DoctorSkyTower
Joined Nov 2000
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews107
DoctorSkyTower's rating
HAHAHAHAHA!!! What a laugh this has turned out to be!
I just KNOW original BG fans will vehemently hate this 2003 "reinvention" of BG!
They're not wrong!
I couldn't stand it either, and I don't even *like* the original BG!
Just because the special effects have been brought up to 2003 standards does not mean this TV show is suddenly above and beyond all other sci-fi TV shows, including (most definitely!) the one that spawned it. Star Gate SG1 has better effects, better stories and better characters, for example.
Can't writers come up with good ideas for sci-fi TV shows anymore? Was the writer off his face on dope when he wrote this thing? Well, according to him, the vital 2003 requirements for "reinvented" sci-fi TV shows must be:
1) Re hash a so-so 70's or early 80's TV show (hopefully one that nobody will remember therefore making it an easy target to rip off - or in this case - rip to shreds)
2) Completely change the story so the "reinvention" becomes nothing like the original
3) Bring it up to today's "sub-standards", i.e remove any cheesy, kid-friendly attributes and replace them with offensive language, excessive or extreme violence, and enough sex scenes to shame any blue movie
4) Should an actor from the original try to have any major input into the "reinvention" of his sci-fi TV show, omit him completely and then laugh in his face when you present him with this insipid schlock
When it becomes impossible to suspend disbelief then you know it's going to be bad. When you get bored waiting for action scenes after watching useless and unnecessary sex scenes (really the only action you've seen in the last hour) you know it's going to be worse than bad. When you finally give up halfway through the thing and switch off the TV then you may as well compare it to Battlefield Earth.
The characters are pathetic. I was not interested in anything they did, or how they felt, least of all whom they decided to hop in the sack with (be it robot, human or whatever). Nor did I care one iota when their home world was destroyed by their robot servants. WHO CARES! The robots-wiping-out-their-human-masters cliche has been done a million times in a million other movies/TV shows/books/comics/video games.
CONCLUSION? This show has borrowed ideas from so many other sci-fi TV shows and movies I've lost count. (although the original WAS based on Star Wars) WHO CARES!!
0/10
I just KNOW original BG fans will vehemently hate this 2003 "reinvention" of BG!
They're not wrong!
I couldn't stand it either, and I don't even *like* the original BG!
Just because the special effects have been brought up to 2003 standards does not mean this TV show is suddenly above and beyond all other sci-fi TV shows, including (most definitely!) the one that spawned it. Star Gate SG1 has better effects, better stories and better characters, for example.
Can't writers come up with good ideas for sci-fi TV shows anymore? Was the writer off his face on dope when he wrote this thing? Well, according to him, the vital 2003 requirements for "reinvented" sci-fi TV shows must be:
1) Re hash a so-so 70's or early 80's TV show (hopefully one that nobody will remember therefore making it an easy target to rip off - or in this case - rip to shreds)
2) Completely change the story so the "reinvention" becomes nothing like the original
3) Bring it up to today's "sub-standards", i.e remove any cheesy, kid-friendly attributes and replace them with offensive language, excessive or extreme violence, and enough sex scenes to shame any blue movie
4) Should an actor from the original try to have any major input into the "reinvention" of his sci-fi TV show, omit him completely and then laugh in his face when you present him with this insipid schlock
When it becomes impossible to suspend disbelief then you know it's going to be bad. When you get bored waiting for action scenes after watching useless and unnecessary sex scenes (really the only action you've seen in the last hour) you know it's going to be worse than bad. When you finally give up halfway through the thing and switch off the TV then you may as well compare it to Battlefield Earth.
The characters are pathetic. I was not interested in anything they did, or how they felt, least of all whom they decided to hop in the sack with (be it robot, human or whatever). Nor did I care one iota when their home world was destroyed by their robot servants. WHO CARES! The robots-wiping-out-their-human-masters cliche has been done a million times in a million other movies/TV shows/books/comics/video games.
CONCLUSION? This show has borrowed ideas from so many other sci-fi TV shows and movies I've lost count. (although the original WAS based on Star Wars) WHO CARES!!
0/10
I saw B.E. two years ago. I decided to get the DVD so I could give it another chance.
I could only stand watching half of it this time round!
?? Why do Johnny's caveman friends not refer to him as "Johnny" until halfway through the flick?
??? Why does Johnny have to scream rather than use normal speech? He squeals and shrieks in high-octave girlish tones! He does not need to portray all two of his emotions (mad, sad!) with headache-inducing screeches!
!!! Mad banshee screams and the spouting of Euclydian mathematics between the sniffing of food like a dog and occasional shouts of "Ug!!" sure is funny to watch, though!
It was amusing watching Roger Christian struggle to give a sound excuse for his terrible directing. There are bucket-loads of references made to Star Wars and George Lucas throughout the Special Features section (how shameful). Visual effects producers proudly proclaim how they borrowed so-and-so effect from LucasFilm Inc. Mr Christian waffles on about how much he loves Science fiction (well, dhuh, he DID partake in three Star Wars flicks) and speaks of the grand-fatherly support he received from Mr Lucas.
A skinny little guy tries to explain why they had to film every scene at that ridiculous neck-breaking dutch angle. His explanation was that all the scenes filmed at normal angles were cast into the cutting-room rubbish bin simply because they "didn't work". What sad excuse is that!
We will not go into detail on those awful Star Wars wipes that occur every second scene.
The majority of the positive reviews are based in California. Is that where Scientologists congregate in their largest numbers? All these Scientologists giving their rosy reviews are only trying to:
1) Defend their Mentor (Mr John Revolta)
2) and their God (L Ron Hubbard)
Do they realize this, ahem, "movie" received the award for "worst film of 2001"?
