CALIFICACIÓN DE IMDb
5.2/10
766
TU CALIFICACIÓN
Agrega una trama en tu idiomaProfessor Bernard Quatermass' manned rocket ship returns to Earth but two of the astronauts are missing and the survivor seems ill and unable to communicate.Professor Bernard Quatermass' manned rocket ship returns to Earth but two of the astronauts are missing and the survivor seems ill and unable to communicate.Professor Bernard Quatermass' manned rocket ship returns to Earth but two of the astronauts are missing and the survivor seems ill and unable to communicate.
Andrew Tiernan
- Victor Carroon
- (as Andy Tiernan)
Opiniones destacadas
The original TV series and movie were ground breaking in Sscience fiction. Why BBC remade this as a 90 minute film , is a mystery. The story line, sets and especially the acting were all atrocious. Good actors appeared to be embarrassed in their attempt to utter their lines from an appalling script. The BBC should be censured for this nonsense and I doubt Nigel Kneale, the original author (mentioned as a consultant) had anything to do with this travesty. I could go on using all the derogatory adjectives in the English language but who really cares, but I have to to make this submission the required length. I sincerely hope they do not attempt a remake Quatermass and the Pit. probably one of the best ever science fiction series.
I'm an old fan of Quatermass and the Pit (watching the DVD now actually...) but I'm a bit surprised by the BBC4 experiment I saw a few late nights back. Not great, not bad, not much actually - it was very much all theatrics and really lacked any real bearing. Plus the ending just completely fizzled out..I sat there thinking "Huh? What have I missed?"
Jason Flemyng, as good an actor as he is, was just not Quatermass material. As the head of a space program, sorry - he's just too damn young. He lacks gravitas and bearing and just seems as if he's always catching up rather than leading.
Fun - to a degree - but ultimately disappointing
Jason Flemyng, as good an actor as he is, was just not Quatermass material. As the head of a space program, sorry - he's just too damn young. He lacks gravitas and bearing and just seems as if he's always catching up rather than leading.
Fun - to a degree - but ultimately disappointing
The idea of a modern version of Quatermass is an intriguing one, but unfortunately this poor effort is a wasted opportunity.
The decision to transmit the programme live is ultimately a gimmick that damages the project. It would appear that the budget was quite low, which, when combined with the live aspects make this look like a you tube video.
Jason Flemyng is arguably miscast as Quatermass, although it might be argued that this incompetent production doesn't give him a fair chance.
David Tennant fares a little better , but of the rest of the cast the females are the only ones who seem to be even trying. Isla Blair and Indira varma bring a bit of much needed credibility to the proceedings.
The really big problem is Richard Fell's awful script which is amateurish in every imaginable way. When listening to the dialogue one imagines of the writer or director have ever heard real people speak. Fail.
The decision to transmit the programme live is ultimately a gimmick that damages the project. It would appear that the budget was quite low, which, when combined with the live aspects make this look like a you tube video.
Jason Flemyng is arguably miscast as Quatermass, although it might be argued that this incompetent production doesn't give him a fair chance.
David Tennant fares a little better , but of the rest of the cast the females are the only ones who seem to be even trying. Isla Blair and Indira varma bring a bit of much needed credibility to the proceedings.
The really big problem is Richard Fell's awful script which is amateurish in every imaginable way. When listening to the dialogue one imagines of the writer or director have ever heard real people speak. Fail.
The space rocket project led by Professor Quatermass has now not heard from their crew for several days and the worst is feared. Suddenly though the rocket reappears and they manage to get it back to Earth by remote control, still not knowing the fate of the crew. When they breach the hull they find only one member of the crew in the craft the others "gone". With the media and other investigators looking on, Quatermass and Dr Briscoe try to work out what happened up there when contact was lost, where the other two crew members are and what has happened to survivor Carroon, who is in a panicked and incoherent state.
