Monster Ark
- Téléfilm
- 2008
- 1h 24min
NOTE IMDb
3,3/10
1,3 k
MA NOTE
Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueArchaeologist Nicholas Zavatero and his student find a vase with antique inscription on where Noah's Ark is hidden in the underlying monster called Tama. They decide to go looking, but thing... Tout lireArchaeologist Nicholas Zavatero and his student find a vase with antique inscription on where Noah's Ark is hidden in the underlying monster called Tama. They decide to go looking, but things get out of control.Archaeologist Nicholas Zavatero and his student find a vase with antique inscription on where Noah's Ark is hidden in the underlying monster called Tama. They decide to go looking, but things get out of control.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
Tom Lister Jr.
- Sgt. Gentry
- (as Tommy Lister Jr.)
Vladimir Mihaylov
- Martinez
- (as Vlado Mihaylov)
Mike Straub
- Hutch
- (as Michael Straub)
Stefan Shterev
- Insurgent #1
- (as Stefan Shtereff)
Bashar Rahal
- Insurgent #2
- (as Bashar Rahad)
Hristo Mitzkov
- Belus' Lieutenant
- (as Hristo Motzkov)
Avis à la une
One thing that really peeves me, and it's prevalent with these made for SciFy channel movies, is the complete lack of knowledge of the subjects that they're doing. In particular, the military, but in the case of "Monster Ark", they managed to humiliate themselves with their lack of archaeological knowledge, as well. I know that these people can't be expected to be actual scientists, but it would be nice if they could be portrayed as a little more professional than a carnival barker.
As far as the military goes, this is great insight into the minds of the writers / director. If these people write characters that are so completely incompetent, what does that say about how they would confront a similar problem? Poorly written, bad acting, zero technical or military advisers, and a monster that makes Godzilla look real, and you have a big time flop. I hope those guys filled their backpacks at the craft services table, because this is a dog, plain and simple.
As far as the military goes, this is great insight into the minds of the writers / director. If these people write characters that are so completely incompetent, what does that say about how they would confront a similar problem? Poorly written, bad acting, zero technical or military advisers, and a monster that makes Godzilla look real, and you have a big time flop. I hope those guys filled their backpacks at the craft services table, because this is a dog, plain and simple.
You know, I realize why casualties in Iraq are so bad. Apparently, Iraq is crawling with ancient monsters that have been let loose by meddling by the US military. Saddam was keeping the world safe from ancient monsters, but Bush has managed to screw that up.
This is the second Skiffy channel movie that was built around this premise. The first was "Manticore" with Star Trek Voyager's Robert Beltran. This has a biblical theme.
Well, my complaint with this one is similar to the my complaint with the other. If you are going to do a movie about the military, actually learn what you are talking about. If this is a mission that higher ups consider important, they'd send a lot more than a squad. A senior Non-commissioned officer is referred to as "Sergeant" or "Sergeant-Major" not "Major" or "Sir". The uniforms are completely wrong. (Big rank insignia on the sleeves of combat uniforms went out in the 1970's. It just tells the enemy who to shoot at.) In a combat situation, you don't go into a nice cluster that can be mowed down with a few shots. YOu also had a clearly overweight soldier, which would simply not happen in a combat zone.
My other complaint with the movie is that the whole character conflict comes between the bible-thumping translator (played by ex-Xena Life Parnter Renee O'Connor) and her atheist ex-husband archaeologist. Which begs the obvious question, if these two had such diametrically opposed views on faith and God, how could they have ever gotten married to start with? Not that it matters, their discussions on faith are so vapid and shallow they barely move the plot along.
This is the second Skiffy channel movie that was built around this premise. The first was "Manticore" with Star Trek Voyager's Robert Beltran. This has a biblical theme.
Well, my complaint with this one is similar to the my complaint with the other. If you are going to do a movie about the military, actually learn what you are talking about. If this is a mission that higher ups consider important, they'd send a lot more than a squad. A senior Non-commissioned officer is referred to as "Sergeant" or "Sergeant-Major" not "Major" or "Sir". The uniforms are completely wrong. (Big rank insignia on the sleeves of combat uniforms went out in the 1970's. It just tells the enemy who to shoot at.) In a combat situation, you don't go into a nice cluster that can be mowed down with a few shots. YOu also had a clearly overweight soldier, which would simply not happen in a combat zone.
