Dark Planet: The Inhabited Island

Can't understand all this negative hysteria. Most of which is actually about nothing ("crap! oh, such a crap! totally crap!" often mentioning that Bondarchuk is a bad director). Well, I can partly understand those who admired the original book (which is really worth reading) as they may have imagined everything in different manner (this is particularly true for sci-fi adaptations). But very often I read comments of people who seemed to be negatively oriented even before they really watched the film.

The movie is not piece of art. It really takes a lot from classic sci-fi movies (from costumes designs to city views). And directing sometimes is confusing. But the film has one strong point - the plot, original story that authors reflected rather well. Special effects are good (they were performed by American specialists), acting is not bad (dramatic acting usually is not required in sci-fi action movies). In essence, the movie is good and worth seeing. Don't take negative comments for granted.

BTW as far as I know Boris Strugaztsky (the one of two brothers who is still alive) liked the adaptation.

This is the first part of the two-film saga spanning over three and a half hours for both films (the second being Dark Planet: Rebellion). You have to watch both films back to back as they are one continuous story; the first one stopping in the middle of the narration.

Let's start with what's good. First, it had an impressive budget with massive sets and computer graphics which were pretty good. The story is really interesting based on Strugatsky's sci-fi novel. That's where the good ends in my view. I quite liked the sound in the film - rich full-blown sound effects. And I didn'tthink much of the music either way - it was good enough.

Now to the bad. The script of the film I thought was terrible and jerky, with some silly dialogues and so was most of the lead actors' play - as if this was a farce - totally unrealistic and unbelievable and at times plainly bad. The camera-work was average at best and so was the editing. Then there's this kung-fu which is very fairy-tailish, with crazy jumps and blows completely copying Matrix style.

I couldn't help thinking the director wasn't very original in creating the image but made it a weird mix of visual ideas taken from other films: cars looking like they are from Total Recall and Mad Max, lead actor looking like the tanned curly blond boy from The Blue Lagoon from the 80's, let alone his bad play. One of the characters - Fank, an aide to the prosecutor (by the way. played by the director in a very unfitting for him role) - is a near- copy of Gary Oldman's character Zorg in the Fifth Element driving something of a bat- mobile. Even though the movie is filled with modern GGI, it is a weird mix of things borrowed from western movies with very Russian style of actors' play, with lots of crazy overacting, yelling (there's lots of that here) and a typical Russian cinematography of the late 80s - early 90's.

Yet, the film is quite watchable and holds together the interest till the end, albeit mainly for the big money poured into it. It's certainly worth watching for the really great sci-fi story, especially if you're a sci-fi fan and like adventure and post-apocalyptic movies. All in all, It's like a great play badly acted and badly directed on a richly decorated theatre stage. Recommended.

... for the movie cooked from all possible clichés. Let's call it "a movie of the future": no interesting dialogues, no interesting character dynamics, sexually decent, a product. Not only lacking a point, but totally chaotic at the end. Much like a ruined orgasm. Actually, there were lots of completely confusing moments all along. Main character was so artificially angelic beautiful - in a nonsense commercial-romantic way, that it was almost disgusting to watch.

The only positive things was a vision of the perverse futuristic world, dark, totalitarian, rainy, muddy, technocratic, but also kind of futuristic baroque. A bit reminding me of 5th element, or Chronicles of Riddick. (Or just today.) So much more interesting plots, events, interaction could have been set in this environment.

It's 2011 ... and you want a science-fiction? Watch Aliens, Avatar, Abyss, Terminator or at least Matrix.

First things first: Make sure to see this in the 227min original (two-part) version. The international (one-part) release is a hack job with many crucial scenes missing, and a new cartoon title sequence that doesn't quite fit the mood.

The movie's greatest asset is certainly the Strugatzky brothers' nuanced story about a planet corrupt to the bone and the hero's moral imperative to intervene. The story is largely treated with respect, and while I can relate to some of the criticism aimed at the movie - there are some continuity issues, the casting might not suit everyone's taste, as won't the Matrix-style kung fu - this is a well-realised sci-fi flick that's worth watching for the strength of its story alone.

Yes, Tarkovsky would have made this a different movie, and I'm surely going to watch Aleksey German's 'Hard To Be A God', but I for one didn't mind this movie's bubblegum aesthetics while pondering existential moral dilemmas.

When i first watched this movie, i thought it was very chaotic. There was many questions, also the ending was very disappointing. Like their intentions was good but the writers & the director's mind was very unclear. Then i learned it's actually longer, it was actually 2 movie. First one released 2008 second was 2009. Then i found longer version (was hard to find) Longer version was just a little bit better. At least it answed some questions. And can't believe they cut really good scenes for make it short. Yet there need to be part 3 too, its still half baked. (Btw the main character was so handsome and cute at same time but why the f* he smiles for everything? Like the director said him: hey boy you don't need to act, just smile, they gone love you anyway.