jrgreenmd-1
feb 2003 se unió
Te damos la bienvenida a nuevo perfil
Nuestras actualizaciones aún están en desarrollo. Si bien la versión anterior de el perfil ya no está disponible, estamos trabajando activamente en mejoras, ¡y algunas de las funciones que faltan regresarán pronto! Mantente al tanto para su regreso. Mientras tanto, el análisis de calificaciones sigue disponible en nuestras aplicaciones para iOS y Android, en la página de perfil. Para ver la distribución de tus calificaciones por año y género, consulta nuestra nueva Guía de ayuda.
Distintivos2
Para saber cómo ganar distintivos, ve a página de ayuda de distintivos.
Reseñas7
Clasificación de jrgreenmd-1
This made for TV film is another in a long line of science fiction human versus nature films, and unfortunately it is not one of the best of the genre. The directing, cinematography, pacing, script, and acting are poor. It may fulfill cable TV's need to fill a time slot with inexpensive fare, but does not compare well with the vast selection of viewing available to the modern cable viewer.
Who will like this film? If you relish watching bad guys get their due, you'll get plenty of satisfaction. If you like films that are so bad that they are funny, you'll get plenty to mock and laugh at. If you love the B films of the 1950's, you might find this a entertaining way to waste ninety minutes. If you like the campy and quirky, check out Richard Chevolleau's portrayal of Q, the exterminator.
Chevolleau does a great job in the role and is a pleasant distraction in an otherwise dull and plodding flick. I did not recognize him as the same actor who played Marcus 'Augur' Deveraux in "Earth: Final Conflict" or Charlie in "Flowers for Algernon" (2000). His performance made me want to re-watch both.
Who will dislike this film? Any die hard science fiction fans will be disappointed by the lack of thought in the plot and the unoriginal scenario. Special effects junkies will be in heavy withdrawals by the cheap effects. The scientifically inclined will be at a loss with the weak to absent science and logic in this flick. Connoisseurs of fine film will be horrified than the horror occurred behind and in front of the lens.
In all, there is not much to recommend in "Swarmed." As I was voting at IMDb, I was conflicted in giving it as low a score as I did. If it was that bad, why did I watch the whole thing? Was it such a train wreck that I could not pry my eyes away? Was there a belief that it had to get better? In the end, it was one actor's performance and a desire to be intellectually honest in this review.
Should you watch? Well if you are actually thinking about it, probably not. This is more a movie for a mindless moment.
Who will like this film? If you relish watching bad guys get their due, you'll get plenty of satisfaction. If you like films that are so bad that they are funny, you'll get plenty to mock and laugh at. If you love the B films of the 1950's, you might find this a entertaining way to waste ninety minutes. If you like the campy and quirky, check out Richard Chevolleau's portrayal of Q, the exterminator.
Chevolleau does a great job in the role and is a pleasant distraction in an otherwise dull and plodding flick. I did not recognize him as the same actor who played Marcus 'Augur' Deveraux in "Earth: Final Conflict" or Charlie in "Flowers for Algernon" (2000). His performance made me want to re-watch both.
Who will dislike this film? Any die hard science fiction fans will be disappointed by the lack of thought in the plot and the unoriginal scenario. Special effects junkies will be in heavy withdrawals by the cheap effects. The scientifically inclined will be at a loss with the weak to absent science and logic in this flick. Connoisseurs of fine film will be horrified than the horror occurred behind and in front of the lens.
In all, there is not much to recommend in "Swarmed." As I was voting at IMDb, I was conflicted in giving it as low a score as I did. If it was that bad, why did I watch the whole thing? Was it such a train wreck that I could not pry my eyes away? Was there a belief that it had to get better? In the end, it was one actor's performance and a desire to be intellectually honest in this review.
Should you watch? Well if you are actually thinking about it, probably not. This is more a movie for a mindless moment.
The Sci-Fi Channel has once again cranked out another "made for TV" movie in their tired formula of species versus human engagements. As the film title indicates, the locusts have the honor of being man's nemesis this time.
A good director, cast, crew, writer, et al could have made this a passable piece of entertainment, but alas not in this case. The writing is predictable. The editing and photography are generic. The special effects are far, far from special. These scenes are particularly disappointing for a science fiction movie. While acceptable for a student film or a sci-fi spoof, they lack believability and appear to indicate a project with a meager budget.
David Keith does a good job as Gary Wolf, the corporate head. He has become a staple of The Sci-Fi Channel's flicks. Among this swarm of bad acting, he is a welcome relief, but has a limited amount of screen time.
Dan Cortese is very disappointing as Colt, the organic researcher and "good guy." His performance was stilted and uninspiring.
However, this is not unique in this film that lacks originality and recycles old themes. The evil cooperation versus the little guy. The government drone versus the civilian. The testosterone toxic military type versus the rebel. The industry versus the environmentalist. The geneticists verses the organic farmers. ... The banal list continues culminating in the human versus species of the week theme that is reflected in the title.
If you have a free moment with nothing to do and are bored out of your mind, consider this as a possible option.
A good director, cast, crew, writer, et al could have made this a passable piece of entertainment, but alas not in this case. The writing is predictable. The editing and photography are generic. The special effects are far, far from special. These scenes are particularly disappointing for a science fiction movie. While acceptable for a student film or a sci-fi spoof, they lack believability and appear to indicate a project with a meager budget.
David Keith does a good job as Gary Wolf, the corporate head. He has become a staple of The Sci-Fi Channel's flicks. Among this swarm of bad acting, he is a welcome relief, but has a limited amount of screen time.
Dan Cortese is very disappointing as Colt, the organic researcher and "good guy." His performance was stilted and uninspiring.
However, this is not unique in this film that lacks originality and recycles old themes. The evil cooperation versus the little guy. The government drone versus the civilian. The testosterone toxic military type versus the rebel. The industry versus the environmentalist. The geneticists verses the organic farmers. ... The banal list continues culminating in the human versus species of the week theme that is reflected in the title.
If you have a free moment with nothing to do and are bored out of your mind, consider this as a possible option.
The SciFi Channel's 2005 movie "Descent" is a weak to fair reworking of the old "journey to the center of the earth" plot.
The movie appears to suffer from the classic failings of a SciFi Channel made for TV movie. Sets are limited and one gets redundant views of actors at sparse consoles intermixed with low budget animation of the vessel called "the mole." There is some action and some intrigue, but the movie gets a bit redundant with just three main sets (mole, cave, and control room) and the actors who try to twist the uninspired dialog into something entertaining.
Luke Perry does a good job as Dr. Jake Rollins, but Michael Dorn ( aka Warf from Star Trek) appears one dimensional with General Fielding's stilted dialog.
This might seem like another homage to Jules Verne's piece of classic of nineteenth century French literature "Journey to the Center of the Earth;" it is not. For that watch the 1959 classic "Journey to the Center of the Earth" with Pat Boone and James Mason. The "Descent" is another "tunnel digging vessel heading to the center of the earth movie." If you like this sci-fi theme try episode # 1.2 from "The Secret Adventures of Jules Verne" titled "Queen Victoria and the Giant Mole." If you desire the big budget modern special effects, there is 2003's "The Core" with Hilary Swank. These choices may entertain and stimulate your imagination more.
However if you love science fiction, have nothing else to watch, and want to rest your brain; "Descent" will suffice.
The movie appears to suffer from the classic failings of a SciFi Channel made for TV movie. Sets are limited and one gets redundant views of actors at sparse consoles intermixed with low budget animation of the vessel called "the mole." There is some action and some intrigue, but the movie gets a bit redundant with just three main sets (mole, cave, and control room) and the actors who try to twist the uninspired dialog into something entertaining.
Luke Perry does a good job as Dr. Jake Rollins, but Michael Dorn ( aka Warf from Star Trek) appears one dimensional with General Fielding's stilted dialog.
This might seem like another homage to Jules Verne's piece of classic of nineteenth century French literature "Journey to the Center of the Earth;" it is not. For that watch the 1959 classic "Journey to the Center of the Earth" with Pat Boone and James Mason. The "Descent" is another "tunnel digging vessel heading to the center of the earth movie." If you like this sci-fi theme try episode # 1.2 from "The Secret Adventures of Jules Verne" titled "Queen Victoria and the Giant Mole." If you desire the big budget modern special effects, there is 2003's "The Core" with Hilary Swank. These choices may entertain and stimulate your imagination more.
However if you love science fiction, have nothing else to watch, and want to rest your brain; "Descent" will suffice.