Actuarial Science Movie Reviews

The movies are: In the Year 2889, Journey to the Center of Time, Idaho Transfer & The Day Time Ended. A mixed bag for sure. Idaho has the most interest whereas Journy is probably the most known. These are mostly MST3K material at best but OK for the price. I really wanted the movie "Time Travelers" to be included but it was a grab bag.

Alright, this movie started out as a straight-forward sci-fi epic about the first ship on venus. Filmed in eastern europe (I've heard it was made in hungary, poland, czechaslovachia, and / or russia; take your pick) in 1963 or so, Roger Corman got a hold of it, brought it to america, and "fixed" the film for american audiences. Some "dull" scenes were removed and scenes with Faith Demergue (floating in a spacestation) and Basil Rathbone (at a moonbase) were added. Both performers seem as bored as they are boring. This "new" movie was called VOYAGE TO THE PREHISTORIC PLANET. Next, in about 1967, Corman removed the Demergue / Rathbone scenes, turned over the camera to Derek Thomas (aka: a young Peter Bogdanovich), and inserted Mamie Van Doran and a host of scantilly-clad uber babes. Thus, the confoundingly confusing mess, VOYAGE TO THE PLANET OF PREHISTORIC WOMEN was born! Instead of a venusian adventure, it's a playboy bunny sunbathing contest, with a few astronauts and a robot running around! Unfortunately, there's a load of unnecessary narration in this one that's only slightly less painful than swallowing a porcupine. I'm not really complaining. I mean, I enjoy this type of hyper-schlock. If you like babes in seashell bras (and who doesn't), then this one's for you...

It is in the tradition of mad max as the cover says (not Road Warrior), and I can see how it won awards at the festivals because it really is a decent flick for what it is. It does of course, lack the sheen of a hollywood production. If you like sci-fi though, and even sometimes like what others may consider bad sci-fi, then give it spin (I suggest rent).

There are some holes in the story, though it is original. The acting is pretty good, and there is an intensity feeling throughout most of the movie that you may or may not like. The ending could have been better, it feels like the producers were glad to get it over with (probably from shooting in the desert).

I love the poem Beowulf. I've read it several times in the original verse and it is one of the greatest epics in English literature. Several years ago when I heard they were making a movie of this classic tale and that Christopher Lambert was scheduled to star as the legendary hero, I thought it was a good thing. However, I was wrong.

The only thing BEOWULF shares with the classic poem is the name of the hero, the name of the king (Hrothgar), Grendel, and Grendel's mother. That's where the similarities end.

The plot of this film is terrible. The acting is lame (Lambert does a decent job, but his character just doesn't fit in this world). The soundtrack is horrendous and feels like something out of a rave instead of a castle on the outer limits of space. The special effects aren't too bad, but considering the multi-million budget of this movie, they are rather crummy. The lighting in the movie is terrible and detracts from what little action occurs on screen. The dialogue is really bad too, but I guess the sfx budget kept the filmmakers from hiring decent writers.

Overall, BEOWULF is terrible. Not only does it rip apart a classic piece of English literature, but it's even a disgrace to the sci-fi/fantasy genre. Not recommended at all.

The epic poem that is Beowulf ranks as one of the greatest pieces of literature man has ever produced. When a reader ponders the ideas found within this wonderful work of art the mind simply boggles at the depth and richness running throughout the poem. Glimpses of the old Europe abound in this tale about Hrothgar, Beowulf, Grendel, and Grendel's mother, a Europe of drinking halls, campaigns of conquest, human destiny, and dark monsters creeping through the night. Simultaneously, a reader of Beowulf glimpses the stirrings of Christianity, which would soon overrun all of Europe and put an end to the old ways. Scholars of Beowulf never tire of writing articles and books about this piece of literature and new translations of the work continually appear. If you wish to read Beowulf, and I recommend you do so as quickly as possible, check out the spectacular Seamus Heaney translation. Do not, under any circumstances, watch this cinematic version of Beowulf in lieu of reading the poem. Not only does this movie not follow the epic in any significant way, the film also takes a decidedly B movie approach to the whole topic. "Beowulf" stars Z movie star Christopher Lambert as the enigmatic hero, another point you would do well to consider before popping this disc in your DVD player.

