would have found out that Stone's character was Johnson's former patient and mistress with a suicide attempt under her belt. In a matter of hours, the scientists are rushed through deep sea environment training and sent down to the bottom of the ocean. From their underwater habitat, they attempt to study the huge spacecraft stretched out before them. They find evidence that the spaceship is actually an American craft, even though it crashed over three hundred years ago. After finding a huge, deeply mysterious sphere on board the ship, the crew strikes up a strange communication with an unknown, Hal-like entity. Soon thereafter, their habitat comes under attack by a giant squid, jellyfish attack, and all sorts of emergencies arise that place scientist against scientist in a mental fight for survival. There is a lot of exciting action as events work themselves out toward a conclusion.

The manifestations of the alien entity are given a pretty quirky explanation, and this becomes problematic as events race toward a final climax. That final climax is hardly a final climax at all, as suddenly the survivors adopt a completely new view of the sphere and of their incredible experiences at the bottom of the ocean. The movie moved along in fourth gear until the final few scenes, at which point somebody threw the whole thing into reverse; this does nothing and no one any good, especially we passengers who booked passage on the trip. The whole thing ended up being way too hokey for my tastes, with an ending that did not do justice to all of the work that led up to it.

A LIAR PSICHIATRIC, TWO PRODIGYS MATHEMATICIANS AND A BIOCHIMIST AND ALSO THE CHIEF !!!
A Good team surely but only initialy morely formed with FIVE MEMBERS an som others outside the weird VESSEL BY 1,86 MILLES OF DEEPNESS PROFUNDITY ABYSS whitch it WAIT EVER SINCE MANY CENTURIES AGO THAT EVENTUALLY AT LAST AN OR SEVERAL ENTITY WANT FINALLY COMME SEE IT AND IT !!! THIS IS HE !, A VERY STRANGE THING NOT HUMAN WHO ALIVE, WHO IS ABLE TO GIVE IN REALITY ANY DREAM OF ANY HUMAN OR OTHER ENTITY, THEN, THE TEAM COME EASILY IN THIS VERY STRANGE "ALIEN" SPACECRAFT ??? WHOLE IT'S SHOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE THE OTHER ALSO STRANGE METAL SHOULD BE INDESTRUCTIBLE !!! BUT HE IS ALIVE, HE CAN THINK ! THEN, AFTER THAT WHEN THEY ARE (THE CREW) (THE EQUIPAGE) WITHIN THE THING, THEY FINDS A PERFECT SPHERE WITCH IS ABLE TO BRING ABOUT MANY DISASTERS WHEN ALL OF THE EQUIPAGE COME INSIDE TIME AFTER TIME THIS SPHERE WITH A VERY STRANGE PROCESS WITCH GIVE OR MAKE BE BORN ANY DREAM WITH VERY BADS AFTERMATH FOR THEM WHO HAVE VENTURED TAKE THE ADVENTURIOUS PERILS INHERENTS AT THIS PRODIGIOUS ENTITY !!! A VERY GOOD MOVIE !!! YES !!! WHEN THE THING SPEAK WITH THE COMPUTER THIS IS THE BEST FOR ME BUT SHARON STONE DUSTIN HOFFMAN AN SAMUEL L. JACKSON ARE SPLENDIDS ACTORS !!! A STORY WHITCH GIVE AN IDEA OF 20 000 LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA AS MUCH AS THE FAMOUS BOOK WHO take in his hand and read SAMUEL !!! NO ????

Look...I've learned, to enjoy any of these Hollywood Blockbusters, it is wise to accept a certain amount of movie logic. Without doing so, movies can drive one crazy with just common since issues alone. Since I've taken on this philosophy and have allowed some movie logic to flow freely I have truly enjoyed movies...more than ever. After all, movies are an escape right? So a little silliness is okay.
With that said, The Core is not only full of movie logic, The Core is full of lame twists and turns that fall short of any enjoyable entertainment! While the special effects are fantastic, they cannot carry this film into a quality movie.
I tried very hard to like this movie. In fact, I really wanted to like it because I love end of the world movies. I just can't, in good conscience, recommend this film. It's lame...to THE CORE.

