NOTE IMDb
4,1/10
3,3 k
MA NOTE
Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueIn a post-apocalyptic USA, a doctor/scientist infected with a new strain of parasite ends up in a small desert town, trying to find a cure.In a post-apocalyptic USA, a doctor/scientist infected with a new strain of parasite ends up in a small desert town, trying to find a cure.In a post-apocalyptic USA, a doctor/scientist infected with a new strain of parasite ends up in a small desert town, trying to find a cure.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
Joanelle Romero
- Bo
- (as Joannelle Nadine Romero)
Avis à la une
Problem with this movie is that it's being a quite boring one to watch. It picks a totally serious approach, while the story is just far from interesting or well written. There is hardly anything spectacular happening in it and as a science-fiction/horror or post-apocalyptic movie, it's a severely lacking one.
It's funny how this movie is supposed to be a post-apocalyptic movie. Once the movie starts off there is nothing to indicate that this movie is supposed to be set in a near future, in which the entire world has supposedly gone to waste, due to some kind of atomic war, presumably. But the movie simply looks like an 1982 movie set in 1982. There are only some lasers featured in it, to indicate that this movie is not being set at present time.
But to be frank, there are far more movies like that out there, that are still not being half as bad as this one though. Problem really is that this movie takes itself far too serious and tries to be more of a realistic movie, though the story has absolutely nothing clever or original in it to justify this approach. The movie really doesn't work out too well because of this. It instead makes this movie work out as a boring one, also since it doesn't have any redeeming characters or some fun or good tense horror-like moments in it.
It's actually quite amazing how bland and totally uninteresting the movie its story is, while its concept itself doesn't sound that bad at all. Seriously, this is all they could come up with? I'm surprised that a person green-lighted this project at the first place.
The characters absolutely don't work out at all, also due to its poorly and unimaginative written story. The actors also come across as bad ones because of this, since the movie features some real poor dialog as well. Doubtful that this is a movie Demi Moore is still very proud off. This movie was one of the very first ones she ever appeared in and to be honest, she was absolutely horrible in this, which is, as I said, more due to the writing and perhaps directing as well, than her actual acting skills.
But to name a good thing about this movie; it has some quite confusing looking effects and special effects make-up. No big surprise though, once you see that Stan Winston's name is attached to this.
This movie is too much of a bore and there is no reason to recommend it to anyone.
4/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
It's funny how this movie is supposed to be a post-apocalyptic movie. Once the movie starts off there is nothing to indicate that this movie is supposed to be set in a near future, in which the entire world has supposedly gone to waste, due to some kind of atomic war, presumably. But the movie simply looks like an 1982 movie set in 1982. There are only some lasers featured in it, to indicate that this movie is not being set at present time.
But to be frank, there are far more movies like that out there, that are still not being half as bad as this one though. Problem really is that this movie takes itself far too serious and tries to be more of a realistic movie, though the story has absolutely nothing clever or original in it to justify this approach. The movie really doesn't work out too well because of this. It instead makes this movie work out as a boring one, also since it doesn't have any redeeming characters or some fun or good tense horror-like moments in it.
It's actually quite amazing how bland and totally uninteresting the movie its story is, while its concept itself doesn't sound that bad at all. Seriously, this is all they could come up with? I'm surprised that a person green-lighted this project at the first place.
The characters absolutely don't work out at all, also due to its poorly and unimaginative written story. The actors also come across as bad ones because of this, since the movie features some real poor dialog as well. Doubtful that this is a movie Demi Moore is still very proud off. This movie was one of the very first ones she ever appeared in and to be honest, she was absolutely horrible in this, which is, as I said, more due to the writing and perhaps directing as well, than her actual acting skills.
But to name a good thing about this movie; it has some quite confusing looking effects and special effects make-up. No big surprise though, once you see that Stan Winston's name is attached to this.
This movie is too much of a bore and there is no reason to recommend it to anyone.
4/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
I saw this movie in the theater and still have the funny little 3-D glasses with the creature's face printed on them that came with the movie. Maybe that gives me a soft spot for the film, which was totally forgettable in almost every other way. I have written in my 1982 notes to avoid the 3-D version unless you like double vision - so maybe those stupid glasses weren't very good. Poor editing made the movie a bit hard to follow - not that it really has anything worth following, though. The most notable thing about the film is the queasy feeling that you got from the monsters, which gave me the creeps in the same way that I get when I see leaches. I suppose that means that the movie did at least something right. I rated it a "5".