At some point in the future, in a time never elaborated upon by the filmmakers, a fortress stands watch on the borderland between good and evil. The soldiers in the fort, led by a king named Hrothgar and his right hand man Roland, fight endlessly with a mysterious creature who shambles out of the dark each night to claim a new victim. The garrison rapidly diminishes under the onslaught of this malevolent apparition until one day a man rides up to the fort claiming that his destiny involves fighting evil. This man is Beowulf, played with mind deadening woodenness by a bleach blonde Christopher Lambert. The men manning the fort are naturally suspicious of this new arrival, but after Beowulf fights the creature to a standstill the men are more accepting of his presence. In no time at all, Beowulf antagonizes Roland, wins the admiration of Hrothgar, and catches the eye of the king's busty daughter Kyra. The killings continue unabated until the big showdown between Beowulf and Grendel, the name of the being haunting the soldiers in the castle. A further surprise appears in scenes involving Hrothgar's dream encounters with a mysterious blonde apparition, a woman who has something to do with the death of the king's wife and who eventually plays a big role at the end of the film.

Initially, I warmed to "Beowulf." Despite Lambert in the lead role, most of the actors did a better than expected job in their roles. The gorgeous Rhona Mitra did an adequate turn playing Hrothgar's daughter. Charles Robinson, who played Mac on "Night Court," does as much as he can in the role of the fort's chief weapons master, and the actors playing Hrothgar and Roland did acceptable work as well. The set pieces looked better than average for a B movie, as did the armor and weapons used by the characters. The movie starts with a nice fight scene between Beowulf and a small army outside of the fort, and this too gave me hope that the movie would rise above my original expectations. As the movie wore on, I discovered my interest waned considerably. The CGI effects used for Grendel and his mother looked cheesy and uninteresting, and Lambert's portrayal of Beowulf tended to grate after the first thirty minutes. The soundtrack contributed greatly to my sense of irritation. The filmmakers saw fit to imbue this project with a booming techno beat, and used it every chance they got whether the scene called for it or not. Sometimes this music does work, but far too often it distracts and annoys. To keep boredom at bay, I began to count how many times Beowulf executed fancy back flips during the combat sequences. In fact, it seemed that the only thing Lambert's character did after awhile was jump around, strike poses, and mutter cryptic phrases about the evil in the fort. As the final credits rolled, I knew I had just finished watching a typical B movie stinker.

The "Beowulf" DVD is far from a bare bones sort of release. There is a trailer for the film, along with additional trailers for films like "Scream 3." A short behind the scenes featurette is also available. The movie itself looks good for a low budget bomb, and you should still have a good time watching the nice looking women in this movie even if you cannot stomach the lousy dialogue or abominable special effects. "Beowulf" is a must see for those who get a kick out of science fiction cheese films or fans of Christopher Lambert, but all others should stay away.

It wasn't as good as I had hoped, but it was better than I feared it could have been. Nothing embarassingly awful about it, just a good action flick.

This has to be one of the worst sci-fi movie to have been released in the last decade. The story line is absurd and the script is weak. No good actor could have saved this film from being the trash that it is. The good special effects don't help either: this movie is just plain stupid and not even worthy of one star!

Many feedback I see from others are concentrated on the script. For those people who underrated this film, I suggest you study space exploration first, and then rate this movie !!
I would say that this movie is scientifically accurate, the effects(especially the computer graphics), the story, the plot, the casting, the soundtrack are all very good. I would say that in order to accurately rate this movie, these criterias must be taken into consideration before giving it a "single star".

The idea of humans originating from Mars may not be acceptable to some but that's exactly the whole point of this movie...to inspire the viewers about human exploration to Mars. It is true that the tests performed by Viking landers show no sign of life on Mars, but there is no evidence yet that there have never been any form of life on Mars. We would only know that when we send humans to Mars.
As we know, we already have the technological capability to actually send people to Mars. The only reason this is not being done is because of political reasons. This movie appeals for human exploration to Mars.

Imagine how this movie visualized many of the the intriguing questions in a very entertaining way!!
Artificial Gravity (in order for humans not to sustain brain/bone damage due to low-gravity during long-range travel exposure), the huge long crater found on Mars that's about the size of United States, the face found in Cedonia-Mars (which is very very true - see NASA homepage for more details), the sudden explosion of life on earth!!
The only thing that would have perfected this movie was accurately visualizing low gravity on Mars.
This is good entertainment for both amateur and professional astronomers. I would enjoy watching this movie rather than Star Wars Episode 2!!!

This is my most beloved movie. I have watched it over at the least 125 times. It is the most interesting movie ever! It's like everytime you watch it, you catch on to something new in the story line.

Personally, I don't see why alot of the people on here are dissing it. When it comes to movies, it's very hard to please me. If you are going to take someones word, take mine, BUY IT! If not at the least rent it a the video rental store and see the movie for yourself.

the hell sequence in this movie, with "the devil" is without a doubt the worst CGI i have ever seen in my life. I think I've seen more convincing effects on atari video games. god this was weak.

Oh dear. Spawn certainly falls short of everything that made the comic such a big hit. The action sequences are good, yes, but who cares? It's all show and no substance. More could have been done to: show the effect Spawn has on those around him; show his inner conflict, the 'whatever he does is bad' theme present in the comics; make Cogliostro less an interfering Yoda-figure and more of a mentor, the only one who gives a rat's ass about Spawn; make Malebolgia more convincing, and fix the Hell scenes; cut out the random elements which spoil it, such as the Clown's face on the spade, the way the Violator turns into a bookshelf and back again, the way Spawn's cape never seems to know whether it's coming or going.
It was a good idea, the opening sequence is fantastic. The hell vortex? Then the example of Simmons in action? Excellent. You know he's a good guy straight away. But a crap script, horrendous miscasting of Leguizamo as Clown, and a dumbing down of the major themes turned this potential blockbuster into a B-movie nightmare.

It's OK i guess... everyone says it sucks. But i mean its action stuff is sick. The clown's pretty good though. I've always liked the special effects. Why is it rated R? It's fine exept for if you get it on DVD w/ the Marilyn Manson video which is horrible and gross. Yet again, get the anime version.

And that just might be an understatement. If there was any way of rating this movie 0 stars, I would have... Here's the story in a nuttshell... The alliens took over the world (naturally). About 50 alliens (that's how many I've counted) run the earth, and exploit it. A bunch of postapocalyptic cavemen who managed to survive for a thousand years on a polluted planet decide that they've had enough. So they wipe the dust off 1000 years old airplanes, and kick some allien butt, destrying the alliens' home planet while they're at it... I'm really disappointed that Forrest Whitaker accepted a role in this film... For the most part of the movie I wasn't too sure whether I was watching SF or a parody... If you prefer the latter, might I suggest the "Spaceballs"? :))

Based on a portion of the L. Ron Hubbard sci-fi pulp bestseller, BATTLEFIELD EARTH presents the story of earth some one thousand years after it has been colonized by invaders from outer space, who seek to rob the earth of its precious metals. The human race has been almost eliminated: most have been exterminated, a few have been kept for slave labor, and a handful survive in pockets of tribal communities. When one member of a tribal society (Barry Pepper) is captured for slave labor, a combination of circumstance and personal heroism provide him with the opportunity to lead a revolt.

All that sounds very well, but there are three things wrong with the movie: John Travolta, the script, and everything else. Travolta's work has always been up and down, sometimes great and sometimes truly dire, but his appearance here as the evil invader Terl is easily the single worst performance he has given in his entire career. No matter how you look at the thing, Travolta is as much like a bad guy from outer space as banana pudding--and really, I do believe that any self-respecting dish of banana pudding could have done a better job.

As for the script, it's really one of the strangest things I've ever heard. In scenes with the aliens (called Psychlos), the dialogue actually sounds rather like a bad parody of a Noel Coward drawing-room farce. The dialogue for the humans is equally absurd, playing out like a cross between BRAVEHEART and the more uninspired pages of a Barbara Cartland novel. And while I'm willing to suspend disbelief to a certain extent, the plot has zero plausibility--even to the point of insulting viewer intelligence.

As for everything else, to give the film its due there are occasional design ideas and shots that seem interesting--but they are buried under a ton of very bad ideas that have been very badly executed. The costume and make-up designs for the Psychlos look rather like bad drag at a leather bar for the fashion-challenged, the lovely braids of our hero and his tribe seem to have been lifted from Malibu Barbie, and all the big-scale special effects are very obviously miniatures. Now, I wouldn't go so far as to say that I'd gouge my eyes out with a kitchen spoon before I'd sit through this debacle again, but I will say this much: someone would have to pay me, and even then I'd demand a remote control with a fast-forward feature.

As for the DVD package, the transfer is okay--but I did notice that the soundtrack was noticeably off for several minutes of the film, and oddly (and typically) I wasn't entirely sure if this was a flaw in the DVD or if the director/producers actually intended it to be that way! There are also several short documentaries, all of them very repetitive and very ironically self-congratulatory about what a great film BATTLEFIELD EARTH is. As for the audio commentary track, I really couldn't be bothered to sit through the movie a second time to listen to it. My recommendation? Well, if you're like me and you just have to see the film to find out if it's really as bad every one says it is... go ahead. But for all others, just trust me on this one, okay?

GFT, Amazon Reviewer

Three parts Scientology + 1 part John Travolta in a Predator costume + 1 part 'Project X' - 1 part that stinky Matthew Broderick = CINEMATIC GOLD

With this movie, the intention of John McTiernan, a director yet known for his great effectiveness (remember "Predator", "Die Hard 1 & 3", "The Hunt for Red October", "The 13th Warrior"), was attack the worlds of medias and reality-shows in the U.S. But he completely fails. His film, the second in his career 'remade' from Norman Jewison - after "Thomas Crown" - actually uses all the fashioned cliches of American action movies: all the scenes were shot and edited at 100 mph, in the MTV style (the musical background is unstandable). We have the impression to deal with a "Fast and Furious" on skates. The story doesn't have any slice of interest, and the too cool acting (especially LL Cool J's - 'Close your eyes and take the dough!') and Rebecca Romijn-Stamos disastrous Russian accent don't arrange anything. But what may be really shocking in this film is the presence of a woman in the games, which is really unacceptable when you see the great violence of this sport, mixing football, baseball, boxing and ice hockey, and where (maybe for the beauty of the show...) almost no blow is forbidden. There is no woman football or ice hockey league (so far...), but you can see a woman playing rollerball... look for the mistake! And McTiernan definitely turned his movie to politically correct, by locating the rollerball games in a poor country in central Asia.

Add to it this French actor, Jean Reno, who absolutely doesn't belong in here and ridiculizes himself more than anything else and you have a zero movie, one of the worse ever directed by McTiernan, maybe his worst, along with "Medicine Man". The advice I could give McTiernan is try to be more personal and independent, and to write screenplays of his own. What are the use and interest spending so much dough to produce things like this? The film was a big box-office failure and it's not surprising. A terrifying blunder. (Re)Watch 1975 Norman Jewison great classic instead.

The setting for this movie is not in the future!!!! It is current day, and takes place in a poor European country. The arena they skate in looks like a very cheap prop from American Gladiators. There is VERY LITTLE SPECIAL EFFECTS and no high tech equipment.

15 minuets of the movie is done with a night vision camera, so everything you see is either dark green or picth black.