The Core is another disaster flick in the mold of Armageddon, Deep Impact, or Indepedence Day. Although, not as much fun as Armaggeddon or ID4, it's not as bad as Deep Impact either. No, it ends up smack in the middle of all those examples and beyond.

When Earth's magnetic field causes major disaters to occur, like pacemakers to stop working, the Space Shuttle to go off course, and animals to act strange, experts determine that the planet's center has stopped spinning. Within a year, the population, is doomed. Experts offer a slim chance--travel to the center, and kick start the core.

As with any film like this, the charaters can end up being interchangable and one note Here though at least, Stanley Tucci as smug Zimsky, Delroy Lindo as Brazzelton, and Alfre Woodard in a relativly small role, provide some spark. The leads, Aaron Eckheart and Hillary Swank are effectivly overshadowed as a result. Director Jon Amiel does an adequate job with the film. It has some great looking visuals and excitement, but in the end, is hampered by a very predictible script. Once it got going, it's easy to figure out. I know all of these films are like that, but what separates The Core from say Armageddon, is that sense of fun or wink, wink attitude--films like this need that to be a true grand slam.

The DVD extras are, like the film itself, are OK. The audio commentary by Amiel is a pretty techical track and probably could have used another participants to juice it up a bit. "To The Core And Back - The Making Of The Core" is a typical making of featurette. Since I liked the visual effects of the film though, I found "The Deconstruction of the Visual Effects" works a bit better. This group of shorts take a look into how the CGI and practical effects were realized. There are 10 deleted/extended scenes with optional director commentary that offer a few nice nuggets but that's all. Rounding out the disc are a series of trailers, for other video products, but oddly The Core theatrical trailer is not to be found anywhere.

The Core is only recommended as a good Saturday night rental--nothing more.

We've been to the stars and to the depths of the ocean, and now in "The Core" we can apparently swim in the dirt. I was a bit skidish about "The Core" when, in the openng scene 30+ people just drop dead. (Most likely the test screening audience) Next, in true Hitchcockinan form, a huge flock of pigeons go loco and destoy every window in downtown London. What does this have to do with the "Core"? Good question. But here comes a college professor who sucks at playing the trumpet to figure out that it's just the beginning of the end the world. Seems that middle earth (sorry J.R.R.) has the hiccups and it's up to a rag-tag team of heros to save the day. Yes they're all here: the genious kiddie hacker (tasked with controlling the entire internet so that 6 billion people don't realize there is anything wrong -- WHAT?!?!), two semi-disgraced astronauts, the excentric but lovable scientist, the egocentric and pompas scientist and a French guy thrown in for good measure. They board a revolutionary new craft called Virgil (designed and built in 3 months mind you) that can burrow it's way to the center of the earth and thereby save the day. Okey-Dokey. Soon after the mission begins, the cliches start flying. Unforseen obstacles, the usual mechincal malfunctions and of course the team members start dropping like flies one at a time. I'm not gonna tell you which ones, of course, but you'll figure it out easily enough -- believe me. The always entertaining Delroy Lindo turns in yet another highly under-rated performance as the mastermind behind the craft and Hillary Swank does a passable job portaying an astronaut with a lot to learn about herself. But the implausability factor of this disaster pic is just to darned high to overcome. Mindless at best and downright dumb in others, still "Core" has some pretty impressive effects that might be enough for you to rent it. I would just wait until it's off the "New Releases" shelf and save yourself some dough.