Two interesting, maybe even good, ideas here. Firstly have a modern go at Quatermass; secondly do a live broadcast of a multi-location drama (they have done it with dramas in the US like ER to reasonable effect). Putting them together into one idea though only works if one doesn't limit or detract from the other, which you gotta feel happens here. Never having really the original Quatermass (I've only ever seen a couple of the movies which I enjoyed), I'm not protective over the subject and a remake is not something that I specifically have an issue with if it is good or bad I will watch it on its own merits, not in comparison to something else. The remake itself on paper offers tension, global threats, fear of the unknown and solid sci-fi and it is disappointing then that more is not made of it.
Sadly a lot of the biggest failings come down to the delivery of the first idea. The thing about it being live: why? In what way did it help the film other than just being a gimmick to make people watch (which, being BBC4 and now being just a repeat, I doubt does much). I did see a modern musical retelling of the crucifixion done in Manchester (Manchester Passion) and that was done live. While that film was not perfect, at least it was live in a crowd and in public the fact it was live was a positive (or at least interesting) aspect to it. Here all it seemed to do was meant that it was done cheaply and not in the way that best serves the story. It is not that anyone laughs or falls over, but just that the scenes are done with limited cameras and camera positions, you don't get a lot of edits around a scene, the use of music is limited and of course special effects are not really involved.
Technically I'm sure it was impressive to pull it off but this doesn't translate into value for the viewer. Instead what I found was, while the basic story offered me potential, all I ended up thinking about was how much better it would have been if they had made a "proper" film (ie, take your time and redo bits if need be play with the edit etc) rather than this experiment. It is not that I needed effects but all the way through the fact that they get one shot at everything does prevent it doing more things that would have been useful such as effects, such as more cuts around scenes, such as multiple angles, such as more locations etc. What the live aspect doesn't explain though is why the film cannot decide when it is set. The characters mostly appear to be in the 1950's, they all talk in the tones and language of 1950's Britain, the space mission is certainly not occurring in the world of 2005 but yet we are in the Tate Modern and are watching the modern BBC news. It is not a massive problem but it just felt like someone wrote this, saw that the clash but just decided to ignore it.
The cast are mostly good although you do get the impression mostly that nobody is really pushing themselves or doing anything more exciting than making sure it is right first time. Flemyng is probably not right for the title role but he was OK if the film had been better generally I think he would have been exposed but as it was he did alright. Tennant, Gatiss, Dunbarr and Varma all do solid work and seem to fit their characters but for me the best performance was from Tiernan. Essentially a babbling wreck throughout the film, if he hadn't convinced then the rest would have fallen down; but fortunately he pulls it off and mostly his weird state is quite effective.
I will not recommend this film to anyone because I don't think it was that good. I suppose if you specifically want to see a project (or gimmick) then the live broadcast bit may interest you but I cannot imagine many came for that. No, instead you will be, like I was, attracted by the name and the cast and will be hoping for a good bit of sci-fi. Sadly the live broadcast gimmick takes away a lot while bringing nothing to the table of value to the viewer. A shame because the material's potential is there to see but sadly this is just a basic film that doesn't work and, for another project, I would like to see them do it again with the same cast etc but with the resources of time and money added just to see what they can do then.
Two interesting, maybe even good, ideas here. Firstly have a modern go at Quatermass; secondly do a live broadcast of a multi-location drama (they have done it with dramas in the US like ER to reasonable effect). Putting them together into one idea though only works if one doesn't limit or detract from the other, which you gotta feel happens here. Never having really the original Quatermass (I've only ever seen a couple of the movies which I enjoyed), I'm not protective over the subject and a remake is not something that I specifically have an issue with if it is good or bad I will watch it on its own merits, not in comparison to something else. The remake itself on paper offers tension, global threats, fear of the unknown and solid sci-fi and it is disappointing then that more is not made of it.
Sadly a lot of the biggest failings come down to the delivery of the first idea. The thing about it being live: why? In what way did it help the film other than just being a gimmick to make people watch (which, being BBC4 and now being just a repeat, I doubt does much). I did see a modern musical retelling of the crucifixion done in Manchester (Manchester Passion) and that was done live. While that film was not perfect, at least it was live in a crowd and in public the fact it was live was a positive (or at least interesting) aspect to it. Here all it seemed to do was meant that it was done cheaply and not in the way that best serves the story. It is not that anyone laughs or falls over, but just that the scenes are done with limited cameras and camera positions, you don't get a lot of edits around a scene, the use of music is limited and of course special effects are not really involved.