Most of the action happens within the rollerball arena. There are only a few action sceens on the streets of the city.

there was no need for this movie. While i like LL Cool J and liked him in this movie and Chris Klein (as Jonathon Kross) was pretty good, the rest was pretty mediocre. a story of the new sport of rollerball where our hero Jonathon, played by the previously mentioned Chris Klein, is resting his hopes that the NHL will call when he runs into Marcus Risley, played by LL Cool J.
Jonathon gets talked into going to the fast rising sport in Russia called rollerball and not only does he join but he becomes the top star and posterboy. to further boost ratings the league starts promoting violence. of course jonathon fights this and there in lies the point of contention.
i felt the editing fo the movie was choppy and most importantly they never really explained the rules of the game. i never knew anything about rollerball as a sport. it was the heart of the film (and the title) and yet they never gave it a minute to show the audience what it was all about.
part hockey, part lacrosse and part sci-fi fantasy future sport that had crowds to their feet on screen but managed to bore me. if this sport is so good, why not explain it. draw the vierwer in and make him love it. the writing was bland and the flow of the movie was anti climatic.
i see most other reviewers did not like it. how did anyone like this movie? believe the naysyers and seek greener pastures elsewhere.

Yes,iv'e seen this mvie from begining to ending,I was praying the whole way through that it would get better,that some scenes later in the film might redeem it.No such luck.Why was this film ever made.The director and the producer must of needed some cash really fast to pay off the mob or some drug dealers or something.And what were you thinking Angela Basset being in a film like this.Angela is to good a actress to be making such trash.The plot is some Quasi-scifi wanne be soft porn flick.Tis film is dark and boring and it just dragged on until the next nude scene.Supernova still begs belief that it was ever made.And unlike some b-movie and cult classics,this movie not even worth watching to laugh at.Even the nudity not worth seeing.Nowadays there is so much nudity in film and every where else.Actually there are alot of porn films with more engaging plots then this tasteless movie.Don't waste your time or money seeing this unless you want to be rendered dumb,dazed and numb.Supernova should be vanished to the nether world.

Supernova starts out as a cool voyage through space. All the while I was thinking I'd see something new. The first thirty minutes was pretty routine. It was saddled with cliched space dialogue and a mismatched romance between Angela and James. By the second half a guy is picked up from space and he has a lot of secrets that are found out later in the film. He has an artifact he found on another planet and soon the crew realizes it's dangerous, although they're intrigued by the stranger and his little toy.

The second half of the film turned into " Friday the 13th: In Space ". The stranger sent James' character on a wild goose chase meanwhile he ( predictably ) picked off each crew member one by one. By this time I was confused because I was in the mood to see a space film and not a cheap rendition of " The Texas Chainsaw Massacre ". Except the stranger used his out-of-space strength to get rid of the crew members.

Once again the filmmakers threw in elements that weren't needed and didn't make sense. The romance between Angela and James was weak. They could have had more time together before having to save each other's lives. Robin Tunney and Lou Diamond Phillips weren't believable as a couple. Not only was Lou Diamond way older than Tunney, the two had zero chemistry and were as boring as a PBS talk show. James Spader was not believable nor was he exciting. Hello! The lead character of a SCI-Fi picture should be exciting. Angela Bassett and Peter Facinelli were the only ones that kept my interest. I'd watch Angela Bassett in anything because she never lets a film down no matter how bad it is. The climax was my favorite part. Other than that it was two hours of noise and boring blue scenery.

I normally don't watch Scifi movies however, this one I watched because it had two of my favorite actors Angela Bassett and James Spader. I thought they really connected in this movie. I enjoyed this movie and thought the story line was great. In fact I'm adding it to my collection.

They release the all the movies together in one pack every other month. Each time with the next movie in line a beefed up special edition added to the collection (this one being the fith movie). If you can't wait, go ahead and buy now. But if your just a little bit patient, and want to get them all with extra features (beside the amazing feature to change scenes with a push of a button, or the muy fabuloso trailer) wait a year.

Look, they go to release all ten movies and they don't even bother to go and beef up the other five. That's reason why it gets 3 stars. I believe that Paramount could have done better with this release and well being the trekkie that I am it won't be bought until its fixed. But all in all hey at least they made an effort.