Look...I've learned, to enjoy any of these Hollywood Blockbusters, it is wise to accept a certain amount of movie logic. Without doing so, movies can drive one crazy with just common since issues alone. Since I've taken on this philosophy and have allowed some movie logic to flow freely I have truly enjoyed movies...more than ever. After all, movies are an escape right? So a little silliness is okay.
With that said, The Core is not only full of movie logic, The Core is full of lame twists and turns that fall short of any enjoyable entertainment! While the special effects are fantastic, they cannot carry this film into a quality movie.
I tried very hard to like this movie. In fact, I really wanted to like it because I love end of the world movies. I just can't, in good conscience, recommend this film. It's lame...to THE CORE.

The Core is another disaster flick in the mold of Armageddon, Deep Impact, or Indepedence Day. Although, not as much fun as Armaggeddon or ID4, it's not as bad as Deep Impact either. No, it ends up smack in the middle of all those examples and beyond.

When Earth's magnetic field causes major disaters to occur, like pacemakers to stop working, the Space Shuttle to go off course, and animals to act strange, experts determine that the planet's center has stopped spinning. Within a year, the population, is doomed. Experts offer a slim chance--travel to the center, and kick start the core.

As with any film like this, the charaters can end up being interchangable and one note Here though at least, Stanley Tucci as smug Zimsky, Delroy Lindo as Brazzelton, and Alfre Woodard in a relativly small role, provide some spark. The leads, Aaron Eckheart and Hillary Swank are effectivly overshadowed as a result. Director Jon Amiel does an adequate job with the film. It has some great looking visuals and excitement, but in the end, is hampered by a very predictible script. Once it got going, it's easy to figure out. I know all of these films are like that, but what separates The Core from say Armageddon, is that sense of fun or wink, wink attitude--films like this need that to be a true grand slam.

The DVD extras are, like the film itself, are OK. The audio commentary by Amiel is a pretty techical track and probably could have used another participants to juice it up a bit. "To The Core And Back - The Making Of The Core" is a typical making of featurette. Since I liked the visual effects of the film though, I found "The Deconstruction of the Visual Effects" works a bit better. This group of shorts take a look into how the CGI and practical effects were realized. There are 10 deleted/extended scenes with optional director commentary that offer a few nice nuggets but that's all. Rounding out the disc are a series of trailers, for other video products, but oddly The Core theatrical trailer is not to be found anywhere.

The Core is only recommended as a good Saturday night rental--nothing more.

We've been to the stars and to the depths of the ocean, and now in "The Core" we can apparently swim in the dirt. I was a bit skidish about "The Core" when, in the openng scene 30+ people just drop dead. (Most likely the test screening audience) Next, in true Hitchcockinan form, a huge flock of pigeons go loco and destoy every window in downtown London. What does this have to do with the "Core"? Good question. But here comes a college professor who sucks at playing the trumpet to figure out that it's just the beginning of the end the world. Seems that middle earth (sorry J.R.R.) has the hiccups and it's up to a rag-tag team of heros to save the day. Yes they're all here: the genious kiddie hacker (tasked with controlling the entire internet so that 6 billion people don't realize there is anything wrong -- WHAT?!?!), two semi-disgraced astronauts, the excentric but lovable scientist, the egocentric and pompas scientist and a French guy thrown in for good measure. They board a revolutionary new craft called Virgil (designed and built in 3 months mind you) that can burrow it's way to the center of the earth and thereby save the day. Okey-Dokey. Soon after the mission begins, the cliches start flying. Unforseen obstacles, the usual mechincal malfunctions and of course the team members start dropping like flies one at a time. I'm not gonna tell you which ones, of course, but you'll figure it out easily enough -- believe me. The always entertaining Delroy Lindo turns in yet another highly under-rated performance as the mastermind behind the craft and Hillary Swank does a passable job portaying an astronaut with a lot to learn about herself. But the implausability factor of this disaster pic is just to darned high to overcome. Mindless at best and downright dumb in others, still "Core" has some pretty impressive effects that might be enough for you to rent it. I would just wait until it's off the "New Releases" shelf and save yourself some dough.

This movie has continuity errors and is not very funny. They could have done better.

i had hoped the audio commentary,deleted scenes etc would make up for what the film itself lacked.they did'nt.

Sure, this movie's not the best in the Star Trek series but I still don't understand how it became the whipping boy of the franchise amongst fans. Critics are in good company as my dad hates this movie as well. But I still say "Final Frontier" is better than "Generations" and "Insurrection" and far and away better than the first movie and "Search for Spock." It's a shame Shatner's original vision was considered too contraversial, but the search for God in a Star Trek movie was still a pretty bold move and I feel the flaws in the movie weren't THAT bad. To show where I stand, here's my order of preference for all 10 Trek movies:

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
Star Trek: First Contact
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
Star Trek: Nemesis
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
Star Trek: Insurrection
Star Trek: Generations
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
Star Trek: The Motion Picture

Yes folks, it really is THAT bad. Brando is funny playing a loon, but then he gets killed for no good reason. His mini-Brando sidekick is pitifully ugly, too; you feel sad looking at him. David Thewlis is a fine actor, but he has trouble reacting properly to the people in bad make-up and the computer generated mutant rats. Somehow, everything explodes in the end. This is a horrible film, not even so-bad-it's-good (like, say, Showgirls).

I borrowed this dvd from the library and a few times while I was watching it, I almost turned it off. It has some unsettling scenes, silly-looking humans made up to look like human/animal hybrids, and way too much animal screeching noise. The performances of the lead characters kept me watching. Brando, Thewlis, Kilmer and Balk all gave interesting performances which made me curious to see what would happen to their characters. Thewlis' dialog seemed strangely archaic, as if he had stepped out of another time period and into this movie. I felt both revulsion and pity for the hybrids and humans trapped on their island either by their own doings or the machinations of others. A sultry, twisted, fascinating train wreck of a movie.

Im a fan of strange and deep meaning films, so this is right up my alley!

I first saw this movie in the theater when I was 16 years old and I liked it back then, but I have a new and better apreciation for it now that Im older and wiser. At the age of 16 I would describe this movie as strange and scary. At the current age of 24, I would describe the movie as well casted, strange, scary, deeply thought provoking, excellent cinematography and written to the T!! A better and more scary soundtrack definetly could have enhanced this film, but its still great!

The deep meaning I got out of the film is this... We are born into a world that is not perfect and sometimes unfair. We can revolt against this unperfect world and self destruct our own lives, or we can play by the rules and strive for peace.

The idea of crossing animals with humans to create something more perfect is an interesting idea. We could get something more sinister and brutal then humans, but we could also get something more passionate, faithful and understanding. This movie plays on both of those possibilities very well...

If your looking for a very twisted version of a "Lord of the flies" type movie, then check this out!

Oh John where have you gone? HALLOWEEN...THE FOG...THE THING...These were your truly good movies. Since then, we've had to go from THE SERPENT AND THE RAINBOW to VAMPIRES to this uproariously bad movie! If you intended it to be high camp, well then I would give you three or four stars, but it seems as though you weren't aiming for camp, or it would have been campier! Awful special effects; there's one scene when they're on the train that it looks like a cardboard box. Awful acting...except for Jason Statham, who appared to be enjoying himself. Ice Cube was as cold as his name; Natasha Hensridge should play non-speaking parts, although in this one she isn't even that attractive; shame on Pam Grier for joining the crew. It's like Carpenter cast the real zombies from NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD. And the music, oh John, how awful. It was so distracting from the movie!!! What made HALLOWEEN so effective was it's "ordinariness"--one could actually feel it's reality; THE THING was likewise ominous in its wondering who was possessing who? This face should definitely join the list of the worst sci-fi films made. Yuck!

