spwinkler-1

I am completely baffled as to why this movie is getting such mixed reviews because on a scale of 1 to 10, it is at a minimum a solid 6.5 out of 10 stars by any objective standard. For those who have seen the 1959 version, don't expect a complete deviation from that version, nor from the original novel written in the 1800's, but the ways in which it does deviate from the 59 version are brilliant. This movie is less "Hollywoodized" than the 59 version and has more of an authentic historical feel to it as a story which takes place in ancient Jerusalem. Know-it-all historical purists might take issue with that, but as one who has studied this time period extensively, there is a bit of a glimpse into how a wealthy Sadducean Jewish family would have lived under Roman occupation. The acting and directing are all solid and the action scenes are not over done which is refreshing. This movie does not drag but therein is a mild criticism. The plot development seemed a bit truncated and pushed at times which did make the film feel a bit choppy, but this is probably because they did not want the movie to drag. A director's cut could easily remedy this provided whatever was removed on the cutting room floor deeps the plot development.

I saw this movie back in 1982 as well as all of the other Apocalypse movies from that era. There is a good reason why this one gets an overall 7 IMDb rating, which is higher than all the other movies for the time period of this genre. While this movie was definitely low budget and does have a couple of bad "B movie" moments, the overall screen writing, directing and acting are actually pretty good for the low budget they had to work with. Of all the Apocalypse movies from this time period, this is the one to do a remake of. With special effects now being light years ahead of where they were then, as long as the original plot / script were followed and they didn't drown the movie in special effects, this would be a great remake.

This movie was a big disappointment. The first 30 minutes contain all of the elements to be an excellent sci-fi thriller. It seems that what Anderson tried to create here is a Kubrick type film somewhere between "The Shinning" and "2001 A Space Odyssey". What it turns into is at best a "B" movie with a lot of blood, gore and splatter which are a bad diversion from the screenplay and the script which are at times absolutely woeful. The acting is OK to very good considering how bad the script is in places. Lawrence Fishburn does an excellent job but then again he is in my opinion very underrated as an actor. I think Anderson really blew an opportunity here to create a great movie with sequel potential. It's really a shame when you consider other well done comparable deep space sci-fi films such as Pitch Black etc.