Aaron1375 So let me get this straight, Roger Corman for reasons only he himself knows decided to remake the film "Forbidden World". Not only did he remake it, he apparently decided to take out most of the nudity, make it less gory and make it a bit more talkative. Why? I am sure everyone out there would like an answer to this, but I am guessing he wanted to make a more serious version or something. This one is basically a lot less fun version, you have Marc Singer and his robot pal going to a planet cause an experiment has gone array. So yes, like "Forbidden World" only with all the fun stripped from it. It was not all bad as there was one rather good jump moment I was not expecting and there was a couple of good gore effects, but overall "Forbidden World" has this one beat in nearly every possible way. I mean the effects were even better in that one, as was the music. In that one it was a really nifty 80's sounding set of tracks while this was very forgettable. Stupid twists and the ending was not as cool either. That and another thing that made this film kind of hard to watch was the fact it featured more creature in the air vent scenes. I have watched a lot of horror movies the past few weeks and this theme is getting old. The monster does not look as good, the robot looks dreadful (though it did not look great in the original) just not enough here. Even the girls were more attractive in the other film. Though this film features one of the most unheroic moments I have ever seen near the end that had me chuckling too. Still, if I did not get this on a double feature set of movies along with "The Terror Within" I would be a bit more ticked off.

Coventry The first thing about "Dead Space" I couldn't help noticing immediately was the running time displayed on the back of the VHS-cover. It states 70 minutes! Okay here on the IMDb the running time is supposedly 80 minutes, but that probably includes trailers and/or full closing credits. 70 minutes is practically nothing. How can you possibly tell a proper Sci-Fi tale in such a short period? Well, see below this review for a couple of tips on how to make your film shorter, but usually it's not the best idea. But hey, "Dead Space" is a very redundant movie in general. It is more than obvious that this thing got made in probably even less than a week, under the strict surveillance of Roger Corman. It's a remake of "Forbidden World", which was released also by Corman not even ten years earlier. That movie was a shameless "Alien" rip-off, so basically "Dead Space" is the remake of a rip-off. Only Corman is shameless enough to make the exact same film twice and then still include footage from his other work, like "Battle Beyond the Stars". Marc Singer, who here looks like he might be Kevin Bacon's older brother, plays a lone space macho cowboy who arrives on the research facility planet Phaebon together with his pet-robot Tinpan after they picked up an S.O.S signal. He literally crash-lands amidst a group of scientists that are trying to develop a virus to destroy another virus; namely the lethal Delta-5 disease. Little problem, however, their anti- virus developed itself into a monster and finds pleasure in killing off the crew members. One of the main reasons why I liked "Forbidden World" so much was because of the awesomely cheesy monster design and special effects. That film had an amazing low-budgeted B-atmosphere going for it! "Dead Space" is also very low-budgeted and cheesy, but it never manages to bring forward the same irresistible charm or outrageous enthusiasm. I guess that's a privilege exclusively for 80's movies. The mutant monster looks like a clay dragon and the killings are very uninspired. This is one film that can easily be skipped, except of course if you're a sucker for cheap and amateurishly directed "Alien" rip-offs like there are literally hundreds of out there. As promised, I'm going to reveal some tips about how to make your movie fit right into the 70 minutes limit. For example: combine sequences! Director Fred Gallo knows that every self-respecting Sci-Fi movie needs (A) a sex sequence, (B) a dream sequence and (C) a monster-bursting- through-the-chest moment. In "Dead Space", these three classic scenes are one and the same! The lead girl dreams she has sex with Marc Singers and witnesses the creature bursting through her chest right before waking up! Secondly, if you have a eight-headed cast but not the time to introduce them, start by killing two of them before the cause of the problem is even properly established. If you don't want to waste too much time on the remaining six neither, then make sure they live up to the most commonly known stereotypical trademarks of cinema. One of them needs to be an obsessed scientist who'll continue with the experiments no matter what, one of them needs to be an insufferable coward and you also need one strong female cast member to put the link with Ellen Ripley in "Alien". See, it's easy.

udar55 Leave it to Roger Corman to ripoff one of his own ripoffs! This direct-to-video flick is actually a remake of the Corman produced ALIEN-riff FORBIDDEN WORLD (1982), going so far as to use footage from that which is actually footage from BATTLE BEYOND THE STARS. You still with me? Marc Singer takes over for Jesse Vint as the space soldier who answers a distress call from a scientific community. Once he gets there with his robot sidekick, he finds out the scientists have been performing a series of genetic experiments that have unleashed a big ol' monster. This isn't nearly as good as the original but it does feature a fine alien and nice performance by Singer. He really can make anything just the slightest bit better with his everyman delivery. The only place where the remake trumps the original is in the insertion of nudity. WORLD had a really gratuitous bit with Vint and a female companion in a sauna type area. This is even more casual as the nudity is inserted in a dream sequence a character has during all the chaos. Finding a place for that in the film's short 72-minute running time is perhaps its biggest merit.

gridoon The filmmakers apparently had enough money to be able to afford decent makeup effects, but not enough for a creature that would move around and attack convincingly. We never get a chance to see the "monster" move from one place to another - whenever that happens (supposedly), the camera focuses on the "terrified" reactions of the humans that are nearby. And when a man is attacked by it, he simply seems to be holding an inanimate object against himself so that it won't fall to the ground. This is still not the worst "Alien" rip-off around (the two "Xtro" films are even worse, for example); it's actually sufficiently entertaining if you've got 68 (!!) minutes to spare. (*1/2)