Technically I'm sure it was impressive to pull it off but this doesn't translate into value for the viewer. Instead what I found was, while the basic story offered me potential, all I ended up thinking about was how much better it would have been if they had made a "proper" film (ie, take your time and redo bits if need be play with the edit etc) rather than this experiment. It is not that I needed effects but all the way through the fact that they get one shot at everything does prevent it doing more things that would have been useful such as effects, such as more cuts around scenes, such as multiple angles, such as more locations etc. What the live aspect doesn't explain though is why the film cannot decide when it is set. The characters mostly appear to be in the 1950's, they all talk in the tones and language of 1950's Britain, the space mission is certainly not occurring in the world of 2005 but yet we are in the Tate Modern and are watching the modern BBC news. It is not a massive problem but it just felt like someone wrote this, saw that the clash but just decided to ignore it.
The cast are mostly good although you do get the impression mostly that nobody is really pushing themselves or doing anything more exciting than making sure it is right first time. Flemyng is probably not right for the title role but he was OK if the film had been better generally I think he would have been exposed but as it was he did alright. Tennant, Gatiss, Dunbarr and Varma all do solid work and seem to fit their characters but for me the best performance was from Tiernan. Essentially a babbling wreck throughout the film, if he hadn't convinced then the rest would have fallen down; but fortunately he pulls it off and mostly his weird state is quite effective.
I will not recommend this film to anyone because I don't think it was that good. I suppose if you specifically want to see a project (or gimmick) then the live broadcast bit may interest you but I cannot imagine many came for that. No, instead you will be, like I was, attracted by the name and the cast and will be hoping for a good bit of sci-fi. Sadly the live broadcast gimmick takes away a lot while bringing nothing to the table of value to the viewer. A shame because the material's potential is there to see but sadly this is just a basic film that doesn't work and, for another project, I would like to see them do it again with the same cast etc but with the resources of time and money added just to see what they can do then.
Like the previous poster, I too was impressed by the Quatarmass drama aired live on BBC4 on April 2nd. Though I am too young to remember the original and its various adaptations, I had heard enough about it to convince myself that this would be some schlock 1950s-style "creature feature" sci-fi fest. Instead, the BBC served up a couple of hours live science fiction, that although short on special effects was not short on tension and creditable performances. Jason Flemyng's performance as the eponymous Professor was one that captured well the scientist's terror at what his experiment unleashed combined with the cool, detached analytic mind of the scientist trying to sort it all out. The mix of studio and location settings in a live drama was ambitious and cuts between them were seamless, the use of VT was a bit of a cheat, but hey they used to do it in Z cars all the time. This was, nevertheless a triumph for live television, a credit to all those involved.
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaDuring the rehearsals for the film, David Tennant was offered the role of the Tenth Doctor in Doctor Who (2005). This casting was not announced to the public until April 16, 2005, two weeks after the broadcast, but his fellow castmembers, and crew, became aware of the speculation surrounding Tennant. In the live broadcast, Jason Flemyng changed Quatermass' first line to Tennant's character Dr. Gordon Briscoe from "Good to have you back, Gordon" to "Good to have you back, Doctor" as a deliberate reference.
- ErroresWhen they show Victor the film in the hospital, we are looking through the transparent screen towards Victor. But the countdown numbers at the start of the film appear the right way round to us so they'd be the wrong way round for those watching from the other side of the screen.
- Versiones alternativasThe 2005 Simply Home Entertainment DVD release contains over 50 small or major differences, notably Adrian Bower's line-drying being replaced with the tech rehearsal sequence prerecorded from the previous night (52:02), and the removal of a loud offscreen crash following an exit from Adrian Dunbar (1:07:49). The strapline "Major news announcement on BBC NEWS 24 now" (alerting viewers to the death of Pope John Paul II) is another noticeable if understandable omission.
- ConexionesFeatured in Doctor Who Confidential: The Writer's Tale (2006)
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- País de origen
- Sitios oficiales
- Idioma
- También se conoce como
- Експеримент Квотермаса
- Locaciones de filmación
- Productora
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta