Here is a review of the new science fiction film that is supposed to be a prequel to the successful Alien series, which I did not see.
The review is long but funny as it dissects all the gaping plot holes. It pretty much gives away the whole story so don’t read it if you have not seen the film yet but plan to. I was never going to see it so I did not care and enjoyed reading it.
Here’s the trailer:
Thanks it saved me $20 and a couple of hours time
Thank you. I did see the, um, film. And I needed that.
I also saw the film and agree pretty much 100% with this review.
Thanks for posting! A very funny review.
I’m very disappointed. The trailers were awesome and I love all Alien movies (yes, even the 4th, the series has everything: suspense, action, drama and comedy :p) and was very excited about this prequel.
But if they want to have feel-good nuts going after the ark in a space craft, why do they have to make them scientists? Make them esoteric freaks and be done with it.
I’m so tired of dumbed down movies and tv shows, but even more tired of dumbed down movies and tv shows than consider themselves not dumb.
Meh. The whole Alien thing is bogus anyway; the small, juvenile alien bursts out and then, by magic (sans consuming anything) grows into some monster sized killer.
Prometheus is Alien without the horror, Aliens without the pacing, Alien3 without um… a lead-dipped alien exploding, Alien Resurrection without… ah… with extra incongruously badly conceived different-alien.
That analogy kinda broke down towards the end. I should have stopped after Alien and Aliens.
The trailer for Star Crash is well worth watching just for the jawdropping silliness of it. If you’re still more or less coherently sane after seeing the trailer, you should watch the entire movie. J.C. Maçek III of WorldsGreatestCritic.com wrote, “If Starcrash had a much bigger budget, a better script and fresh ideas that weren’t mined from other, vastly superior franchises…it would still suck. That’s right, folks, it has to aspire to suck.”
Thanks, Mano. That review is, I think, the sixth one I’ve read that thoroughly panned the movie. To tell the truth, I’m not surprised, just more jaded. I’ll just wait until it shows up on SyFy and hit the mute button during commercials.
I do have an issue concernig Cameronesque space movies. Having seen 2001, Space Odyssey during its first theater release, being a fan of Star Trek starting with the first episode (on a black and white TeeVee) and being familiar with many earlier space adventure films as well as having followed the US space program from the days of Sputnik, there is some things that confuses me.
All of the above examples of manned spacecraft have one thing in common which Alien and subsequent “space operas” consistently ignore. That is, a small, self contained environment intended to be habitable by people for any length of time is perforce designed much like a hospital operating theater or a manufacturing clean room. This makes eminent good sense due to the nature of the cutting edge devices, sensitive electronics, precision machinery and life support systems that are needed to ensure proper function over extended periods.
Why, then, do we constantly see space ships that have atmospheres filled with clouds of various vapors emanating from any and all parts? It would be one thing if the crew was constantly protected by full space suits with helmets and self contained air systems. Yet, time after time we see crews in tee shirts (women always in tight, scoop necked tank tops) and fatigues. They are routinely covered with sweat and appear unwashed. Why? Didn’t the designers and engineers consider them vital components? Was no thought given to the health of the crew or to issues of basic hygiene?
Why, on ships that have some form of artificial gravity such that there are dedicated floors do those floors not meet the walls at a right angle? I keep seeing an eight to twelve inch radius at their junction. Imagine running down a corridor under one gee and stepping on that radius. Instant twisted ankle.
Why does it seem like every cubic inch of the ship are loaded with volatiles? Every time something is damaged it explodes just like a car filled with jugs of gasoline rolling down a cliff? I didn’t know that a star ship required flammable fluids in all of its systems to function. Engines are one thing. A communication console is quite another.
These and many other questions bedevil me more and more as space movies get more “spectacular”, at least in their promotion and advertisements. I would have thought, given the marvelous examples set by iconic movies of the past and with real life examples from Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, STS and the ISS, that the basic environments within a space ship would be obvious. Too, look at marine vessels both surface and subsurface. The term “ship shape” does have very specific meanings and necessity.
Modern space movies seem to imply that any deep space vessel is perfectly functional with a polluted atmosphere, smelly, redneck thugs as crew, volatile control consoles and piss poor architecture. No wonder the crews are so surly and uncooperative. I’m just glad I’m not aboard one. Gimme Space Ship Two any day. That sucker is clean!
Good morning Mano,
I still rate Alien as one of the two scariest films I ever seen.
I vividly recall walking out of the theater in San Diego on a bright Summer afternoon and jumping at every shadow.
Do all you can to make today the best possible day,
Jeff
Have Coffee Will Write
The “Alien” movies have the same history and problem as the Robocop, The Terminator and Highlander movies. The first two were very good, sci-fi classics (there should have been only one, in the case of Highlander) and are worth seeing. Everything after that -- film and TV -- was garbage, just attempts to milk the audience for money.
Some fans go so far as to disregard films, TV or other works that are too far over the top or off kilter, something referred to as Film Discontinuity.
According to XKCD, there were no sequels of “The Matrix”.