No, this is not a very good movie at all. However, I saw it when it was first released in 1982 in 3D, and not once since then, and I still remember some creepy scenes. The big gross-out in the movie -- when the dripping parasite falls down on you from the ceiling in 3D!! -- had me squirming in my seat in 1982.
I saw a number of films during the short-lived 3D revival of the early '80's, and, believe me, there were very few kick-ass uses of the 3D effect anywhere, but Parasite had one of the better ones. (Most of the other good 3D moments are in House of Wax with Vincent Price. Even Hitchcock couldn't figure out what to do with the gimmick.)
By the way, in 1982 no one had ever heard of Demi Moore. Did we predict big things for her after seeing her in this? Yeah, right.
I saw a number of films during the short-lived 3D revival of the early '80's, and, believe me, there were very few kick-ass uses of the 3D effect anywhere, but Parasite had one of the better ones. (Most of the other good 3D moments are in House of Wax with Vincent Price. Even Hitchcock couldn't figure out what to do with the gimmick.)
By the way, in 1982 no one had ever heard of Demi Moore. Did we predict big things for her after seeing her in this? Yeah, right.
Good times, you'll think. One of my friends lent the DVD to me and expressed they didn't understand the hate towards the film. I've had my chances to grab it, but the not-so-flattering comments left me to pass it up, but after hearing it wasn't that bad (and I seem to share the same thoughts about particular horror films with this friend). I dived right in to it. As it stands it wasn't great, but nonetheless it was entertainingly simple b-grade fun in a post-apocalyptic backdrop.
Charles Brand in only his third feature paves the way for outrageously ham-fisted splatter effects and make-up artist Stan Winston formulates a nasty, icky looking slug-like parasite with a mean looking grin. The criticism against his design is unfair sure it isn't first-rate but with budget associated (as this is truly low-rent feature produced by Embassy Pictures) it's an acceptable effort. Trying to be different around that time was adding a new gimmick that it would be in 3D for movie-going audiences. Sadly the DVD doesn't come with the 3D version. Anyhow it didn't destroy the mood in any way. What can really hurt it though, was that the script is slipshod and it never truly gets in any sort of groove and comes up being a little too sparse and repetitive in its actions. The atmosphere remains non-existent and tension doesn't come by easily, but Brand (unintentional or not) engraves a grimy edge to it all (with Mac Ahlberg's well-executed panning of the camera) and throws about some graphic diversions. It's hard to forget Broadway siren Vivian Blaine's encounter with a parasite and some slow-motion passages are rather funny. Richard Band's shivering score feels like it's on a loop, but seems to suit it.
There are earnest performances from the likes of Robert Glaudini, Luca Bercovici, Al Fann, James Davidson, Cherrie Currie and a quick show-in by Cheryl Smith. Demi Moore in her first on-screen role doesn't make much of a dent, but it's far from awful.
In the end it's immensely forgettable, but lately watching these modern (and sometimes leaden) Sci-fi original TV features is making me appreciate this schlock far more.
Charles Brand in only his third feature paves the way for outrageously ham-fisted splatter effects and make-up artist Stan Winston formulates a nasty, icky looking slug-like parasite with a mean looking grin. The criticism against his design is unfair sure it isn't first-rate but with budget associated (as this is truly low-rent feature produced by Embassy Pictures) it's an acceptable effort. Trying to be different around that time was adding a new gimmick that it would be in 3D for movie-going audiences. Sadly the DVD doesn't come with the 3D version. Anyhow it didn't destroy the mood in any way. What can really hurt it though, was that the script is slipshod and it never truly gets in any sort of groove and comes up being a little too sparse and repetitive in its actions. The atmosphere remains non-existent and tension doesn't come by easily, but Brand (unintentional or not) engraves a grimy edge to it all (with Mac Ahlberg's well-executed panning of the camera) and throws about some graphic diversions. It's hard to forget Broadway siren Vivian Blaine's encounter with a parasite and some slow-motion passages are rather funny. Richard Band's shivering score feels like it's on a loop, but seems to suit it.
There are earnest performances from the likes of Robert Glaudini, Luca Bercovici, Al Fann, James Davidson, Cherrie Currie and a quick show-in by Cheryl Smith. Demi Moore in her first on-screen role doesn't make much of a dent, but it's far from awful.
In the end it's immensely forgettable, but lately watching these modern (and sometimes leaden) Sci-fi original TV features is making me appreciate this schlock far more.
It isn't necessarily fair to begin making judgments about a movie within its first minutes, but sometimes it's very easy, for good and for ill. By the time one-quarter of the length has elapsed plot still hasn't shown up (and it won't meaningfully show up for a good while yet), and half the scenes we've gotten up to that point were rendered in slow motion. The obvious 3-D gimmick, which never survives in a picture beyond its initial release, just comes off badly. Charles Band's direction is so lethargic generally that it's a wonder the cast weren't falling asleep in the middle of the shoot. We are shown the world, and some characters in it, and we're given small pieces of information, but even as we close in on the halfway mark there still hasn't been any significant explanation, and we can only accept the goings-on at face value. "Insufficient" might be the best word to describe the writing in all regards, but "weak" is a fair one, too. Despite their overall reputation, the Band family has made some genuinely enjoyable, good films every now and again. 'Parasite' isn't one of them.
It's not until we're five-eighths through the runtime that substantial plot really shows up, by the way. In fairness, it's not like this is all bad. I see the skill that did go into it. The cast are very much limited by the material and Band's direction, but they try to make the most of it - including a fledgling Demi Moore, and Cherie Currie. The crew turned in good work generally, including effects and special makeup, sets, and costume design. The story may take a long time to truly show up, but there are some fun sci-fi horror vibes to be had all the same. Richard Band's original music isn't half bad. And hey, there are actually some splendid idea in the screenplay; there was real potential here. Would that the direction carried more vitality, and more than that, that the writing had bothered to give us any reason to care until the title was already more than half over. There's value here, but it's condensed and miniaturized, and presents as sloppily and with as little excitement as it possibly could. All the best efforts of the cast and crew can't overcome writing and direction this meager.
Really and truly, this could have been a good movie. I see what it does well. It flounders in some crucial ways, however, and for far too much of its length, so the entertainment that it can ultimately offer is just all too little. I'm glad for those who like 'Parasite' more than I do, and for that matter I want to like it more than I do; then again, maybe I'm being too kind. One way or another it's hard to especially recommend this except for those who are diehard fans of the genre or someone involved, or those who are direly curious. Oh well.
It's not until we're five-eighths through the runtime that substantial plot really shows up, by the way. In fairness, it's not like this is all bad. I see the skill that did go into it. The cast are very much limited by the material and Band's direction, but they try to make the most of it - including a fledgling Demi Moore, and Cherie Currie. The crew turned in good work generally, including effects and special makeup, sets, and costume design. The story may take a long time to truly show up, but there are some fun sci-fi horror vibes to be had all the same. Richard Band's original music isn't half bad. And hey, there are actually some splendid idea in the screenplay; there was real potential here. Would that the direction carried more vitality, and more than that, that the writing had bothered to give us any reason to care until the title was already more than half over. There's value here, but it's condensed and miniaturized, and presents as sloppily and with as little excitement as it possibly could. All the best efforts of the cast and crew can't overcome writing and direction this meager.
Really and truly, this could have been a good movie. I see what it does well. It flounders in some crucial ways, however, and for far too much of its length, so the entertainment that it can ultimately offer is just all too little. I'm glad for those who like 'Parasite' more than I do, and for that matter I want to like it more than I do; then again, maybe I'm being too kind. One way or another it's hard to especially recommend this except for those who are diehard fans of the genre or someone involved, or those who are direly curious. Oh well.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesIn October 2019, Demi Moore stated (in The Late Late Show with James Corden) that this was the worst movie she has ever been in.
- GaffesWhen the first gang member gets infected by the parasite, they refer to it several times as 'that thing on his arm' despite the fact that it is on his chest.
- Citations
Patricia Welles: I could've gone to the city when my father died, but they'd just put me in one of those work camps, put a tattoo on my arm. I'm still a whole lot better off here.
- Versions alternativesDue to Ascot targeting a "Not under 16" rating, the German theatrical version was cut for violence by 28 seconds to achieve such rating. Uncut version was released on VHS unrated, but later got BPjM indexed due to Germany's strict policies on movie violence at that time. The movie has since been removed from the index list in 2012, and all current German video releases since then are completely uncensored now with a "Not under 16" rating.
- ConnexionsEdited into Sci-Fi Slaughter (2005)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Parasite?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Parasite 3D
- Lieux de tournage
- Vasquez Rocks Natural Area Park - 10700 W. Escondido Canyon Rd., Agua Dulce, Californie, États-Unis(Scenes near unique shaped rock formations.)
- Société de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 800 000 $US (estimé)
- Montant brut mondial
- 2 270 $US
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant