20 reviews
Do you really want to know that badly?
As a lover of low-budget sci-fi films I was hoping for something better. It's not even bad enough to fall into the "it's so bad it's good" category. The acting isn't so bad, but the over-acting is awful. This is evident right from the start where the female lead, Lisa Bingley, attempts to show consternation at the task in hand by wearing a permanent contorted frown. It comes across as being a somewhat infantile expression, which kills the credibility of her character right from the start.
The most hilarious parts of the film are the carefully choreographed fight scenes. The acting for this is incredibly wooden, and you can imagine the director saying "No, that's fine - just do it in slow motion, and we'll speed it up in the editing". Then somehow they forgot to speed it up.
That brings me neatly to the worst part of the film - the editing. It may be a bit harsh on those involved, as a poor script may be partially to blame. However, the way it was edited made you feel that this was a 24 part TV series that had been edited down to 90 minutes. You often felt that you had missed something earlier on in the story that would explain things. In other parts I found myself rewinding to see if there was a glitch on the recording - the editing was that bizarre. It was hard to tell if there were some actual attempts at being creative or if it was just a rush job. I suspect the latter.
On the plus side the actual plot idea wasn't too bad and some of the special effects are reasonably effective, however someone decided to fill in with some bizarre low-res graphics. These were somehow meant to enhance the sci-fi feel of the film. Shame because it just resulted in me musing about how special effects would look if they were provided by a Sinclair ZX81.
I'll stop now, as I feel I've already donated enough of my time to this film. Any chance of getting the £5 I spent on the DVD release back?
Wait, I almost forgot. One of the crew is a guest sportman, as part of a PR exercise. He's supposed to be a top professional golfer. Check out his putting stroke in the middle of the film. I'll stake that £5 (and a whole lot more!) that he had never picked up a golf club before the film was made.
As a lover of low-budget sci-fi films I was hoping for something better. It's not even bad enough to fall into the "it's so bad it's good" category. The acting isn't so bad, but the over-acting is awful. This is evident right from the start where the female lead, Lisa Bingley, attempts to show consternation at the task in hand by wearing a permanent contorted frown. It comes across as being a somewhat infantile expression, which kills the credibility of her character right from the start.
The most hilarious parts of the film are the carefully choreographed fight scenes. The acting for this is incredibly wooden, and you can imagine the director saying "No, that's fine - just do it in slow motion, and we'll speed it up in the editing". Then somehow they forgot to speed it up.
That brings me neatly to the worst part of the film - the editing. It may be a bit harsh on those involved, as a poor script may be partially to blame. However, the way it was edited made you feel that this was a 24 part TV series that had been edited down to 90 minutes. You often felt that you had missed something earlier on in the story that would explain things. In other parts I found myself rewinding to see if there was a glitch on the recording - the editing was that bizarre. It was hard to tell if there were some actual attempts at being creative or if it was just a rush job. I suspect the latter.
On the plus side the actual plot idea wasn't too bad and some of the special effects are reasonably effective, however someone decided to fill in with some bizarre low-res graphics. These were somehow meant to enhance the sci-fi feel of the film. Shame because it just resulted in me musing about how special effects would look if they were provided by a Sinclair ZX81.
I'll stop now, as I feel I've already donated enough of my time to this film. Any chance of getting the £5 I spent on the DVD release back?
Wait, I almost forgot. One of the crew is a guest sportman, as part of a PR exercise. He's supposed to be a top professional golfer. Check out his putting stroke in the middle of the film. I'll stake that £5 (and a whole lot more!) that he had never picked up a golf club before the film was made.
I usually only critique favorite films, so I'll have something good to say, but I was up all night and couldn't find anything else to watch, so there went my night and consequently I offer this review. The film starts with a space shuttle crashing into an orbiting space station while "docking" and nobody on said station says anything about it, like that's normal! In fact, the space station occupants give smiles and "How ya doin'!" waves through the windows to the shuttle crew before they board the now-crippled station. That's about as much sense as this movie makes, but a few scenes were so comically inept I'd be remiss if I didn't mention them. For one, Michael Pare's character seems to be psychotic simply because the script needs him to be, no other reason; he's not in the least believable and in fact plain silly. The first "fight scene" with Tony Curtis Blondell is one of the most comically inept pieces of film-making I've ever seen, even taking into account the fact that this film was probably made for kids. Pare's character just blurts out ridiculously stupid things, first to provoke pointless fights then later to show his "passion" for fellow space station occupier Lisa Bingley, who's clearly the best thing about this movie, visually and dramatically. I kept asking myself "WHO WROTE (if that is the word) THIS SCRIPT?" Most of the film consists of Pare's psychotic antics, the mostly not-so-good effects and about the worst screenplay I've ever seen. Strangely, former boxer George Chuvalo and his Russian cohorts on the ground control station come off the best and most believable.
