pseudonymous-uontu
This isn't a big movie---it's a simple story without twists and dilemmas and haunted complicated emotional bits. But it's Asimov, so you should expect nothing else. It's like a lengthy scifi short story, something you would find in an anthology.The movie made me really happy, though. They use a lot of archetypal sets---the archaeological dig with snake pits and drinks-in-the-afternoon bars with sand floors and monkeys (iirc someone was even paid in coins kept in a leather bag), the expensive glass building with indoor waterfall, the musty religious temple with lots of columns, the spooky cave lit by kerosene-dipped rag torches. One might say it's unimagineative, but I found it a comforting way to communicate familiar ideas quickly and effortlessly.I don't want to hear any hog-slaver about how the movie was cheap because it was set in India---I thought the production quality was completely adequate. And I certainly won't entertain this nonsense about Jennifer Burns not being ''convincing'' whatever that means. Jennifer Burns completely made the movie for me. I thought she was open and gracious. You should keep this movie within reach at all times. Watch it with some ice cream and strawberries once you get home after embarrassing yourself by crying on the subway. (again.)
clegg-5
Other then the title and maybe 20 lines of dialog (mostly taken out of context) this screenplay has absolutely no resemblance to the great story Asimov penned. Even most of the characters in the movie are not part of the original story. In addition, the feeling I had after watching it was that it was a high budget student film created by a college film major with the help of some fellow students.It is also obvious that it was filmed in India as almost all the extras and scenery have a definite Indian look and feel, which did not portray an alien world at all, including the poor and inconsistent red filtering effects for ambient light. Getting past the butcher job on the original script, it was a comedic movie and a good candidate for Mystery Science Theater 3000. Yes, it was that bad!
weatherstation
Paraphrasing from the LA Weekly review: Every ten years or so a film comes out by which all bad films shall be judged...this is that film.The film not only has the usual suspects of a bad film (poor story telling, bad acting, bad directing) but as I recall it also suffers from bad sound, lighting, editing, and cinematography. Issac Asimov deserves better for his award winning story. Although we should be able to generate several gigawatts of energy from the amount of revolutions generated from his grave.Finally, if you ever want to know what having a lobotomy is like...watch this film.
sblarney
... people that don't give a rat's ass about the genre they direct are allowed to direct.in other words, a chick who clearly digs Oprah and Lifetime TV is given hardcore classic science fiction. what's next? A Jane Campion wannabe given the Helm to direct a James Bond Flick? couldn't be any worse, really. This film proves an old adage: ALWAYS CHECK THE CREDITS on a film before wasting any $$ on it.sidenote: Corman is not to be blamed for this. He is only the name of the brand. the Director is responsible for all the bad judgement calls cited beforehand and probably for making sure the sci-fi elements were written out and replaced with the melodramatic crappola.
AD