Ghost of Mars is the type of movie they don't seem to make anymore. John Carpenter borrows elements from a number of his previous films, most obviously Assault on Precinct 13, The Thing, and The Fog, as well as genre staples like Night of the Living Dead, Aliens, and the entire western genre. He also foregoes the excessive CGI typical of a sci-fi action film these days and settles into B-movie territory with gusto. He loves cheese, he loves rebellious statements about society and politics delivered between head bashing action and heavy metal riffs.

In the year 2176, some cops (led by the gorgeous Natasha Henstridge) are traveling to a mining city on Mars to transfer a dangerous prisoner (Ice Cube). They find the city completely empty save for a few bodies, but the prisoners are still sitting in jail. It's not long before they discover a tribe of very angry mutants who seem to enjoy self-mutilation, sharp weapons, and a lot of killing. It turns out that some miners unwittingly unlocked a vault that was keeping some kind of alien life form thingee trapped inside, so we have a little bit of The Keep as well. (Now there's a bad sci fi movie to borrow from if there ever was one). This life form is airborne and takes over people, turning them into speedy zombies that like driving blades through their own flesh, screaming a lot in front of bonfires, and wreaking havoc.

So we get some Rio Bravo (the basis for Assault) action as the cops and criminals band together to blow away the creatures with weapons from the present day. Strange, but today's soldiers seem better equipped than the people in this movie are; it would be like outfitting the US Army in 2003 with muskets.

The head zombie looks like he should be fronting a Norwegian Black Metal band as his role calls for a lot of screaming, waving of a rubbery sword, and Viking action, and the other zombies look like understudies for KISS or GWAR, which lends the film a silly, fun quality. I'm not sure why they're so angry, especially since the humans freed them...

Henstridge clearly cannot act; not sure if Species had a bigger budget than this or not, but that film at least had her running around naked when the violence wasn't exploding on the screen. Her face is very chiseled, but she seems to be thinking of something else (her best 'acting' comes during her drug induced high battle with the demons). Pam Grier shows up, briefly, before her severed head makes an appearance. Jason Statham is always fun with his English equivalent of a Brooklyn accent. Ice Cube, as the criminal James 'Desolation' Williams (er, right) scowls most of the time and gets to do some gangsta action with two guns (check out that chrome plated gun at the end) as well as sport a leather jacket that looks like he wore it to the set that day. Joanna Cassidy shows up to give some exposition and little else.

This is a fatalistic movie, with most of the characters eventually being sliced and diced. It has a typical Carpenter ending, which is always welcome amid the typical Hollywood action endings. There's even a pro-drug message at one point (go Carpenter!)

However, what I can't figure out is how this film, made in 2001, can look cheaper than lower budget flicks Carpenter made earlier in his career. If Carpenter was going for pure B-movie fodder, he succeeded almost too well. In typical Carpenter fashion, the director composes the music himself (apparently with help of Anthrax). It seems hard to believe it even got a theatrical release, given the look of the film. It's like it fell out of 1982 or something, with sets that look like they sprinkled some Star Trek props with red dust. Apparently, people can breathe on Mars now, even with those hot white lights that Carpenter has hanging just out of camera range.

I love John Carpenter, but I have to wonder what's up with his career. He probably has difficulty getting funding for his movies, and I fear another movie like this and he could be off to straight-to-DVD-land. He does, however, get a lot of credit for just not caring about typical Hollywood norms anymore and doing what he wants to do (remaking his previous films).

Ghosts of Mars is a cheesy movie, period. Carpenter clearly misses B-movies of yore, genre films that didn't have to be mega-blockbusters. It's definitely a good cheap DVD pickup with plenty of potential for repeat viewings of the mayhem that ensues on screen (have to love the head zombies excessive screaming and posing). This might offend even Carpenter addicts, but it's a guilty pleasure, completely, totally unpretentious, and fun.

Though John Carpenter had more "misses" than "hits" in the 1980's through the 1990's, this movie stands out. It features great direction, almost 3 dimensional characters, an orignal futuristic plot, and great music. In sum, it's pure Carpenter.

Good DVD extras.

Highly recommended.