steve-ruzicka

We could go endlessly to find all the reasons why this B movie is bad (some call it trash!). However, the basic storyline is good and sufficient action is there to avoid it being boring. It also is a remake of the 1981 Lifepod.

For another remake, this could be done. Take the script and invest in more special effects, good CG scenery for the spaceship, the lifepod and all electronics on board. The script can be further expanded with an additional pod surviving the spaceship destruction. Errors can be easily corrected (spaceship explosion, icing through comet tail and more). Then we have the actors, not great but not too bad. Their characters could be far better defined for a more credible behavior.

Anybody interested?

First and foremost: three ladies showing a lot of courage to write, direct and act in this movie. Not easy. Demi and Elizabeth don't shy to show themselves inner and out. And how beautiful both are, whatever their age. Going to extremes to dive into the fountain of youth is what makes cosmetic and plastic surgeons nicely wealthy. We can of course elaborate on the story line and reference to Elephant Man, Carrie, Possession and more. A glory hymn to women and their eternal magnificence. An ode to love and not a shade of positivism for the males.

Again, kudos to all three et merci Coralie de nous apporter un vent de France.

I should have read the reviews first. But then I would not have witnessed how bad acting and directing can be.

For the director, just looking at his abysmal ratings over his career tells it all. Why would any producing company invest in such movies? Money, even if profits are low?

The acting: the performance of Dylan, played by Matthew Ewald is exceedingly irritant from start to finish. When I read that he received numerous nominations and awards, I discovered that two of his best decorated performances (coffins ...) had no rating and no reviews.

In conclusion, the movies industry follows the same Gaussian pattern as the one for IQ.