I don't like to criticize acting, per se, and a perfect reason why is a film like this. I've seen Michael Pare in many other places and have enjoyed his work, so when he looks inept I don't blame him but rather the screen writer, who's supposed to provide a decent story and believable characters, the director, who's supposed to film the script intelligibly and the post-production people, whose job it is to edit the hours of film into a coherent, watchable whole. These 3 "units" failed miserably, leaving the actors and the movie to flounder. Now "Plan Nine From Outer Space" has long enjoyed a reputation as "arguably the worst movie ever made," but after viewing "Space Fury" all I can say is "move over, 'Plan Nine,' you've got serious competition."
After sitting through 90 minutes of this awful mess I must admit I was rewarded for my patience with a finale consisting of the space station turned into a flaming, spinning cartwheel as it entered the earth's atmosphere and began to burn up, accompanied by a last-second escape into a shuttle craft by Blondell and Bingley. This ending was so much better than the rest of the film I felt it belonged in a different - and far better - movie. As for the rest of the film, unless you like your sci-fi silly, incoherent and inept, I'd avoid it like a space station that's afire and plunging toward earth.
I don't like to criticize acting, per se, and a perfect reason why is a film like this. I've seen Michael Pare in many other places and have enjoyed his work, so when he looks inept I don't blame him but rather the screen writer, who's supposed to provide a decent story and believable characters, the director, who's supposed to film the script intelligibly and the post-production people, whose job it is to edit the hours of film into a coherent, watchable whole. These 3 "units" failed miserably, leaving the actors and the movie to flounder. Now "Plan Nine From Outer Space" has long enjoyed a reputation as "arguably the worst movie ever made," but after viewing "Space Fury" all I can say is "move over, 'Plan Nine,' you've got serious competition."
After sitting through 90 minutes of this awful mess I must admit I was rewarded for my patience with a finale consisting of the space station turned into a flaming, spinning cartwheel as it entered the earth's atmosphere and began to burn up, accompanied by a last-second escape into a shuttle craft by Blondell and Bingley. This ending was so much better than the rest of the film I felt it belonged in a different - and far better - movie. As for the rest of the film, unless you like your sci-fi silly, incoherent and inept, I'd avoid it like a space station that's afire and plunging toward earth.
I'm quite surprised by all the strangely negative reviews. I thought it was okay for the dollar it cost me to see it. I watched this directly after reading all the reviews here and don't even understand some of them after watching this.
My main complaint, if you can even call it a complaint, is the lack of a more coherent focus on the nuances of the plot, but basically it's just "crazy man in space" so who cares for plot? The plot involves some sort of brainwashing by terrorists - of the lead character, but also seems to involve his unstable nature once on the station.
In terms of acting and events, it is much like a comic book with regard to the intellectual (or lack thereof) facets, which doesn't immediately condemn a movie in my opinion.
In no way does this movie warrant such a low rating as a 1 when you consider some of the other films out there, so I gave it a 5.
I actually enjoyed this far more than "Event Horizon" (which I thought was utter rubbish), and the acting isn't any worse than a few of the scenes from any given "Star Wars" movie, seriously.
Yes, it is rather over-the-top silly (but I seriously doubt it was MEANT to be bad in that light as another reviewer suggested) mostly because of the stereotypes and plastic characters. I mean, how DO you play the role of a crazy person well or in a "convincing" way? Think about it. The acting is really not that much cheesier than that of Anthony Perkins in the psycho sequels.
If you're looking for a "crazy man in space" movie, THIS is it. In fact, if you've seen "Turbulance" (a pretty bad "crazy man on a plane" movie), it is very similar in some respects.
Again, 5/10. Seriously. There are hundreds of far worse movies than this, INCLUDING "Turbulance", which it would make a good double-feature with, regardless, haha.
My main complaint, if you can even call it a complaint, is the lack of a more coherent focus on the nuances of the plot, but basically it's just "crazy man in space" so who cares for plot? The plot involves some sort of brainwashing by terrorists - of the lead character, but also seems to involve his unstable nature once on the station.
In terms of acting and events, it is much like a comic book with regard to the intellectual (or lack thereof) facets, which doesn't immediately condemn a movie in my opinion.
In no way does this movie warrant such a low rating as a 1 when you consider some of the other films out there, so I gave it a 5.
I actually enjoyed this far more than "Event Horizon" (which I thought was utter rubbish), and the acting isn't any worse than a few of the scenes from any given "Star Wars" movie, seriously.
Yes, it is rather over-the-top silly (but I seriously doubt it was MEANT to be bad in that light as another reviewer suggested) mostly because of the stereotypes and plastic characters. I mean, how DO you play the role of a crazy person well or in a "convincing" way? Think about it. The acting is really not that much cheesier than that of Anthony Perkins in the psycho sequels.
If you're looking for a "crazy man in space" movie, THIS is it. In fact, if you've seen "Turbulance" (a pretty bad "crazy man on a plane" movie), it is very similar in some respects.
Again, 5/10. Seriously. There are hundreds of far worse movies than this, INCLUDING "Turbulance", which it would make a good double-feature with, regardless, haha.
- Movie Nuttball
- Sep 1, 2004
- Permalink
I could only bear to watch about a half hour of this. The dialog sounds like it was written by a 3rd grader. If any of the actors in it become famous in the future, they'd most likely try to bury this movie. It makes me wonder why awful movies like this come out on DVD, whereas fine movies like Dr. Zhivago and Ben Hur are not available on DVD.
- MrSprocket
- Feb 21, 2000
- Permalink
- Steve_Nyland
- Mar 10, 2008
- Permalink
Possibly the worst film ever made, and certainly not worth the transfer to DVD. The acting is so wooden, that the only fair outcome would be if everyone on the cast list spent the rest of their career as a waiter.
The Science id bogus, the special effects laughable and the plot apparently made up on the spot. If I ever meet one of the producers, I'll ask for my money back.
The Science id bogus, the special effects laughable and the plot apparently made up on the spot. If I ever meet one of the producers, I'll ask for my money back.
Now, I LIKE bad movies. I particularly LIKE bad Science Fiction movies. But this was just completely unwatchable. It's not good in a bad way that, say, Army of Darkness was. If it's not the very worst movie I've ever seen it's definitely top five and the only thing keeping it from the top spot is that I've managed to mercifully block out the memories of the other four and can't quite remember what they are. The actors in this film quite possibly have the worst accents ever recorded on film. That is, of course, when they remembered that they were supposed to HAVE an accent. Here you have people who seriously over-act one minute and sound like a parody of an extremely cliched, stereotypical Russian only to then deliver a line later on that is beyond a doubt North American. The female lead, who is supposed to be French, sounds about as French as a native New Yorker. Then there's the plot - what there is of it. Speaking as a novelist, I can honestly say that I've come up with better, more cohesive and entirely more plausible plots on napkins in a bar while out drinking and partying heavily. The dialogue is bad, the science is worse, the sets are horrible (Galaxina looked better and if you've seen that film you will know what I'm talking about - even the Super-Marionation of the Thunderbirds looked better for that matter) and it doesn't even explain anything at then end. You know what happened, but the why is never even touched upon. I can only assume that the writers either had no idea or simply didn't give a damn. I think the movie can be adequately summed up by sharing a thought that kept running through my mind the entire time I was watching this thing: "These are the people who WON their auditions?? How bad were the people who lost out??"
This movie is the worst movie I have ever seen and I've seen Battlefield Earth.
At best the acting was horrible. The editing was choppy and incoherent. The special effects were great if the movie would have been made in 1972.
There was one good thing about the movie, however... ...it ended!
At best the acting was horrible. The editing was choppy and incoherent. The special effects were great if the movie would have been made in 1972.
There was one good thing about the movie, however... ...it ended!
I disagree with the critics. A gritty realism and and good FX work make this feel credible. The threat of terrorism among the Russian end of an international space station is not so unbelieveable. As the new station goes up I think of this movie. Obviously its really low budget, but I thought it was OK. Michael Pare is good, believable. The female lead came across well too, I hope she does more stuff.
This movie is kind of like an episode from the new Outer Limits. It's somewhat predictable and fun, but not the best movie made. If you are like me and enjoy the B grade films pushed out by the Corman camp then definatly check it out. Sci-Fi fun with murder and suspense. Definatly a rental if you can find it, otherwise beware before you buy.
- bobsmith2089
- Nov 7, 2002
- Permalink
Weird space film. Simple minded plot and acting. The crazed-American-Terrorist Astronaut kills the Good Guy Russian Astronaut hero. All this is done on a 50's look-a-like Mir space station. The small amount of animation is not too bad.
This film was co-executive produced by Roger Corman, who has been producing unapologetically "low budget" horror and adventure films since the 1950s. He must surely know his stuff by now. (Another film produced by the same company was "Future Fear", starring Stacy Keach.)
I think it's likely that this film is to meant be taken as a send-up, or at least one of those films that are so bad they're good.
I think it's likely that this film is to meant be taken as a send-up, or at least one of those films that are so bad they're good.
The acting is OK (in some parts), the sets are pretty basic, the special effects are very dated by current standards - but the story-line is quite good.
If you are a lover of low-budget sci-fi, you will probably enjoy this pre-millennium flick, but don't expect '2001 A Space Odyssey'.
If you are a lover of low-budget sci-fi, you will probably enjoy this pre-millennium flick, but don't expect '2001 A Space Odyssey'.
- barry-mullan
- May 29, 2019
- Permalink
So poorly developed and performed Produced on such a small budget with poorly constructed sets, props, lighting, costumes and general overall production values.
Michael Pare is one of my favourite actors and I can not even imagine why he would consider a script like this - unless he was being blackmailed or owed money to some loan sharks.
There are some horrible sci-fi movies made, but most have better overall production than this, even if the script is bad.
Since the 70's when Star Wars ruled the globe and even prior - space mives had better effects and props and set dec...a film produced around 1999 /2000 should have succeeded all of them by leaps and bounds - but this makes it seem like this movie was made in the 1950's or 60's.
It's hilariously horrible and a must see - if only to amuse yourself at how bad it really is.
It's too good to give a 1, but not good enough to give a 3...so 2 is the perfect vote.
Luckily Michael Pare went on to do better films, because if this was his highlight, it would have been pretty embarrasing.
However, if I were the producer, director, writer or special effects technition, I would seriously never bring this movie up as a reference of any sort.
Michael Pare is one of my favourite actors and I can not even imagine why he would consider a script like this - unless he was being blackmailed or owed money to some loan sharks.
There are some horrible sci-fi movies made, but most have better overall production than this, even if the script is bad.
Since the 70's when Star Wars ruled the globe and even prior - space mives had better effects and props and set dec...a film produced around 1999 /2000 should have succeeded all of them by leaps and bounds - but this makes it seem like this movie was made in the 1950's or 60's.
It's hilariously horrible and a must see - if only to amuse yourself at how bad it really is.
It's too good to give a 1, but not good enough to give a 3...so 2 is the perfect vote.
Luckily Michael Pare went on to do better films, because if this was his highlight, it would have been pretty embarrasing.
However, if I were the producer, director, writer or special effects technition, I would seriously never bring this movie up as a reference of any sort.
- casablancavic
- Mar 24, 2021
- Permalink
- saint_brett
- Nov 17, 2021
- Permalink
I would prefer to give the filmmakers responsible for the astronomically duff, 'Space Fury' the benefit of the doubt, hoping this pedestrian space odyssey was a deliberate attempt to celebrate the equally penurious, spit and sellotape exploitation cinema of, Ed. Wood Jr. And greatly beloved B-Movie Tzar, Roger Corman!!!??? Granted, my shaky hypothesis is somewhat questionable, but, beauty, or the diggable merits of a palpably shoddy movie are very much in the bleariest eye of the bountifully beer guzzling B-Movie beholder!!!
What luridly propels, 'Space Fury' into the rarefied, giddy stratosphere of being a terrifically tittersome, 'so-bad-it's-good' Sci-schlockfest is the hilariously unbridled lunacy of, Michael Paré's fearlessly freakazoid performance as the cosmically kooky, Klaus Kinski crazy, space station sabotaging cosmonaut, Konrad!!!! With a plot that clearly fell out of a box of cheerios, Space Fury's dubious diorama of tawdry Radio Shack sets, Commodore 64 graphics, and turgid dialogue is only fitfully enlivened by Canadian composer, Donald Quan surprisingly decent score. Frankly, it might only be the most degraded Trash-movie obsessing skells who relish bargain binned B-Movie buffoonery who will get a legit kick out of the blissfully bungled, 'Space Fury', as many less tweaked Sci-fans could well find this an ignominious trip to Uranus!
What luridly propels, 'Space Fury' into the rarefied, giddy stratosphere of being a terrifically tittersome, 'so-bad-it's-good' Sci-schlockfest is the hilariously unbridled lunacy of, Michael Paré's fearlessly freakazoid performance as the cosmically kooky, Klaus Kinski crazy, space station sabotaging cosmonaut, Konrad!!!! With a plot that clearly fell out of a box of cheerios, Space Fury's dubious diorama of tawdry Radio Shack sets, Commodore 64 graphics, and turgid dialogue is only fitfully enlivened by Canadian composer, Donald Quan surprisingly decent score. Frankly, it might only be the most degraded Trash-movie obsessing skells who relish bargain binned B-Movie buffoonery who will get a legit kick out of the blissfully bungled, 'Space Fury', as many less tweaked Sci-fans could well find this an ignominious trip to Uranus!
- Weirdling_Wolf
- Dec 29, 2022
- Permalink
If anything, the review by imdb-94 is a little too kind! This movie was on sale in a local supermarket at a knock down price. I thought it might be worth a wet Sunday afternoon's entertainment. I should have realised that there was a reason this was at a knock down price in a supermarket.
Makes Dr Who looklike Ben Hur.
Makes Dr Who looklike Ben Hur.
- simon.bayntun
- May 16, 2001
- Permalink