Finally I mustn't forget Mr John Revolta in his worst performance ever! Revolta wasn't even slightly funny. His Terl was annoying, stupid, irritating and a complete hack. How idiots like these Psychlo's could defeat any planet whether or not it's advanced is totally beyond my comprehension.
Did Revolta partake in Shakespearean stage acting to achieve the putzy moron that is Terl?
A well deserved 0/10!
I could only stand watching half of it this time round!
?? Why do Johnny's caveman friends not refer to him as "Johnny" until halfway through the flick?
??? Why does Johnny have to scream rather than use normal speech? He squeals and shrieks in high-octave girlish tones! He does not need to portray all two of his emotions (mad, sad!) with headache-inducing screeches!
!!! Mad banshee screams and the spouting of Euclydian mathematics between the sniffing of food like a dog and occasional shouts of "Ug!!" sure is funny to watch, though!
It was amusing watching Roger Christian struggle to give a sound excuse for his terrible directing. There are bucket-loads of references made to Star Wars and George Lucas throughout the Special Features section (how shameful). Visual effects producers proudly proclaim how they borrowed so-and-so effect from LucasFilm Inc. Mr Christian waffles on about how much he loves Science fiction (well, dhuh, he DID partake in three Star Wars flicks) and speaks of the grand-fatherly support he received from Mr Lucas.
A skinny little guy tries to explain why they had to film every scene at that ridiculous neck-breaking dutch angle. His explanation was that all the scenes filmed at normal angles were cast into the cutting-room rubbish bin simply because they "didn't work". What sad excuse is that!
We will not go into detail on those awful Star Wars wipes that occur every second scene.
The majority of the positive reviews are based in California. Is that where Scientologists congregate in their largest numbers? All these Scientologists giving their rosy reviews are only trying to:
1) Defend their Mentor (Mr John Revolta)
2) and their God (L Ron Hubbard)
Do they realize this, ahem, "movie" received the award for "worst film of 2001"?
Finally I mustn't forget Mr John Revolta in his worst performance ever! Revolta wasn't even slightly funny. His Terl was annoying, stupid, irritating and a complete hack. How idiots like these Psychlo's could defeat any planet whether or not it's advanced is totally beyond my comprehension.
Did Revolta partake in Shakespearean stage acting to achieve the putzy moron that is Terl?
A well deserved 0/10!
While watching the DVD bonus features last night, I was quite surprised to hear one of the producers proudly announcing this film is "The most original dragon movie ever made".
Well, I'm sorry Mr Producer, but your movie is far from original.
The dragons look like the dragon from Dragon Slayer, the story is simply a gender reversal of Aliens, and the settings are exactly like Dragon Heart or Battlefield Earth (or every other apocalyptic movie, just take your pick!)
I never bothered looking at the movie posters so didn't fathom the fact the city burning was supposed to be London. Didn't they burn London in that awful 80's flick Life Force? And 28 Days Later? (which was better than this flick, at least in the horror department)
What a complete waste of 95 million bucks! Dialogue was cliche-ridden and absymal: "Lock and Load, baby!" said at least ten times. The characters were forgettable. It's impossible to suspend disbelief, the plot holes are so glaringly obvious even a blind monkey would spot them. I won't go into detail on these, except to outlay a few small points. So can someone please explain to me:
A) how the destruction of a single male dragon will bring about the extinction of the entire dragon species;
B) why scenes that could've shown world-wide destruction are *conveniently omitted* and replaced with a ridiculous '20 years later';
C) why the dragons receive only ten minutes worth of screen time;
D) and for the rest of the movie's running time the audience is subjected to the excruciating sight of sweaty, naked man-boobs thrust in their face
CONCLUSION:
Nice to watch if you're female wanting to see a few pounds of partially-nude man flesh... Nice to watch if you want to see how ripped your pecs and abs will look after a couple of years workout in the gym... Nice to watch if your diet consists of pure testosterone...
I rate this flick 4/10, one for each boobie!
Well, I'm sorry Mr Producer, but your movie is far from original.
The dragons look like the dragon from Dragon Slayer, the story is simply a gender reversal of Aliens, and the settings are exactly like Dragon Heart or Battlefield Earth (or every other apocalyptic movie, just take your pick!)
I never bothered looking at the movie posters so didn't fathom the fact the city burning was supposed to be London. Didn't they burn London in that awful 80's flick Life Force? And 28 Days Later? (which was better than this flick, at least in the horror department)
What a complete waste of 95 million bucks! Dialogue was cliche-ridden and absymal: "Lock and Load, baby!" said at least ten times. The characters were forgettable. It's impossible to suspend disbelief, the plot holes are so glaringly obvious even a blind monkey would spot them. I won't go into detail on these, except to outlay a few small points. So can someone please explain to me:
A) how the destruction of a single male dragon will bring about the extinction of the entire dragon species;
B) why scenes that could've shown world-wide destruction are *conveniently omitted* and replaced with a ridiculous '20 years later';
C) why the dragons receive only ten minutes worth of screen time;
D) and for the rest of the movie's running time the audience is subjected to the excruciating sight of sweaty, naked man-boobs thrust in their face
CONCLUSION:
Nice to watch if you're female wanting to see a few pounds of partially-nude man flesh... Nice to watch if you want to see how ripped your pecs and abs will look after a couple of years workout in the gym... Nice to watch if your diet consists of pure testosterone...
I rate this flick 4/10, one for each boobie!