My other complaint with the movie is that the whole character conflict comes between the bible-thumping translator (played by ex-Xena Life Parnter Renee O'Connor) and her atheist ex-husband archaeologist. Which begs the obvious question, if these two had such diametrically opposed views on faith and God, how could they have ever gotten married to start with? Not that it matters, their discussions on faith are so vapid and shallow they barely move the plot along.
Monster Ark actually did seem at least watchable(if nothing great) from the trailers. Its good points are the intriguing idea, the eerie score and the spirited performances of Renee O' Connor and Tim DeKay. Other than that, Monster Ark just didn't engage. And no, I am not just talking about the clunky special effects, looking both cheap in look and stiff in movement, and the lazy directing. I'm also talking about the editing, which is as far away from slick as you can come, the lifelessly paced and predictable story, the preachy, stilted dialogue and generally uninteresting and stereotypical characters. Amanda Crew and Bill Parks try their best, but I couldn't enjoy their efforts properly because they were saddled with the most stereotypical characters of the movie.
All in all, dull and unengaging with a couple of redeeming qualities here and there. 3/10 Bethany Cox
All in all, dull and unengaging with a couple of redeeming qualities here and there. 3/10 Bethany Cox
It's a movie,I know, but when can you just pack up overnight and head to a war zone and arrive in the middle of the desert instantly? The uniforms were horribly wrong. The US Army stopped with stripes on a field uniform long ago. The weapons were slapped together , cut-rate equipped, not for an "e-light" unit. Pu-Lease, the acting of the troops; parade ground antics. Nobody acts like that. I won't even go into the vehicles or anything else military.
No let's talk about the main actors. Must have needed the money. If it weren't for the women, I'd have given it a 1. The high school romance between the doctors, oh so sweet. The dialog, painful at best.
A train wreck. Awful to watch, but I couldn't take my eyes off it.
No let's talk about the main actors. Must have needed the money. If it weren't for the women, I'd have given it a 1. The high school romance between the doctors, oh so sweet. The dialog, painful at best.
A train wreck. Awful to watch, but I couldn't take my eyes off it.
This is film-making of the shoddiest and laziest sort. Every scene is a showcase for the writer/director's ignorance. O'Brien is completely unfamiliar with science. He knows nothing of how scientists talk, how they analyze, how they approach discovery. He is completely ignorant of how military personnel think, how they process situations, how they act, and how they carry themselves. O'Brien even misses the most basic tenets of Christianity.
Had O'Brien spent the slightest amount of time with military men/women, or talked to an actual scientist, this film might have acquired a hint of credibility. But he chose to write out of an abundance of ignorance. The film suffers horribly as a result. The viewer, even more.
The film's low budget may explain the dreadful costumes, equipment (woodland cameo/olive drab Humvee in...IRAQ???), and effects. But the low budget doesn't justify O'Brien's willful ignorance about the material he wrote and directed.
Tim DeKay turns in a far better performance than a film like this deserves. Amanda Crew, while still learning her craft, provides welcome visual interest. But beyond these two minor bright points, nothing in this film justifies the writer/director's paycheck.
Had O'Brien spent the slightest amount of time with military men/women, or talked to an actual scientist, this film might have acquired a hint of credibility. But he chose to write out of an abundance of ignorance. The film suffers horribly as a result. The viewer, even more.
The film's low budget may explain the dreadful costumes, equipment (woodland cameo/olive drab Humvee in...IRAQ???), and effects. But the low budget doesn't justify O'Brien's willful ignorance about the material he wrote and directed.
Tim DeKay turns in a far better performance than a film like this deserves. Amanda Crew, while still learning her craft, provides welcome visual interest. But beyond these two minor bright points, nothing in this film justifies the writer/director's paycheck.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesDr. Greenway describes a papyrus document as a palimpsest, a manuscript or document that has had its original writing erased and something new written over it. Under special conditions the original writing can be read.
- GaffesZavaterro mentions that the mysterious "brotherhood" trying to stop them are "...direct descendants of the family of Noah." However, if one interprets the flood myth literally, every human being is a descendant of Noah because his is the only family that supposedly survived.
- ConnexionsReferences Les Aventuriers de l'arche perdue (1981)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
Détails
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant