Space Destructors

Blinded by the (formerly) not so bad rating, I decided to give it a chance.

At least it could have been some nice foreplay until "the one" with Keanu comes out. (pun intended) But it wasn't.

Where do I start ... bad BAD acting of almost everybody in the movie. Especially bad editing, sometimes there are cuts that have absolutely nothing to do with the current scene. Like near the beginning when you hear two people talking and at the same time see shots of people working silently on their computers. And don't get me started on the script.

Then there's the "logic factor" once again. 666 giant robots are landing on major cities on earth, yet there are NO people on the streets, no hysteria, not even simple curiosity. Everybody is rather calm, like this would happen every day. It's like we (the unfortunate viewers of the movie) get to see them, but nobody else, apart from the principal actors.

Like other people already mentioned, the superior aliens (in human form) are landing on earth. They have great powers and great knowledge. But a simple sedative knocks them out and an even simpler cell can hold them?

In general this *could* have been a nice variation on the original theme, that's why I gave it two instead of one points.

It may have been due to budget restrictions, or that they wanted to kick it out before the Keanu-movie. Either way, it did not do it any good.

As I said in the title: It's horrible in practically every way, don't waste your time on it.

Watch the original or wait for Keanu.

I've seen some bad movies in my days. I'm also quite a big sci-fi fan, so my tolerance level was high enough. But this is one of those movies I really DISCOURAGE people to watch. The performances are lame, the storyline is ancient history, the sets are lame, and, except SOME computer graphics, the movie is just pure crap. Everything is big and shiny (the cars, the actors), but I can't shake the feeling of a high-school medium-grade film project. Why do directors, producers, etc., feel the need to create such junk? I would REALLY love to see less (if any) such "movies"... Just donate the money to less fortunate children or throw a party or something, but stop wasting people lives and nerves!

OK this film is getting a lot of unjust hate here. I think a lot of reviewers on IMDB should give up watching B-Movies and stick to blockbusters. I mentioned B-Movie, I wouldn't really class this as a B-Movie it doesn't have any of the qualities you'd associate with traditional B-Movies exploitation, grindhouse, pulp, cheese, slasher or any raw or over-the-top vibe to it. I would class it more like a TV Movie as it is squeaky clean, apart from the nudity at the beginning. Not a film your gonna want to watch again, but it is definitely watchable. Some of the acting is goofy but most of it pulls through good, the story line wasn't too bad except for random fillers that took away from the film rather than add anything, obviously filmed in a rented office somewhere and the car chase and baby scene are pretty poor. CGI was good and for a low budget film not bad at all. The addition of the beautiful Sky (Sinead McCarthy) was a nice touch. Overall not great or good but not bad either, watchable.

Within the first ten minutes I was thinking hard about if this was a very elaborate Youtube spoof or a serious film. The acting is so undeniably awful it makes you cringe. The camera work is cheap and amateur while the sound and lighting could be done by an undergrad making their first drama. You think I'm joking? Look for the massively over exposed shot at 00:09:98.

It just gets worse from here. Very low budget, poorly written and astounding that it made it this far. There is a weird mix between shots that blew the budget and money saving stuff that makes things look just plain nasty. How many times have you seen a government agent jumping from an expensive black truck only to start setting up a fold out table for his equipment? Mix this with cheap CGI and you have an instant looser. Should have been killed in pre-production. Watch if you want to know how not to make a feature film.

*shakes head*

I believe one of the reasons why so-called "A" movies have in general better ratings than "B" movies is the marketing campaign that helps to brain wash with delicious trailers the audience long before they even get to see the movie. "The Day the Earth Stood Still" was no exemption, but after all the movie was not really that good, was it?

Now "The Day the Earth Stopped" is IMHO much better than what you would expect from a "B" movie. Maybe the overall acting isn't that brilliant but you still develop an emotional connection with C. Thomas Howell and classic beautiful actress Sinead McCafferty. She reminds somewhat on Sophia Loren, or Brigitte Bardot but is still herself. How can one criticize on too much make-up? Cleopatra in Ancient Egypt or the Ladies in the 50ties utilized generous make-up as well. I did not think for a second about too much make-up. And, the role requires to portrait a mysterious perfect being from a different planet!! Sinead McCafferty knows how to act without saying too much, and it comes naturally, convincing, what else could you possibly want?

Also, I strongly disagree with the critique on bad film music. The score may not be perfect in all scenes, however, the composer produced several beautiful tunes that make me reach out for the soundtrack.

Cheers, TC