MartinHafer Roger Corman produced this film and although his movies almost always made money*, they always were made with minuscule budgets. None of them are what anyone would consider high art, but a few are masterpieces of inexpensive cinema. This one, however, is pretty much like most of Corman's films--super-cheap, kind of cheesy and a bit dumb...but also almost entertaining enough to keep your interest. After all, if the story (a re-working of ALIEN) doesn't keep your interest, the film tossed in quite a bit of gratuitous nudity to keep your interest!When the film begins, there is a really crappy space battle that looked very, very dated for the early 80s. Following this, the captain of the ship arrives at a research station where some sort of accident has occurred...though the leader of the station continually downplays the seriousness of it. They've created some sort of super-organism and although folks seem amazingly complacent, it soon starts wiping out folks on the station. Can they stop it in time or are they all doomed to be entrées for this creature?ALIEN came out in 1979 and looks a billion times better than this film. Heck, several other sci-fi movies of the 70s look a lot better than this one. But it does sport two women who love to take their clothes off for no discernible reason other than to distract the audience from the overall crappiness of the movie. The overall effect is anything but artful and isn't particularly good...but folks wanting to see a lot of flesh should be satisfied. Otherwise, not a film most folks would want to watch and would do a lot better just watching ALIEN.By the way, 're-working' is also occasionally a nice way to say 'blatant ripoff'.*Corman's only money-losing film (out of over 400 credits) was reportedly "The Intruder" (starring William Shatner). Sadly, this was among the best films Corman ever made and yet it lost money and some god-awful ones made money. A great example of the phrase "life ain't fair".

chaos-rampant Corman is a neat guy. He's all about putting something together, engineer work. And he's quite clever, most of the time at least, to know just which parts go together, what to recycle. This is from the brief time he was rehashing popular sci-fi of the day, chiefly Star Wars and Alien. And because Alien in particular is already the product of collaborative , assembled vision, I am interested in which parts Corman reassembled.Galaxy of Terror seems more special to me, I have written quite a bit on that elsewhere. There, he retained the environment of desert planet and 'alien' compound. In a peculiar way, it was a smart annotation and reading of Scott's Alien: it was the place granting visions of horror, with visions shifting according to characters.For this one, they latched onto the creature aspect of Alien: it is the human instead of alien environment that is carried over, an extraterrestrial station carrying out bacterial research, and instead of different visions of horror, we have one shape-shifting creature.Taken together, the two films are revealing of what he thought worked in Alien. Metamorphosing evil and environment, this is what Corman zeroed on. Situations. Not Scott's approach of different fabrics of camera, something beyond his ambitions. Not organic fleshing-out of characters and space life. This model which is the way they were doing sci-fi in the 50's and 60's, dies with this film, and Cameron takes over - a Corman student on Galaxy.And something else. Alien was about the fabric of logic being torn apart - a near-metaphysical presence was onboard that defied anything reasonable.In both Corman films, the 'nature' of evil is over-explained with the usual nonsense. The overabundance of 'reason' is counterpointed with that bizarre irrationality of good exploitation: in Galaxy, you had cosmonauts going bonkers in space, and the craziness exceeded the explanation. The rape by giant worms was sleaze for the audience, it had no film-logic.Here, you have a leading scientist in bacteriological research who is basically a slutty bimbo. It makes no sense for the world of science and space exploration. It's entirely tailored for us to have a steamy sex scene. You have all sorts of amateurish decisions that are just so much fun to poke.One of the spare parts used here is a cocky space cowboy with his robot - Star Wars.

Rob van Opzeeland Allan Holzman takes us on an unnecessary but highly enjoyable roller-coaster ride in this epically bad film. Everything about it screams B-movie, from the terrible acting of the male actors, the gratuitous full frontal nudity of the actresses, the jumpy and improbable plot, the cheesy lines. Movies like this are like a tasty cheeseburger in a cheap fast food restaurant. It's unhealthy, and disgustingly greasy, but after finishing it you feel a satisfied customer, and the next time you're in the neighbourhood you might just drop in for more. Yes, it's an Alien rip-off. Small crew, isolated base on a distant planet, and a monster that is made for killing and feeding only. And yes, they stole that robot design directly from Star Wars' stormtroopers. Are those reasons to dislike "Forbidden World"? Far from it. It steals shamelessly, and if anything the obviously stolen ideas make this movie even more fun to watch. I would have hated it if they tried to hide the fact this is a blatant rip-off. How could you not like a movie in which the monster is frequently called a "dingwhopper", and which packs these fantastic lines: Barbara : "I hear you're the best troubleshooter in the federation. Want to ehm.. see some trouble?"Barbara: "If it is intelligent, have you tried communicating with it?" Mike: "That's about the stupidest damn idea I heard all day"Dr. Timbergen: "Let's see how my wildly mutating cells get along with yours.""Forbidden World" makes no effort to be classy, it just shoves all the goodies in your face, and says "feast on this." So I did, and it was worth every second.

JoeB131 Once again, Roger Corman and his "New World Pictures" sought to cash in on the craze of good Science Fiction (Star Trek, Star Wars and Alien) by producing a bad ripoff of someone else's better idea. Which is what you do if you can't come up with a good idea of your own.The basic plot line is that there is a "food shortage", and a group of ethically challenged scientists decide to create a human-alien hybrid which proceeds to get out and try to kill them all. A trouble shooter and his robot are sent in, apparently his only real skill is being able to spread his seed.Okay, sign that Roger and the people working for him are hacks. The whole climax of the plot is that the grubby looking scientist is dying of cancer. He makes sure we know this by coughing and acting sick at every opportunity. He also doesn't seem to want to take off his blood-spattered clothing and lab coat, even at dinner.The other characters include the two bimbos who get naked repeatedly, the expendable black guy (TM), the evil corporate scientist who hides what is really going on. Cliché Characters are us....But the monster, a poor cousin to the one in alien, is what ruins this movie. It never seems terribly threatening, and the characters practically have to kill themselves... which several of them do.